HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-26 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting September 26, 1995 1. Study Session re Annual Report from Cable Co-op........77-48 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................77-49 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Credit Bureau of Palo Alto for Collection Services...................77-49 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Underground Construction Company, Inc. to Convert Incandescent Street Lights to High Pressure Sodium Street Lights...........77-49 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Social Worker Services......................77-49 4. Annual Status Report on Developers' Fees and Adoption of Findings Regarding Unexpended Fees.....................77-49 5. Resolution 7548 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution No. 7362....................................77-49 6. Ordinance 4292 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department to Receive Matching Grant Funds from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County......77-49 7. Ordinance 4293 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Visual Arts Program and to Receive Fees and Reimbursement of Related Charges for a Traveling Art Exhibition......77-49
09/26/95 77-46
8. Resolution 7549 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Rebate Program in Connection with the Real Property Transfer Tax of the City of Palo Alto, for Qualified First Time Buyers of Low and Moderate Income....................................77-49 9. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish and Change Special Speed Zones for Certain Streets or Portions of Streets.77-50 10. Ordinance 4294 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Implement Labor Code ∋6404.5 ...........................77-50 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................77-50 11. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation.....77-50 11A. (Old Item 13) Request from Cable Communications Coopera-tive of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) for Activation of 17 Miles of B Cable....................................77-50 12. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the City Manager's Office for Professional Consulting Contracts for the Midtown Shopping Area Revitalization Project...77-51 14. Review of Planning Division Work Program...............77-55 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........77-74 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:05 p.m..............................................77-75 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m......77-75
09/26/95 77-47
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Study Session re Annual Report from Cable Co-op SYNOPSIS OF STUDY SESSION RE CABLE CO-OP City Clerk Gloria Young presented an abbreviated legislative history of the past 10 years of Council actions regarding Cable Co-op (on file in the City Clerk's Office). John Kelley, President, Board of Directors, Cable Co-op, gave an historical perspective of Cable Co-op from its inception. Brad Anderson, Executive Director, Cable Co-op, gave the current status of Cable Co-op with respect to written complaints, subscrib-ers, service calls, etc. Mark Rogowosky, Member, Board of Directors, Cable Co-op, gave Cable Co-op's vision for the future, specifically the data services business. Council Members asked questions and received responses from Cable Co-op with respect to Cable Co-op's financial status, competition, subscriber penetration, growth issues, and service levels. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
09/26/95 77-48
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic accountability (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Ben Bailey, 323 Byron Street, spoke regarding police abuse, poor training, and communication. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 10. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Credit Bureau of Palo Alto for Collection Services 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Underground Construction Company, Inc. to Convert Incandescent Street Lights to High Pressure Sodium Street Lights; change orders not to exceed $40,000 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Social Worker Services 4. Annual Status Report on Developers' Fees and Adoption of Findings Regarding Unexpended Fees 5. Resolution 7548 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution No. 7362" 6. Ordinance 4292 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department to Receive Matching Grant Funds from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County" 7. Ordinance 4293 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Visual Arts Program and to Receive Fees and Reimbursement of Related Charges for a Traveling Art Exhibition"
09/26/95 77-49
8. Resolution 7549 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Rebate Program in Connection with the Real Property Transfer Tax of the City of Palo Alto, for Qualified First Time Buyers of Low and Moderate Income" 9. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish and Change Special Speed Zones for Certain Streets or Portions of Streets" 10. Ordinance 4294 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement
Labor Code ∋6404.5" (1st Reading 9/11/95, PASSED 1st Part 6-3, Andersen, Kniss, Wheeler, "no"; 2nd Part 9-0) MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1 to 9. MOTION PASSED 6-3, Andersen, Kniss, Wheeler, "no" for 1st Part; 9-0 for 2nd Part for Item No. 10. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Simitian announced that Item No. 13 would be moved forward to become Item No. 11A. CLOSED SESSION 11. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Brassinga v. City of Mountain View, City of Mountain v. City of Palo Alto and City of Los Altos, SCC No. 744729
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(a) Public Comments None. 11A. (Old Item 13) Request from Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) for Activation of 17 Miles of B Cable City Clerk Gloria Young said as indicated in the staff report, Cable Co-op's Board of Directors took action, pending Council's approval, to activate 17 miles of the B cable for two purposes: 1) to provide for return signals from Palo Alto City Hall, Menlo Park, Stanford University, and Foothill/DeAnza College to its headend, transferring the signal from the A cable. For Palo Alto that meant: 1) transferring the cablecasting of board/commission meetings from the A cable to the B cable; and 2) to allow Cable Co-op to test for data services on the A cable. Activating the B cable required Council action because the Council must agree on the
09/26/95 77-50
paths of activation and must find that the interest of all potential users had been taken into account. Cable Co-op stated that if the use of the A cable for data services were unsuccessful, there was a possibility that the video path or return signal might be returned to the A cable or that a point-to-point microwave might be installed. Stanford University and Menlo Park had agreed to transfer the return signals from the A cable to B cable. The policy implication was the use of the B cable by Cable Co-op to test data services and the potential effect on Palo Alto's future determination of what its role might be in providing telecommunica-tion services. Staff recommended approval of the transfer. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Cable Co-op's request to activate 17 miles of the B cable. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 12. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the City Manager's Office for Professional Consulting Contracts for the Midtown Shopping Area Revitalization Project Economic Resources Planning Manager Carol Jansen said staff had been directed by Council to work with the property owners to form a public/private partnership that would allow for the commercial property owners to fund an architect to do a series of site plan alternatives for the Midtown area. If that were to occur, the City would agree to potentially fund a limited traffic analysis and proforma analysis to be done for the Midtown area to go in conjunction with the site plan exercise. The Council had also suggested that perhaps a facilitator should be a part of the package. Since that Council direction, an architect had been chosen by the commercial property owners to perform the site plans and they agreed to fund the architect. There was unanimous concurrence from the commercial property owners to move forward with the proposal. Staff had received three proposals for the traffic analysis component, and there were four potential facilita-tors to be interviewed if the Council decided to move forward with the funding to help facilitate the meetings and bring together the various parties. The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce had also put together a committee of mentoring developers, and there was good potential input in that area to help the commercial property owners understand some of the development issues related to the Midtown area and subsequent retail use of the buildings. Keyser Marston Associates had agreed to assist in the proforma analysis or to give advice to the various commercial property owners with regard to what short-, mid-, and long-term investment strategy might be which would be to the advantage of the commercial property owners, both as a center and as individuals. Staff had also received several proposals from interested parties such as Midtown Residents'
