HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-13 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting April 13, 1998 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator.........................86-192 2. Conference with Labor Negotiator.........................86-192 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator.........................86-192 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m................86-192 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ..........................................86-193 APPROVAL OF MINUTES...........................................86-193
1. Proposed Layoff of a Portion of the City=s Entitlement to the California-Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) - Refer to Finance Committee................................................86-194
2. Ratification of Continuing Emergency ΑEl Nino 98" Disaster86-194 3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) which reflected midyear adjustments to the 1997-98 Budget on the basis of updated revenue, expenditure and reserve balance projections, adjustments resulting from storm-related emergency response and repairs, and a proposed new Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project for a utility bill remittance processor.86-194 4. Increase Authority to Contract No. C4045515 between the City of Palo Alto and Arbor Tree Surgery, Inc. for Line Clearing.86-194 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS .....................86-194 5. Conference with Real Property NegotiatorProperty: 360 Sheridan Avenue...................................................86-194 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ..........................................86-194 5A. (Old Item No.9) Evaluation of Proposal to Establish an Advisory Body for the Libraries...................................86-195
04/13/98 86-190
6. Status Report and Request for Council Direction on Key Planning Issues of the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Process ...86-199
6A. (Old Item No. 7) Resolution 7753 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 7412 Relating to City Funding for the San Francisquito Creek Watershed
Coordinated Resources Management and Planning Process≅ ...86-202
6B. (Old Item No. 8) Resolution 7754 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Participation in the WWARN 1997 Omnibus Mutual Aid Agreement Dedicating Services and Equipment to Other Agencies in State Region 1 During Disaster
Situations≅ ..............................................86-202 6C. (Old Item No. 10) Council Members Huber and Wheeler re Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 224..............86-202 6D. (Old Item No. 11) Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........................................................86-203 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m..............86-210
04/13/98 86-191
04/13/98 86-192
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Huber (arrived at 6:01 p.m.), Kniss (arrived at 6:17 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Susan Ryerson, Michael Jackson, Joe Saccio, Larry Starr, Paul Thiltgen, Richard James, and Tom Habashi) Represented Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (SEIU) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 2. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva) Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs Association Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Judith Jewell) Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 3. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 3. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. *****
04/13/98 86-193
Regular Meeting April 13, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 7:22 p.m.) Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Roger S. Semple, 130 Iris Way, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek flood control. Suzie Provo, 756 Alester Street, spoke regarding flood control. Kevin Fisher, 728 Alester Street, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek flood control. Raymond Hebert, 2339 Sierra Court, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek flood control. Janet M. Levy, 1843 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek flood control. Dhrur Khanna, 742 Alester Street, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek flood control. Mary Carey Schaefer, 742 DeSoto Drive, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek flood control. Ray Dempsey, 1036 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the historic ordinance. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding the historic ordinance. Kathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding the historic ordinance. Ann Barbee, 1106 Bryant Street, spoke regarding historic ordinance. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility. Stephanie Muñoz, 101 Alma Apt. 701, spoke regarding elderly housing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the minutes of January 5, 1998, and January 12, 1998, as submitted.
04/13/98 86-194
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-4.
1. Proposed Layoff of a Portion of the City=s Entitlement to the California-Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) - Refer to Finance Committee
2. Ratification of Continuing Emergency ΑEl Nino 98" Disaster 3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) which reflected midyear adjustments to the 1997-98 Budget on the basis of updated revenue, expenditure and reserve balance projections, adjustments resulting from storm-related emergency response and repairs, and a proposed new Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project for a utility bill remittance processor.