09/26/95 77-51
Association to participate in the process. She felt it was a good beginning for a committee for Midtown. Council Member Fazzino asked about the time frame for the site plan and the activities that the City was undertaking, including the traffic analysis. Ms. Jansen said the intent was that the site plan and the activi-ties would run concurrently. The consultant for the traffic analysis and the proforma analysis would be present at four or five of the meetings with all of the parties involved. Other meetings would also be held, particularly for the commercial property owners and the development mentoring group. There would be about three weeks between meetings in order for the information to be compiled and presented back to the committee as a whole. Council Member Fazzino asked when the issue would return to Council. Ms. Jansen said the preliminary report would return to the Council by the middle of December or the first part of January. Council Member Andersen said there had been some correspondence concerning the extent to which there would be analyses of residen-tial streets in the surrounding areas. In the document there was some analyses of the impacts of going from a four-lane to a two-lane street. He asked whether the analysis of the Middlefield Road alteration included impacts on the neighborhoods or whether it was for the entire area and to what extent would the effort include examining the residential areas in Midtown. Ms. Jansen said any revised configuration of Middlefield Road would certainly have an impact on residential streets but to what extent was an unknown. Staff would have to include enough analyses so the Council would know which steps should be taken in that regard. Council Member Andersen asked whether data was available that would indicate a baseline of when Midtown was a viable, strong commercial area and the extent to which traffic was impacting the area at that time. He felt that would be the baseline rather than what traffic was currently. Ms. Jansen said accounts had been done over the years, and she felt there would be sufficient numbers in time in order to correlate it with higher retailing times in Midtown. Council Member Andersen wanted clarification as to how extensively the residents in that neighborhood had been involved. Ms. Jansen replied that the outreach was the same for all of the key parties: commercial property owners, residents, and commercial tenants. Three groups and their representatives were asked to
09/26/95 77-52
bring to staff names of individuals who were willing to participate in the process, and if someone could not participate full time, there would be an alternate who could participate on their behalf at any particular meeting. All of the interested groups had submitted names with the exception of the commercial tenants. Staff was looking for equal numbers of commercial property owners and residents, and probably a lesser number of commercial tenants. Council Member Rosenbaum said the new element in the proposal before the Council that evening was the facilitator. He was surprised that the cost of a facilitator was $10,000. He asked how many meetings were anticipated and was that a reasonable cost for that type of service. Ms. Jansen said it was a reasonable cost. It was probably in the mid- to high-cost of some facilitator. There were four proposals and they ran the gamit between $5,000 and $20,000. Staff antici-pated limiting the meetings to five two-hour meetings with the facilitator and at least ten hours for every one-hour of meeting time outside to do the work and coordinating other efforts. That was more key than just assisting and running the meetings. Council Member Rosenbaum confirmed that four to five meetings at two hours each was essentially a cost of $2,000 per meeting for the facilitator. 0s. Jansen said yes, but that would include the backup work as well. Council Member Rosenbaum understood that. He asked whether all parties understood there was a limit. Ms. Jansen said all of the contracts would be on a not-to-exceed basis. Staff's aim was for an exercise of short duration. Council Member Rosenbaum said he would not approve any more than the $10,000, so if more meetings were needed, they would be held without a facilitator or staff would have to find another solution. Ms. Jansen said it was staff's intent that the facilitator's cost for the project would not exceed $10,000. Ron Wolf, San Carlos Court, representing the Midtown Residents' Association, said the Midtown Residents' Association (MRA) welcomed the proposal and urged its adoption. It was consistent with the position of the MRA and with the Midtown residents in general. His only concern was that the selection of the consultant for the proforma analysis would be an open bidding process to rather than being a defacto recommendation attached to the proposal, but in the scheme of things, it was a minor point. He commended the Midtown co-owners group for stepping forward and banding together to help move the solution forward in the Midtown area. The situation in
09/26/95 77-53
Midtown area appeared to be on the upswing currently. With regard to the memo to Council from the MRA documenting the meeting of September 19, 1995, it was clear that the Midtown residents were extremely concerned about traffic, especially on Middlefield Road where there was a perception that there was a very dangerous situation. Of the 75 residents that attended the meeting, 62 residents opposed raising the speed limit on Middlefield Road to 35 mile per hour, even on a temporary basis. MRA endorsed the proposal and looked forward to participating in the Midtown committee process. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Byron Street, said the Council had received at their places letters from John and Cindy Wallbrink and John Wanless (on file in the City Clerk's Office) who lived at the two corners of Colorado Place and Cowper Street and had seen a tremendous amount of accidents and near-misses. The original study done by DKS Associates in 1988 had extensive information with respect to the different configurations on Middlefield Road, the results of which she hoped would be used. Bryant Street and possibly Waverley Street had already been designated as a street that would be impacted. She had noticed that the Request for Proposal (RFP) mentioned Louis Road, Ross Road, and Cowper Street; however, Bryant Street was the shortest way to Midtown if one was using a shortcut. Cowper Street was being used by 3,500 vehicles a day as a shortcut to get across town because Middlefield Road was so impacted at Oregon Expressway. The Hoover Park neighbors wanted those streets considered as well which would show the big picture from Louis Road to Bryant Street. In the original study, Louis Road was not seen as being a potential for cut-through traffic but lately she had heard that it had. As of 1988, 45 percent of the traffic on Colorado Place, and 56 percent on Cowper Street was through-traffic. At that time, Bryant Street was not included. DKS had only posted three entrances and exits but there were eight. The Hoover Neighborhood Park Association (HNPA) posted people at all eight entrances/exits and as Middlefield Road got worse, the cut-through traffic had gotten more severe, especially on Cowper Street. The HMPA suggested that Waverley and Bryant Streets be included in the traffic analysis as they were starting to feel the effect of spillover. The HNPA worked on the study with DKS in addition to their own extensive traffic study which included traffic data on the configuration of Middlefield Road. The Hoover Park residents, who were familiar with the traffic studies, wanted to be sure they were included in the process, as many of them did not belong to the Midtown Residents' Association but did live on affected streets and were concerned that their voice be heard. Council Member Kniss asked for a definition of cut-through traffic. Ms. Chiapella said, cut-through traffic, for example, used both Colorado Place and Loma Verde as a straight shot to the Bayshore Freeway because the Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road intersection
09/26/95 77-54
was so impacted. Most people cut-through using other streets to some degree because the main arterials did not move. Council Member Kniss asked whether a cut-through trip constituted one-half a mile or one mile. She had used Cowper Street for 25 years and it sounded as if she should use Middlefield Road in order not to cut-through. Ms. Chiapella said her point was valid and agreed that neighborhood traffic was not what was being discussed. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt the Ordinance. Ordinance 4295 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the City Manager's Office for Professional Consulting Contracts for the Midtown Shopping Area Revitalization Project" Council Member Andersen did not believe it was appropriate to discuss an extensive traffic analysis beyond what had been described in the staff report because it would only delay what the overwhelming majority wanted in the neighborhood, it could be a viable commercial area. There might be a reason for some traffic analyses in that area and the City was moving in that direction in a lot of fronts but that should not be confused with the proposal before the that evening. He supported the staff recommendation. Council Member Schneider commended Ms. Jansen for moving the project along. It had been two years in the making and it was good to see the relationship that had developed between the retailers, the residents, and the City. It was the beginning of the revital-ization of Midtown with everyone working together. Council Member Fazzino thanked Ron Wolf for his participation. The revitalization was not going to become a reality without the full and complete participation of the Midtown residents. It was obvious that the residents took the issues very seriously and were working constructively with the other parties as quickly as possible to redevelop a very important neighborhood shopping center. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 14. Review of Planning Division Work Program Council Member Fazzino said the Director of Planning and Environ-mental Development Ken Schreiber had suggested in the report that the budget process was the proper way to deal with Planning
09/26/95 77-55
Division Work Program (Work Program), but after reading the document, he questioned whether it was a classic case of micromanagement. City Manager June Fleming reminded the Council that it was not the first time in recent history that the Planning Division staff had brought before the Council work plan. In the report, staff indicated that in the future the Work Program would be a part of the budget. Staff had hoped it could have been done in the current year but the work was not completed in time. The Work Program was being brought to Council because the Planning Division got involved in so many things that frequently staff was asked when X, Y and Z was going to be done and what the priority was. Staff needed to know what the Council's priorities were so that staff could respond. Council Member Fazzino asked if it was staff's intention to engage in the same kind of priority analysis for each department during the budget process. Ms. Fleming said other departments did not need to go into that sort of detail. Given the public involvement, the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) review, and the kinds of requests and demands there were for the Planning Division, staff felt it was necessary in order to let the Council know what was being done in more detail that could be presented in the Mission Driven Budget format in the future. Council Member Andersen said there seemed to be a considerable amount of work being carried out through contract employment and asked if staff were at a point where there were considerable demands being placed on the Planning Division over and above what was normal, with the exception of the Comprehensive Plan. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said over the last 10 to 15 years, since the completion of the Plan work in the 1980s, the Planning staff had responded to searches in development review activity by swinging the long-range planners who were the people that did the Plan, special studies, etc. into development monitoring, such as the Sand Hill Corridor work in the mid-1980s. Currently, the Planning staff had a very intense high level of development review work, major Environmental Impact Report's (EIR) in progress for the Palo Alto Hyatt Hotel site, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAHC)/Urban Lane site, and the Sand Hill Corridor which were all major undertakings. Because the work was beyond staff's assigned development monitoring and because of the Plan, contract planners were being used as much as possible to cover it and other excessive workloads in the development area. Also, because of the Plan, the resources available for other special studies were quite limited. Noted in the Work Program were a variety of assignments which could only be undertaken in the next year either by bumping another project off the priority list or by
09/26/95 77-56
bringing in some contract people to supplement staff. There were not enough hours available within the existing staffing to do the Plan work, other special assignments, and the development review. In the long-term future, he hoped that level of development monitoring activity was not going to continue, but he could not forecast where staff would be in two to three years. Once the Plan was completed, the priority questions that would face the Council were what did the Council want to implement and how fast. Council Member Andersen noticed that all of the items listed in the Work Program needed review by the City Attorney. He asked about contract dollars for the City Attorney's Office. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there was a contract budget built into the City Attorney's Office for the outside counsel budget and his office was able to absorb the costs; and the City Attorney's Office had moved slower to hire contract staff and had spread the work amongst themselves, but the Council could expect to see the need for the City Attorney's Office to hire contract staff. Over the short term, the City Attorney's Office would spend the money it had, but over the longer term, the application fees would be adjusted to reflect those costs. Council Member Kniss requested feedback on how long it took to prepare the Work Program. The Council seemed to be spending more time on the Comprehensive Plan and less time on other items the Council had spent time on over the last two to three years. Council Member McCown said there seemed to be a difference between issues that were far less or nondiscretionary issues and those which the Council really did have some choices about prioritization in terms of prioritization. She said in the Work Program all of the descriptions were very dispationate, careful, factual statement of the issues and what they involved, but did not express a sense that maybe some were more urgent than others. She did not get a comparative feeling from the Work Program in terms of what order or priority was being suggested. Vice Mayor Wheeler said when she became aware that there were plans for the Planning Division Work Program, she asked if there were plans to incorporate into the Work Program "wiggle room" so that staff could address items which arose during the year or that Council was indeed going to get involved with in a priority setting process, and that the Council not only agree with the priorities that were identified in the Work Program, but also agree that there were additional priorities that needed to be moved up. She asked whether there would be sufficient flexibility for staff or some combination of staff and contract assistance to accommodate that in the current fiscal year. The numbers that were shown on page 7 of the staff report (CMR:424:95) indicated that there was only 5 percent "wiggle room." It had been suggested in a couple of areas where if the Council determined to move some of the potential
09/26/95 77-57
studies up to the current year, it would be done by approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) by the Council, and it seemed to her it would take more than that. She asked staff to address some of her concerns. Ms. Fleming said the Planning Division had unique legal require-ments and working patterns that other departments did not have, as well as working with an audience of which they had no control. She would have liked to have been able to tell Council there was enough staff to do extra things that the Council wanted done, but staff was at its capacity. Staff wanted to serve the Council well and that was why the staff shared with Council what was being done. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the document before the Council that evening was a growth of several significant efforts to examine overall organization and management of the Planning Division, primarily the Hughes Heiss & Associates (HHA) Organiza-tional Review and the MDB. Out of those efforts, the Division and the Department worked on the current management structure which was exhibited in the staff report. Staff developed the Work Program tool at the suggestion of both the HHA's review and the Planning Division's organization sessions with the boards and commissions as a method of prioritizing and tracking assignments. The Work Program was first used by the Planning Division the prior year as an internal working draft. In reference to how many hours went into the Work Program, if the organizational audits and sessions were included it would total many hours of time. The number of hours it would take to keep the Work Program up-to-date in the future was described in the appendix under Management Time which was primarily her and Mr. Schreiber's time devoted to keeping the Program current. Staff had tracked available hours for assignments to allow for it. Staff learned a lot about timekeeping as it was used internally the previous year, about scoping and assigning time to various assignments, and about the impact of unexpected assign-ments that came about. Staff felt that pressure for assignments to the Planning Division came from many different points of origin through the Council and the City Manager. It would be helpful if the Council, the City Manager, boards and commissions, other departments, developers, and the general public had full knowledge of: 1) the tasks assigned for the fiscal year; 2) the outstanding assignments requested by all parties; and 3) the amount of staff time needed to accomplish those tasks. The question was raised that the assignments were raised in a dispationate format and was there a sense of urgency. The urgency came from whomever was asked depending on that person or group's highest priority, i.e., the Architectural Review Board (ARB) or the Historic Resources Board (HRB), each having a different highest priority. With the support of the Director of Planning and Environmental Development and the City Manager, staff developed the final version of the Work Program tied in with as much as possible the format of the budget. The City Manager's intent was that it would be worked into that format, but that was impossible to do the previous year because the MDB was