Ordinance 4496 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance With the
Recommendations in the Midyear Report≅ 4. Increase Authority to Contract No. C4045515 between the City of Palo Alto and Arbor Tree Surgery, Inc. for Line Clearing MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to move Item No. 9 forward to precede Item No. 6 to become 5A. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CLOSED SESSION 5. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Property: 360 Sheridan Avenue Potential Negotiating Parties: Sanford Webster, The Sheridan Associates Subject of Potential Negotiation: Price and terms of payment Authority: Government Code section 54956.8
04/13/98 86-195
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the Closed Session item. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5A. (Old Item No.9) Evaluation of Proposal to Establish an Advisory Body for the Libraries Mary Jean Place, 809 Northampton Drive, President of Friends of the Palo Alto Library, urged the Council to support an Advisory Library Commission. The best vehicle to study, evaluate, and receive community input on the Master Plan for the Palo Alto Libraries was a Library Commission, independent of the City Manager and City staff. She found it difficult to comprehend, in a city such as Palo Alto,
that a citizens= group such as the Friends, who supported a much-used community asset with funds, volunteers, and awareness of the libraries, had been almost invisible before the City staff and the Council. Mountain View had a new public library and a Library Commission. Menlo Park had expanded its facilities into new space and also had a Library Commission. Los Altos built a new library, developed a Vision 21 Partnership with the Packard Foundation, and raised $300,000 for science and technology materials. During that same period, the Palo Alto libraries had flat budgets, no compelling City staff or Council support, and no Library Commission. After reading the Library Master Plan, one became well aware of the stress the staff and buildings in Palo Alto were under to meet the needs of a million visitors each year. Palo Altans loved their libraries and librarians as evidenced by the Friends Fund Drive where over 450 Friends members contributed $71,000 to the Endowment. Changes proposed in the Library Master Plan would need long-range vision and financial planning to execute them. Other communities found that Library Commissions were an asset to accomplish their goals. Libraries should be cultural centers for inquiring minds of all ages, a location for quiet exploration as well as interactive learning, and a gathering place for the community. The demands on public libraries across the country had increased in the technology revolution. The Friends urged the Council to support an independent group, a Library Commission appointed by the Council and reporting to the Council. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, was the first person from the Friends of the Library Board to come before the Council four years prior with its message of support for a Library Commission. During the prior four years, the City knew that the Friends wanted a commission to be involved in long-range planning and goals. Despite
the City=s knowledge of that, they found themselves with a Library Master Plan in which they had no involvement. It was difficult to think that a Library Advisory Committee that would report to and be appointed by City staff would be anymore meaningfully involved than
04/13/98 86-196
they had been. The community should have been involved understand the problems to provide possible solutions, and to be part of the decision. During the four years, a number of encouraging statements
were made that gave the Friends hope. The City Manager had said, ΑWe
do things right in Palo Alto,≅ and Αwe involve the community before a
decision is made.≅ A proposal was developed without public input. Jane Staley, 4147 Amaranta Avenue, said a Library Commission was very important and there should be one in Palo Alto. Marty Paddock, 4147 Donald Drive, said the Friends of the Palo Alto Library was a dedicated group and the City had not taken advantage of its expertise and advice.
Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, questioned the City Manager=s Report (CMR:138:98) which said, in effect, that the proposal to create a Category B committee was consistent with policies for Boards and Commissions and other advisory bodies. The policy was approved by the City Council in September of the prior year. The proposal did not appear to be consistent. The policy clearly stated that if the proposed body were to provide operational advise to the City Manager, then it should be a Category B committee. On the other hand, if the proposed body were to recommend policy to the City Council, then it should be a Category A commission or board. The Friends of the Palo Alto Library repeatedly spoke about the need to create a Library Commission to assess community conditions which affected library goals and policies, to bring forth and review policy issues, and to solicit public input regarding library policies. For that reason, the Friends sought a Category A committee that could address policy matters and make recommendations concerning planning issues. Friends was not interested in seeing a Category B committee created which would only
deal with operational matters. The City Manager=s report also
mentioned the Friends= interest in the budget, which was not a high priority with the Friends. Appropriate policies and long-range plans needed to be shaped and defined; after that, the budget followed
accordingly. It was clear that the Council=s own formally approved procedures for creating boards, commissions, and other advisory bodies called for Council-appointed board or commission if the main function of the body was to consider basic policy and planning issues. That responsibility should not be relegated to a committee. In view of the facts, if the Council were to create a committee, it would seem to be violating its own established procedures that had been set by the vote the prior year. Dorsey Bass, 2353 St. Francis Drive, said it would be a shame in a community with such assets of intellect and interest in the libraries not to utilize them fully to obtain the broadest vision for the
libraries= future. Stewart Kirtz, College Avenue, urged the Council to establish a Library Commission that was responsive to the wishes of the citizens
04/13/98 86-197