09/26/95 77-58
very complex in and of itself and to introduce a new item was impractical. Staff hoped the Work Program tool would provide a framework for setting priorities and making trade-off decisions during the year when new unexpected tasks arose and staff felt the Work Program allowed for that flexibility. It allowed full accountability of time and task and hopefully would serve as a coordination and positive motivational tool. Finally, the Work Program allowed for tracking deferred items into subsequent budget cycles that was part of her and Mr. Schreiber's job descriptions which was to keep a Work Program for their respective responsibili-ty. Mr. Schreiber felt Council Member Kniss's comment regarding fewer staff originated items over the last couple of years was true. The Comprehensive Plan had taken up a substantial amount of time and energy in 1993 and 1994, and that was where staff's energy had gone in terms of originating items. Staff had not brought forward the Zoning Ordinance Amendments in the last couple of years because there was simply not enough staff time to devote to it. There was a list to be done but there was nobody to assign it to. In answer to Council Member McCown's question regarding urgency, he wanted to underscore that urgency came in different ways and there were many different constituencies. Staff ranked the secondary priorities and the other items in staff's particular priority but good arguments could be made as to all sorts of priority rankings depending on what particular issue was important to what person or group. One of staff's dilemmas was that there was a great sense of urgency on a great number of items the Work Program provided a tool that would give staff a much better sense of that. Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct that there was not very much "wiggle room". He would like to have deleted some of the items, but he did not know what to delete from the list of secondary priorities. Staff felt it had the management capacity left to take on a number of additional assignments with contract assistance which were identified in the staff report. At the same time, other things would present themselves in the future which might cause the list to be revised. The Work Program was not intended to be a static document. Council Member McCown appreciated that people with different agendas would place things higher up on the list. She was interested in the Planning Division's perspective, given that it had the whole picture, knew what the problem areas were, and knew what really needed to be worked on first. She asked what were the Planning Division's urgent priorities. Mr. Schreiber said the highest priority items were things that either legally had to be done or were of high priority for the Council, e.g. the tree ordinance. Council Member McCown said the tree ordinance was a good example. Staff could say from the Planning Division's perspective that the
09/26/95 77-59
tree ordinance was lower down the list than some other item. The Council could overrule staff but she was concerned that the Council was not getting staff's perspective as to what needed to be done. Mr. Schreiber said that Deputy Director of Public Works Mike Miller could confirm to the Council that the planners had been prodding the tree issue for a number of years and if staff did not think it was a very high priority, it would not be under the highest priority listing, just as the Transfer of Rights Development (TDR) ordinance, sign ordinance, HRB ordinance, and Coordinated Area Plan was lower on the list. Of those four, staff had to pick one which was the Coordinated Area Plan and not just defer off the other three items. Mayor Simitian asked to what extent it put the Council in a position where if it asked staff what they wanted to work on, they would indicate things that were fun and professionally challenging, and to what extent did staff really have to figure out what was important to do for the City. He felt if one went through the office and asked staff members to rank their highest priorities, the intractable problems would get put at the bottom and the things that would obtain some sense of accomplishment would be pushed to the top. He was curious if staff had run into that during the process. Ms. Lytle said there were people in the Planning Division who valued all of the assignments and there were few assignments that people did not have fun doing. The problem was finding the time to do the assignments and by developing a structure like the Work Program and letting the people tackle the assignments in a reason-able amount of time, motivation would improve 100 percent. Mr. Schreiber said one of the problems in managing the Planning Division staff over the past few years was that there was a large number of interesting and exciting topics. People were stretching themselves and stressing themselves in terms of wanting to do more than they had time to do. Staff really wanted to tackle the items and the Work Program was an attempt to bring some order and priority to the issues, from the standpoint of the public, the Council, and other City departments, as well as for City staff. Mayor Simitian asked whether the priorities on page 9 and 10 of the staff report could be grouped into five categories: highest priority, secondary priority, possible for 1995-96, consider again in 1996-97, and not recommended. At the bottom of the list for possible for 1995-96, was No. 50, the issue of the TDR ordinance which he thought the City wanted to encourage people to do for earthquake safety. Staff had told him why the City needed to require people to do earthquake safety in addition to doing historic preservation which was a compelling discussion. If the goal of TDR's were to get people to do earthquake safety, why was it not at the top of the list because it had to do with public
09/26/95 77-60
safety. Public safety was more important than another sign. In the Planning Division, the obvious priority had to be public safety. If staff wanted to make the argument that TDR's were a tenuous connection to an eventual public safety improvement, he might disagree with that argument but at least he would know that was the argument. Mr. Schreiber said that was the type of feedback that was impor-tant. The four items under possible for 1995-96 all needed additional resources and that was why they were in that particular column. With those particular items, the Coordinated Area Plan was clearly the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real railroad track/Lambert Avenue area. Staff knew there was a lot of items upcoming in that area and the Coordinated Area Plan would be a way of getting on top of the issues that were emerging, both the Hewlett-Packard site which was being publicly discussed for redevelopment and a variety of other problems. The HRB and sign ordinances were existing ordinances that did not work very well. The HRB ordinance was a higher priority than the sign ordinance, primarily because there were more members of the Palo Alto population angered with that ordinance than the sign ordinance. People were getting caught in situations where the historic resource listing communicated one thing, and the HRB communicated something different in terms of the ranking of the project. There had been a variety of procedural problems with the HRB ordinance which staff saw as a customer service problem component that ranked it higher than the sign ordinance which was not in good shape either. It was an existing regulation that was outdated and in need of major repair, and the longer it went without repair, there was a greater risk for having some real problems. TDR's were not presently in existence and would encourage some seismic upgrading, but seismic upgrading had occurred over the course of the years but not as fast as staff wanted. In the grand scheme of things, it was fourth out of the four items for the reasons he had previously indicated. Council Member Fazzino was still confused by the priorities and felt he would have understood the priorities if staff had not used a category-based system for developing the priorities. He asked about the Planning Commission's reaction that indicated more time should be set aside in the Division for general planning. Frankly, if all of assignments were accomplished, staff would have done everything imaginable associated with planning for the City for the next 100 years. He asked what the Planning Commission meant by that statement and was that incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan work. Ms. Lytle said the Planning Commission's comment was that there should be some time budgeted for non-assignments for taking stock and evaluating overall what was going on and what should be recommended coactively to the Council and the City Manager.
09/26/95 77-61
Mr. Schreiber said staff had tried to think about long-term issues but that was not built into the Work Program. Ms. Lytle had indicated, the specific ordinance task assignments tended to overwhelm everything else and made it hard to justify time for staff members to focus on longer-term thinking issues when they were under the pressures of staff report deadlines, environmental review deadlines, etc. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff was looking for an endorsement of the Work Program. She still was interested in the time it took to put the Work Program together. Ms. Lytle said the work had been done by the entire Division. Council Member Kniss asked whether there was a software program staff had used tracking the hours per task. Ms. Lytle said it was not a data base program, but staff had tracked their time last year on items; and with MDB, would have a much better official record of how much time was spent on the items. Staff wanted to have a database so that the calculations would become automatic. Council Member Kniss asked approximately how much time had it taken to put the Work Program together. Mr. Schreiber could not give her an educated estimated because it had been intertwined with the amount of time that the staff had put in on the MDB. The way MDB had been approached in the Planning Division was that as many staff members as possible were involved at various steps along the way so the Division would not end up with a product that no one had ownership of. The Work Program had a series of two-hour and half day working sessions that identified what the division was doing, how much time projects would take, etc. A considerable amount of time was also spent on the HHA Organizational Review. Ms. Fleming said a lot of staff time was spent, in addition to her review. Council Member Kniss asked how the staff would track the items. She asked whether it would lessen the number of agenda items that previously originated from the Planning Division to Council and whether staff thought it was because of the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said it was the Plan in two ways: 1) a great bulk of staff time had gone into the Plan over the past couple of years; and 2) assignments that went through the system in the past couple of years had tended to be folded into the Plan process. Mayor Simitian clarified the Work Program was put before the Council that evening with the expectation that Council would
09/26/95 77-62
"endorse the Work Program." Alternatively, if someone thought that one of the items were worthy of a BAO, direction to staff to return to Council with a request along those lines was also appropriate. He asked whether that was staff's intent. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Mr. Calonne said if it were the Council's plan to endorse the Work Program document, the Council needed to come to an understanding with the City Manager about how the Work Program should be revised. Council Member Kniss said the City Manager had indicated that as the Council went through the MDB process and discussed the budget there were trade-offs. She asked how the Council indicate if it did or did not want an item. Ms. Fleming said staff would keep track of the things that the Council would like to have changed or deleted and reissue a revised Work Program showing the trade-offs. In the document before the Council that evening she thought it was clear, but evidently not, that if the Council endorsed the Work Program that evening with any changes, those changes would return to the Council in the form of a Revised Work Program which she had the authority to approve. Council Member Kniss asked whether it was correct to presume that staff had divided the amount allocated for the Planning Division. Ms. Fleming replied not exactly. If the Council wanted to approve those items and they cost a certain amount of additional dollars, there were two ways to accommodate that: 1) to shift priorities so that the equivalent amount would be taken out of other items; or 2) staff would indicate that the items could be accommodated via contract staff and staff would then return with a BAO. Mayor Simitian asked where would the BAO monies come from. Ms. Fleming said the BAO monies would come from Reserves. Council Member Kniss thought that the purpose of MDB was that the City would stay within a certain budgeted amount and then barter within that amount. She now heard that if the Council did not want to barter within that amount, it could simply be taken out of Reserves. Ms. Fleming clarified that the Council had two options; either to barter or to approve a BAO. Mayor Simitian felt that staff was recommending that the Council spend more money than had already been allocated for the Planning process. His understanding was that staff was proposing to the Council that there was a certain dollar amount planned in the budget, staff thought it should be spent on certain projects during
09/26/95 77-63
the year, and Council needed to approve that. If Council did not approve of what staff thought it should be spent on, the Council could save the money and spend it on something else or if Council thought everything were essential and still wanted to do more, it had the option to use the Reserves. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Andersen was concerned about the newsrack, sign, and tree ordinances which were all City Attorney driven. He noted that the hours for the Planning Division for the sign and newsrack ordinances were fairly minimal, yet by putting the sign ordinance at a low priority, it sent a message to the City Attorney's Office. Personally, he was concerned about some of the legal ramifications the City might be faced with, and he did not want to see the ordinance slighted as a result of it being put on a lower priority by the Planning Division. He asked what kind of priority the item had with regard to the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Calonne said it would be easier for the Council if it had a matching list of time estimates from the City Attorney's Office. His staff had done something similar but not in the same format, but he could not tell the Council that evening how many hours of his staff's time those lists would consume and whether it consumed more than what staff currently had. In terms of priorities, the Planning Division worked with the City Attorney's Office to get feedback on the different issues, but it did not mean that he agreed with all of the priorities. He felt there was a danger anytime there was a compromised list. The City Attorney's Office did not take it as a message that the Planning Division did not believe the tasks were important, it was taken as a best guess for Council consideration of an overall priority. He could give the Council separate legal advice on the relative risks associated with those ordinances, but staff did not feel it was necessary at that stage. Council Member Andersen asked Mr. Calonne whether he was placing those items for 1995-96 or he saw them returning later. Mr. Calonne appreciated that the sign ordinance would involve a lot of his staff's time, and his staff would not write a sign ordinance without have involvement from the planners and the business community. He would defer the credit for doing the work on the sign ordinance, it was more than just a City Attorney's project. Council Member Andersen clarified it was a lower priority for the City Attorney's Office as well; and unless there was a direction from Council, it would affect the City Attorney's priority. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. From his staff's perspective, the list was very valuable. Whether the Council dealt with the Work Program that evening or not, the approach was very helpful for
09/26/95 77-64
the staff people that were in a supporting role to the Planning Division because it was a way to budget City Attorney staff time rather than being totally reactive. It also reminded the Planning staff of their priorities at the start of the year and gave them a mechanism for handling changes. As unstated priorities came and went during the year, it caused a ripple effect through the supporting organizations like the City Attorney's Office. He personally was pleased to see that approach from the Planning Division. Ms. Lytle said with regard to the tree and newsrack ordinances, a great deal of citizen process had already occurred which led to the fruition of being able to make an ordinance assignment which staff had not yet done. There had not been a committee formed or study undertaken, although there had been a request from the Architectur-al Review Board (ARB) to start the process. Council Member Andersen referred to the Fry's Electronics recommen-dation that came from the Council as to whether or not an area plan was needed. There had been some changes in circumstances and asked when that item would be returning to Council. Mr. Schreiber said the item would be on the November 13, 1995, City Council agenda. Council Member Andersen asked whether at that time it was appropri-ate to go ahead with an area plan; whether it would be a contract person, and if so, whether it would be covered by the cost of some developer or some of the property owners; or whether it would be a BAO. Mr. Schreiber said that staff indicated initially that area plans were a possibility and could cost in the range of $200,000 to $250,000 which was stated in a November 1994 staff report at the beginning of the Comprehensive Plan review process. Subsequent to that, several Council Members placed a Council Matter item on the agenda regarding giving staff direction to return to Council with a Work Program or to investigate the possibility of doing an area plan for the California Avenue/Ventura Avenue area or Page Mill Road/Lambert Avenue area. After that item, staff recommending an area plan be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Staff was in the process of fully costing it out. Also under discussion, was what the City would pay versus the property owners. He assumed that the City would not pay all of the cost but whether the City would need to take some of the cost had not been deter-mined yet. There would be additional information for the Council by November 13, 1995. Council Member Huber said recently the Council dealt with a Planned Community (PC) and there was some discussion about review and
09/26/95 77-65
revamping of the PC ordinance which was nowhere in the document before the Council that evening, He asked if that was correct. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mr. Huber asked whether any consideration had been given to that issue or whether staff need Council direction for that to happen. Mr. Schreiber said the concern had been with the Downtown. If that process were to be changed such as eliminate the PC zone or take away the public benefits, etc., that would be a significant change in terms of the long-standing policies for the Downtown and staff would need Council direction to pursue it. With everything that was currently on the table, staff did not have the resources or the inclination to get into it. He shared some of the concerns, but it was a complex issue. Council Member Huber said that staff indicated in the staff report that the document was organized into MDB function areas and would from that point on be reviewed during the budget process. He asked whether it would go to the Finance Committee and Council in the same format as the numbered items attached to the staff report. Mr. Schreiber said staff's intent was to use that format which was patterned after the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) format that Administrative Services used which was clearly linked with MDB and would be reviewed as part of the budget by the Finance Committee. Council Member Huber asked as the yearly quest proceeded under MDB, if the Council would get back an actual hour and cost count so as to have some sense as to whether or not some of the estimates that were done that evening, were met or exceeded two years later. Mr. Schreiber could not guarantee that every item would have that, but staff could obtain that information and report back to the Council. Council Member Huber said that would be helpful because he wanted to know how many hours it would take. Vice Mayor Wheeler said assuming the Council wanted to go in the direction that former Mayor Cobb previously referred to as the "puts and takes" of the budget, i.e., if a Council Member wished to propose adding an item to the budget, the Council Member would also have to propose removing an item that had been presented instead of dipping in the Reserves. If the expectation were that the Council might approach the Work Program in that way, she asked staff what the urgency was with the Los Altos Treatment Plant study. Ms. Lytle understood that the City's infrastructure emphasis over the past several years in replacing infrastructure had the need for a new site for corporation equipment storage and the Los Altos