of Palo Alto and not to accept the proposal for an advisory committee which would be appointed by and report to the City Manager. The position of the City Manager in the staff report (CMR:138:98) was that half of the branch libraries needed to be closed in order to fund improvements in the main libraries. An advisory group appointed by and reporting to the City Manager would stack the deck in favor of the recommendations. A public debate on that highly contentious issue was
needed. The staff proposal regarding the libraries stated, ΑStaff
recognizes that this recommendation,≅ (which was to close the three
branches) Αdiverges from public input, and staff is aware that it will
be a controversial issue.≅ Among the people he had spoken with, the issue was not controversial at all but was a bad idea. People who were members of the focus groups, supposedly organized to provide citizen input on the future of the libraries, stated they felt dismayed and shocked when the recommendations came out that called for branch library closures. They were never able to discuss the possibility of closures and would not have supported the closures if the issue had come up. The Comprehensive Plan for Palo Alto included goals such as decentralization, reducing automobile use, and promoting cultural facilities in all the different neighborhoods. There was a clear philosophical gap between the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the wishes of a large proportion of Palo Altans and even the members of the Library focus groups with respect to the agenda of staff. However well meaning it was, a library commission would do a better job of dealing with the contradictions than an advisory group that was appointed by the staff. Gretchen B. Emmons, 169 Walter Hays Drive, was President of the Friends of the Library when the question of a library commission was addressed by the Council. She asked the Council to listen to all the speakers and they would be back on May 26. Gertrude Adler, 864 Barron Avenue, said she first lost her pharmacy, then the grocery store, and now she was threatened with losing her library, which was the last straw. Karen Kang, 535 Patricia Lane, said it was hard to believe that she had to argue in favor of a library commission for Palo Alto because libraries were such a vital community resource. Good libraries were good for the economy. People wanted to buy homes in a community with a strong library system. Palo Alto used to have a reputation for a great library. At the present time, the library infrastructure was aging and unable to compete with the book collections in other towns. There was such a severe shortage of space, that to buy a book, one book must be tossed. Palo Alto looked like a poor cousin to the neighboring towns such as Mountain View, Menlo Park, and Los Altos, all of which had new libraries and Library Commissions. She opposed
the City Manager=s proposal for a library advisory committee because she had little confidence that it would make a difference in the libraries. The status quo was no longer acceptable. If good, long-
range planning had been in effect, she questioned whether Palo Alto=s libraries would be in a state of crisis at the present time. If the
04/13/98 86-198
City Manager and staff were truly interested in public input to planning and policy for our libraries, there would already be an advisory body. She was in favor of a body that citizens trusted to provide an independent channel for public input. A library commission appointed by and reporting to the City Council was a must to be credible. With all due respect to the City Manager, any advisory body controlled by the City Manager would not be seen as an objective channel for citizen input. Barbara D. Smith, 1861 Mark Twain Street, said in the wake of the publication of the Master Plan for Palo Alto Libraries, many citizens had expressed strong feelings about the future of the libraries. Public input being important, the creation of the library commission was the way to go. Wendy Brown, 1921 Middlefield Road, said she hoped the Council would seriously consider a commission which she felt the City needed. Bob Otnes, 2160 Middlefield Road, worked in a library while attending college and watched the people who visited the branch libraries. The majority of people were elderly or children; people who were unable to go long distances. Safety should be considered in the recommendations. Reading should be encouraged among the children. Friends of the Library and a Library Commission were ways to help the situation. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said libraries were a major part of the community. For many years, Palo Alto had among the highest per capita circulation of any library in California. Twenty years ago in the wake of Proposition 13, the City was looking for things that could be removed from the budget. One of the things looked at was cutting the libraries. Scott Carey realized that was not a good thing to do after coming back and reporting at a Council meeting that he had been to the main Library on a Sunday afternoon and there was standing room only. Libraries were too vital to the community. A Library Commission had been needed for years. The City Council was owed the direct advice of an independent library commission that reported to the Council in the same way the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board did. It should not be a staff-operated, staff-directed commission. No one in the Terman Focus Group wanted to close Terman and actually wanted it opened longer and with more space. Yet, the report came back to close that Library. The City Manager already had a staff reporting to her and did not need more rubber stamps reporting to her so that she could give the Council the information that the staff had already decided the Council should have. An independent library commission was needed that reported to the Council, and it should be created before the Council made any decisions about the libraries in the City. Herb Borock, 2731 Bryon Street, supported the formation of a library commission appointed by and reporting to the City Council because of the Library Master Plan report received by the Council the prior
month. The report was developed as a result of the City Manager=s
04/13/98 86-199