09/26/95 77-66
Treatment Plant was one of the potential sites. Because there were few sites, the City had no place to stage construction activities. The Los Altos Treatment Plant was a potentially appropriate site and if the City were going to continue the investment, it needed to be investigated. Mr. Schreiber said just as the Planning impacted the City Attorney's Office, other departments impacted the Planning Division. The Los Altos Treatment Plant study was a major assignment in the Public Works Department. The Planning component of it was a small amount of staff time, some contact time which would be paid for by the Public Works Department, and it was part of the Planning Division's responsibility to respond to other departments with their projects as they went through the City process, whether that be environmental review, site and design, etc. The Planning Division was reacting to the Public Works Department in that the Los Altos Treatment Plant study was a very high priority for the Public Works Department and it wanted to make sure that there was some planning time available to help it through the process. Ms. Fleming said the Los Altos Treatment Plant study not only affected the Planning Division but also included some unofficial contacts on a peer-to-peer relationship that she had had with the City of Los Altos about that particular site and future planning for it. Vice Mayor Wheeler confirmed that in staff's opinion the Los Altos Treatment Plant study was a mandatory 1995-96 assignment that could not be put off until 1996-97. Ms. Fleming said there would be some consequences that would need to be considered seriously if it were put off, given what staff already knew about refuse needs. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the zoning ordinance update which in her time on the Planning Commission had been an annual exercise which started to happen less frequently as the Planning staff work load escalated and staffing numbers did not. The Council was now being asked not to deal with the zoning ordinance update in 1995, and she could not remember when the Council had last dealt with it. Instead staff was suggesting that any of the items that might appear under that topic be melded in with the overall look at the zoning ordinance as a result of the adoption of the Plan. She recalled the items that the Planning Commission dealt with in those annual sessions were quick items and did not take a good deal of Planning staff time. They were the type of things that addressed more neighborhood-oriented problems. She was concerned that the smaller items would get totally lost if staff waited for the "big picture" Comprehensive Plan revision. She asked how those small items would be dealt with and if some of the 5 percent "wiggle room" could be used. She felt the smaller items could be dealt
09/26/95 77-67
with on a more timely basis and wanted some type of assurance from staff that those items could be dealt with quicker than two years. Mr. Schreiber said the traditional zoning ordinance cleanup process was neither small nor simple from staff's standpoint. Any one individual part of it might be fairly easy to handle but what would tend to happen to the process was a lot of people had a lot of ideas and started raising questions and it mushroomed. It was also difficult in the sense that the staff people that would normally work on the zoning ordinance were heavily involved in development monitoring work and had been committed over the past few years. Between the work load, the fact that the zoning ordinance cleanup was not a small process and that some issues had been resolved internally in terms of interpretation or the need went away over time, the zoning ordinance cleanup had not risen to a high enough priority in the past couple of years. If there were one particular item, it would still not be simple, but it would be more simple than opening up for whatever cleanup amendments people had in mind which had a tendency to be a process that was hard to control in terms of the amount of staff time for the Planning Division and the City Attorney's Office. If it were a confined issue, there might be a way to take care of it, but it would still take some staff time that would have to be taken out of contingency. Mr. Calonne said not having 18 in the queue, the compilation of those issues continued and he took comfort in the fact that he now had a list to argue over. He had a means of trying to get something into the queue which was not the case at present. He saw the list as a means of assuring that those cleanups that compiled over time working with the zoning ordinance did not get lost but would wind up in a queue. Ms. Lytle said the Planning Division had a file of cleanup items from staff from their contact with the customers which was an ongoing assemblage. Those suggestions had not been lost, and the suggestions made that evening would be added to the file. There was a notation to check again in 1996-97. She recommended that staff could outline what was in the file for the Council; and as the items for 1996-97 were being considered, it could be decided that certain customer service items should not wait, i.e., the 100 hours should not be folded into a major effort the next year but instead should be taken up in the current year. Vice Mayor Wheeler said there were some fairly global items presented in the staff report and there might be parts of those items that people perceived as being of higher priority than the rest. She asked if it were conceivable that those items could be taken out of order or did the whole project have to be embarked upon. Ms. Lytle confirmed that Vice Mayor Wheeler was referring to the zoning ordinance cleanup.
09/26/95 77-68
Vice Mayor Wheeler said no. She asked whether a piece of, for instance, the HRB ordinance or any project would be started in 1995-96 year while the whole project waited until 1996-97. Ms. Lytle said it was possible to phase projects over several years, but staff was reluctant to do so without some type of defined work program in steps of phasing. Staff had had that experience with the Urban Design Plan where it was not clear how long it would take, and it consumed a large amount of time with an endless staff budget. Historic Resources Board member Ann Barbee, 110 Waverley Oaks, said there was an urgency to move ahead with the HRB ordinance revision which was No. 19 on the Work Program list. Time passed, confusion reigned, old houses disappeared throughout the City. The members of the HRB did not always agree on policy issues; but in the case of the HRB ordinance, the HRB was unanimous and felt strongly that staff help was needed in revising the ordinance so that items that were contingent upon the ordinance such as design guidelines and inventory update could continue. The item was listed in the Work Program under "Possible for 1995-96" with a BAO. She also quoted from the staff report "Staff recommends that this item be undertaken as soon as possible," and she asked the Council to make "as soon as possible" immediate. She asked Council not only to make the HRB ordinance a top priority but also to make it an immediate priority. Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos, representing Affordable Housing Action (AHA), said the AHA felt there was an urgent need to revise the Below Market Rate (BMR) guidelines. The BMR rental program was not working to achieve the goal of the BMR program in general which was to provide affordable housing to a large number of people in the Palo Alto. The BMR program was aimed at families with incomes of 80 percent of the median. In Palo Alto, families making 80 percent of the median could afford market rate rents, so the program was not serving anyone who could not otherwise afford rental housing in Palo Alto. She suggested a simple solution which was to target the rental guidelines to a lower median income family. It was a discreet program and did not involve much study. Staff had a good handle on how the program operated in the current projects which were few, and the AHA would like to see the program pulled out of the review of the overall program proposed so it would not get lost and somehow not happen in a timely fashion. Council Member McCown asked whether Item No. 17, Mitigation/ Condition Monitoring Ordinance, could be folded into Item No. 2, CEQA Guidelines Update, because the two were interrelated. When she looked at most of the ordinance revision items, the sign ordinance or the HRB ordinance, which consisted of big hour numbers such as 300, 500, etc., as she read each description, she wondered if staff was not reinventing the wheel. She knew the sign
09/26/95 77-69
ordinance was very outdated, but she believed that there had to be some examples in the State of California of good modern up-to-date sign ordinances or noise ordinances that would give staff a faster start. When reading through the Work Program items, it left the impression that Palo Alto was so unique that items had to be invented from scratch every time something was updated. Those were not items at the top of the list currently, but she wondered if some of those changes could be done more expeditiously if Palo Alto used a blueprint from another community and adapted it. For example, the HRB had done a fair amount of research on other ordinances which gave them a starting point for the tree ordinance. She felt that type of research should be pursued to keep the time commitment on the items down. She felt the whole package should be put on the table as presented and recommended by the Planning Division; and if individual Council Members wanted to make a case that an item should be moved up, that case should be articulated. She appreciated Mr. Schreiber's discussion with the Mayor debating the merits of density transfer because that was the kind of discussion that needed to happen. The Planning Division needed to give the Council its best planning advice regardless of whether the Council thought it was a good idea or not. The Council had said that about one-third of the items on the list. The newsrack ordinance was a recent topic, and it had suddenly jumped up to the top of the list which might be fine but she felt the Planning Division needed to give feedback to the Council from a planning perspective of its own prioritization of the items. Staff needed to tell the Council in the global scale of things maybe some of the things the Council thought were good ideas should be lower down on the list. She would appreciate a tougher response to the Council and then the Council could decide what it wanted to do in relation to staff's best planning advice. Everyone could have an item they wanted higher up on the list, and she felt one would have to make a strong case to make a change to the list. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to endorse the Planning Division Work Program and delete Item No. 22, Public Art Ordinance. Council Member Kniss was hesitant with regard to Item No. 19, the HRB ordinance, because the HRB had continued to struggle with not having enough support. Since the HRB had 60 hours of Planning Division time, she preferred to wait until the start of budget hearings. It would be better to leave the HRB ordinance where it was currently on the Work Program list given that the Planning Division had spent a lot of time and energy deciding where the items should be on the list. Council Member Schneider complimented staff for its work on the Work Program. She would keep the document because all of the information over the past two years was contained in one document which gave her an idea as to where things were and where things were going.
09/26/95 77-70
Council Member Rosenbaum said with respect to Ellen Christensen's remark regarding the BMR program, the Council had received a number of letters stating concern that if the Stanford West housing project were approved, it would generate meaningful market rate units. He asked staff to address that concern and to also indicate whether the BMR review was likely to have an impact on that question. Mr. Schreiber said the BMR review slated to begin in 1995-96 was one of the phased efforts which was allocated at 500 staff hours for the year. There were numerous issues and concerns that needed to be addressed within the BMR program. From staff's standpoint, the rental housing guidelines could well be the highest priority. Staff had several meetings scheduled to discuss what the BMR program and the Stanford West project. Time was allocated for the work that Ms. Christensen was concerned about and emphasis would be put on the work in the very near future. Council Member Rosenbaum said for the BMR program, a date of August 1996 was listed for the completion date. He asked if the comple-tion date were satisfied, would it be applicable to the Stanford West project should it come to fruition. Mr. Schreiber did not think it needed to, the project had to be completed as one package of recommendations. There could be a splitting off of certain things, and the Stanford West process might dictate that in terms of the timing. Staff would address the BMR rental issues before the Council took up the issue of the Stanford West project. Council Member Huber appreciated the staff's efforts on the Work Program. He felt the document was extremely helpful and something the Council would be referring to during the budget hearings. During the Finance Committee budget hearings, he felt the Council would have been pressed for priorities which Council Member McCown had mentioned. He felt it was appropriate that when Planning staff went to the budget hearing that those priorities be there so the Council would have some sense of what staff felt should be Item No 50, etc. He wanted to include the HRB ordinance changes and corrections. Historic preservation had been discussed for years; it had been implied by all of the HRB candidates that had been interviewed that the HRB ordinance needed to be strengthened but as yet nothing had been done to accomplish that. The pressure was on again in the market; housing prices were going up, demolition problems were starting to revive again, and that was something the City did not want to have happen. If the structures were to be saved, the Council was going to have to go with a BAO and get it done. AMENDMENT: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to include the Historic Resources Board Ordinance in the Planning
09/26/95 77-71
Division Work Program for 1995-96 which would allow staff and the Historic Resources Board to provide for a phased work plan. Vice Mayor Wheeler said having worked with the HRB, she knew a tremendous amount of time and energy had been spent by the HRB working with Planning staff investigating both the strengths and weaknesses not only of Palo Alto's ordinance but also comparative ordinances of cities across the country. She felt that at least during the year of 1995-96, if staff could not go forward with the entire HRB ordinance, that Planning staff be allowed, along with the HRB, to return to the Council with a phased Work Program so the Council would have a clear picture of what the Council would study and at what point in 1995-96. She thought it was a shame to lose all momentum on the item which was so central to the HRB's existence and the work the HRB had been doing over the past few years. In discussions with Council Member Kniss, it had been pointed out that homes in her neighborhood that could or should have been included on the historic inventory had been demolished at a fairly alarming rate. That type of thing was going to continue to escalate until the Council decided whether it wanted to have a meaningful Historic Preservation ordinance or whether that was not the direction the Council wanted to go and stop the process for an ordinance that would lead to the goal of preserving the finest of the oldest structures in Palo Alto. Council Member Rosenbaum said it seemed that the Council was not sure what it wanted to do on the HRB ordinance issue. He compared it to the TDR which the Council had argued with regard to the money staff had said it would take to do what the Council wanted. He did not feel the Council was in the same position with the HRB ordinance issue; and although staff was saying it consisted of only 50 or 60 hours of staff time and 500 hours of consultant time, he did not know what those people would do without clear direction from the staff. He felt it was a problem for the Council and not something the staff was prepared to jump into. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Council Member Rosenbaum had raised a valid point, but something had to be brought to Council that was more concrete that would give the Council the opportunity for discus-sion. The HRB was a volunteer organization and not in a position to write a staff report. If staff prepared a staff report for the Council to take a policy look at, then the Council could determine whether it warranted 500 hours of contract time. The Council might be one step ahead of itself, but there had to be staff participa-tion and maybe a direction to staff to return to Council with a policy document on the issue would be appropriate. Mr. Schreiber said one of the realities of trying to deal with a new HRB ordinance was that members of the HRB and the public had a wide variety of ideas of what should and should not be in the ordinance, so the amount of contract time spent was not necessarily to write the ordinance. Staff envisioned a substantial interactive process of helping the HRB refine and distill its ideas, arrive at
09/26/95 77-72
some type of an agreement as to what the HRB recommended, return to the Council with that direction, and then return to Council with an ordinance. The first step was important, very time consuming, and extremely hard for staff to undertake without taking a number of other items off. It was compounded by the fact that the staff that was dealing with the HRB on a regular basis were the developing monitoring staff who did not have the time to do it. Someone else would have to start at base zero and work their way up. Council Member Fazzino supported the amendment. With respect to Council Member Rosenbaum's question, he concurred with Vice Mayor Wheeler that the Council could not exhibit sufficient leadership on the issue unless it received some policy alternatives and a comprehensive analysis from staff. The Council needed to under-stand exactly what the experience of other cities was. As far as the proposal was concerned, after all discussions regarding the Council's appreciation for historic buildings during the City's Centennial year, Palo Alto's Historic Preservation ordinance was woefully inadequate when compared with other cities across the country. There was no teeth in the ordinance, and there was a real possibility that Palo Alto was going to lose many more wonderful historic homes unless the Council acted soon. The demolition moratorium needed to be extended to other areas of town. Some of the City's Eichler homes were approaching historic status as were some of the homes that were built on Lawrence Lane right after World War II. Staff needed to investigate the experience of other cities with strict ordinances and the HRB ordinance needed to be moved ahead as quickly as possible. Council Member McCown said Council Member Rosenbaum's caution was well taken. She reminded staff about the Percent for Art ordinance and the amount of time invested in the ordinance, and it was finally taken off the list. There really was not policy concur-rence at the beginning on the Council's part, but a lot of effort had been invested and it was very disappointing to everyone. She felt Vice Mayor Wheeler's comment was the right direction to take. There needed to be a good plan of attack for the Work Program from the Planning Division and a fairly early policy discussion between staff, HRB, and the Council on what direction the City needed to go. There also needed to be some charter for the philosophy and the vision of the direction of the Work Program was going, and she did not believe it should slow it up but it did have to happen at the beginning or the 500 hours might get spent in a direction that would not bring the City what it needed. Council Member Kniss said being the liaison to the HRB, she knew how much the HRB had struggled with the ordinance and how easy it might be to approve the money for it. It was a troubling time and as dismayed as she was with the number of houses that were being demolished in her neighborhood, some of the houses would probably not get on the historic inventory depending on how the ordinance was defined. If the Council decided that the 50-year Eichlers
09/26/95 77-73
would go onto the inventory list, that was a substantial number. She asked if the Council voted in favor of the amendment, how could the amount be divided up so the money was spent by making policy first without the Council getting to a point where there was such urgency that there was insufficient time to develop the policy. Mr. Schreiber said staff would approach the assignment if directed by Council, to identify the policy issues, work with the HRB to define the HRB's views about what should or should not be in the ordinance, structure it in the form of a policy discussion and return to the Council for direction as to what the key elements of an ordinance would be. Staff would then write the ordinance which was the last one-third of the work. The tough part was the policy part; pulling it together and putting it into a format that Council could deal with. Council Member Kniss thought it was a very difficult issue. Spending the last eight or nine months with the HRB, she knew what the struggles were and the HRB members did not all concur on exactly how the ordinance should be brought together, which made it very difficult. If there were more concurrence, she would vote more enthusiastically, but since there was not, she would reluc-tantly support the amendment. Council Member Andersen said he would like to see three or four ordinances in front of him from three or four cities that the HRB thought were good, give the HRB those ordinances with the things included that the Council desired, and direct the HRB without a consultant or money to return to Council with recommendations for the Council's approval. He would not support the amendment. Mayor Simitian agreed with Council Member McCown's comment regarding the Percent for Art ordinance. The threshold question was, not withstanding the discussion about historic preservation, whether the Council was going to tell people what they could not do with their property. Some Council Members might say "yes," some might say "no," and some might need to think about it. It might vary from historic district to nonhistoric district and from one category to another. What he heard Council Member McCown saying was that the Council needed to take a first pass at that threshold question to find out whether there were at least five votes of interest in taking the next step. It was a pretty significant step as had been articulated. He would ask staff if there was some way to take that step whether it be as Council Member Andersen suggested to look at some ordinances to see if there were anything to support or to simply have a study session with the HRB on that limited topic as had been done with the Public Art Commission (PAC) to discuss the Percent for Art ordinance. He asked how that discussion could come about to see if there were enough interest to move ahead. He felt all of the Council was asking what was really necessary to get to that threshold question.
09/26/95 77-74
Mr. Schreiber suggested a study session be scheduled between the Council and the HRB to allow interaction between both bodies rather than staff preparing a policy document. He felt that was the way the process should begin if the Council wished to go that way. Council Member McCown said it made much more sense to have a study session and defer the addition of the HRB ordinance on the Planning Division's Work Program. The Council and the HRB could have a preliminary discussion to see whether there was consensus on the general direction that item should go. MOTION TO DEFER THE AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to defer the discussion of the Historic Resources Board ordinance with respect to the Planning Division Work Program until after a joint study session of the City Council and the Historic Resources Board. Council Member Fazzino wanted the Council to be in a position of evaluating some real policy alternatives as a result of the study session and move forward. The difference between the HRB ordinance issues and the Public Art ordinance was that the Public Art ordinance was initiated by PAC. Another difference in the HRB ordinance was that at least two or three Council Members had expressed strong support for strengthening the ordinance. He would support the motion, but he wanted the result of the study session to be some clear policy alternatives which would result in possible action by the Council. MOTION TO DEFER THE AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen had struggled with the HRB ordinance item. The City did needed a plan, but he was reminded of Samuel Gomper's statement "We want more, more, more, and we want it now." He felt there was a little of that in the Council's role and he appreciated the effort to give the Council some sense of the costs associated, both in time and resource. He was missing the "vision." Some of the issues he felt the Council had strong interest in such as the Dream Team issue had been put low on the list. He was very concerned about the "wiggle room" issue that had been raised and Council Member Huber commented about the PC process which was not on the list. He said that the Council priorities needed to be reflected as much as the other items on the list. Mayor Simitian said the Work Program document was difficult to work through by Council. He believed the document was important and that the assignments in the Planning Division had been out of control for some time. The reason for part of that was the fact that there had not been a Work Program and everyone had tried to make the world's most community involved Comprehensive Plan process work. There was an item called advanced planning which was redundant, that was what planning was suppose to be. He believed that the Comprehensive Plan was suppose to be the place where the
09/26/95 77-75
vision of the community was articulated and he was optimistic enough to believe that when it was done, it would be. The bottom line was that every year there was work to do, and the Council got approached by people in the community who said when was the City going to do "x" and why had "y" not been done. The answer would now be that the Council had reviewed the Work Program and signed off on it. The Council Members would then be in a position to give people a date when a particular issue would be done. The Work Program document finally allowed the Council to hold the staff accountable and to know when something was suppose to be done. If the Council did not like it, the Council could say so. He was concerned that the staff tried to determine where the Council's votes were and then come to the Council with something that staff thought would be approved. He believed the Council should be more enthusiastic about the process than it had been that evening. He believed it was an important first step, but the document could have been more user-friendly. The staff had brought the program to the Council in a way that made it very hard for the Council to amend. He wanted to be certain when the Work Program came to the Council in the future that it allowed choices. He did not mind having the staff disagree with him as long as staff gave him a way to exercise his disagreement by obtaining the necessary Council Member five votes. He believed the TDR issue needed to move forward sooner rather than later. AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to include Item No. 15, "Transfer of Development Rights in the Downtown Area," in the Planning Division Work Program under the Secondary Priority Category for 1995-96 with staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance. AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen wanted to make sure that former Planning Commissioner Ellen Christensen's concerns were adequately addressed by staff and asked if any further action needed to be taken. Mr. Schreiber said no. There was time allocated for the project in the Work Program and it would be structured so the BMR issue did happen first. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian announced the City had won two awards for excellence in communication at the recent national conference in Denver of the City-County Communications and Marketing Association: a Certifi-cate of Excellence for the brochure and public outreach conducted in conjunction with the implementation of a comprehensive Downtown
09/26/95 77-76
parking plan; and the highest honor in the Community Visioning category - the Savvy Award - to the Department of Planning and Community Environment for the community design workshops which were a significant component of the process for the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member McCown announced that the City had received $200,000 from the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) funds. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:05 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 11. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 11 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.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.
09/26/95 77-77