direction to the Library staff to go beyond immediate short-term needs and develop a plan that addressed current and future library services, programs, and facilities through the first decade of the new century. The report called for the development of a new Master Plan in 2010. That was clearly a long-term situation that needed to be addressed, and a long-term solution was needed. A library commission was the only way to do it. In the short-term, a library committee reporting to the City Manager would be as good as a library commission reporting
to the City Council because the City Manager=s and current Director of
Libraries= long careers in library service. On a long-term basis, Palo Alto probably would not have a City Manager with a background in library service. The City Manager indicated her main accomplishment as Library Director had been to create a responsive staff and to encourage the public to have a say about library services. It was not a short-term problem that the current City Manager would be responsible for, but would be a long-term problem going over decades. A commission replying to the City Council was the way to go. A library commission would require more time on the timeline recommended by staff to set up the commission through an ordinance and to appoint its first members. The timeline would have to be changed in order for the Library Commission to play a role early in the process. The City Council needed to consider guidelines for membership in the commission which should be limited to Palo Alto residents. There should be some restriction or limitation on the extent to which Friends of the Library Board Members or recent Board Members were eligible to be on the Commission. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the item to the May 26, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6. Status Report and Request for Council Direction on Key Planning Issues of the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Process Mayor Rosenbaum said that Council Members Huber, Mossar, and Ojakian would not be participating in the item due to conflicts of interest which were noted at the April 6, 1998, City Council Meeting. Lucinda Abbott, 646 Lincoln Avenue, was co-Chair of the University South Neighborhood Group Coordinated Area Plan Committee, which met monthly in parallel with the Working Group to formulate a set of neighborhood goals for SOFA and to communicate those goals to the Working Group representatives. The success to date with the Coordinated Area Plan process was encouraging. The commitment, time, effort, and talent by the members was appreciated. One element
considered vital to the neighborhood=s health and well being was found in all three working group plans: a park. The Council was urged to adhere to the guidelines enumerated in the new Comprehensive Plan and employ whatever creative powers and resources necessary to provide the neighborhood with the prescribed two acres of parkland. A park was a traditional heart of a community, a place to go to greet friends, to 04/13/98 86-200
make a new acquaintance, and to watch children play. It drew people out of their homes, breaking down the barriers that isolated people from their neighbors. A park had long been needed in the neighborhood. Parents with whom she spoke at Parents Nursery School supported the allocation of resources. Palo Alto was famous for its commitment to the quality of life and was what drew her parents to Palo Alto in the 1950s and what led her husband and herself to remain in Palo Alto. Rita Schmidt, 805 Roble Avenue, said co-housing could look like anything that was appropriate to the site and surrounding community. Co-housing had been built in everything from live/work spaces to designated historic districts to 40 acre parcels in the middle of nowhere. The goal of co-housing groups was to live in a close knit and friendly community which included neighbors who were not members of the co-housing community. Co-housing groups worked closely with neighborhood groups to ensure the co-housing community would fit with the pre-existing neighborhood community. Co-housing units tended to be smaller because of the presence of the shared community facilities. As much land as possible would be left as green space. Members of the working group suggested the co-housing be located on the Waverley Street end of the main PAMF block in order to leave room for the park. In addition to the main block, there were other sites that could work for co-housing such as the Urgent Care site or the site surrounding the AME Church. She urged the Council to include the 1.5 to 2 acres with medium density in the site plan for the area. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, said he and his wife were incorrigible fans of the original historic, diverse, and active neighborhood. When making a decision on his current house, he wondered what would happen to the PAMF property. He was encouraged when he found out the City was making a Coordinated Area Plan Working Group to reach out to the community and listening to the residents and the rest of the Town. The process worked well, and he liked the plan that was produced. He hoped the City Council would follow it to its essentials. There had been considerable requests for affordable housing which would fit well into the neighborhood. It would be well if the PAMF could follow its plan and rebuild the site to the houses that it once held prior to the PAMF coming in. The neighborhood itself had changed. Many houses were replaced by apartments and condominiums, and he noticed how many backyards had been filled with dense apartment structures. The neighborhood was densely populated at the current time. He proposed that a backyard be created on much of the land presently occupied by the PAMF parking lot. When Palo Alto was started, its name was University Park, but the original plan carried no provision for a park. There was a unique opportunity to
rectify that oversight and build a park for Palo Alto=s original and most densely populated area. Debra Woods, 801 Kipling Street, urged the Council to listen to the recommendations of the Working Group. She lived on a substandard lot on the corner of Homer Avenue and Kipling Street. The yard was not
04/13/98 86-201
large, so she relied extensively on Palo Alto parks for family play time. The neighborhood needs a park similar in size and functionality to Johnson Park. The housing proposed for the PAMF site would drastically increase the number of families living in the neighborhood, and the need for a neighborhood park would increase. Addison School could be used, but it did not provide the type of play equipment that could be found at a real park. She supported the proposed childcare facility at Ramona Street and Channing Avenue. Don Fitten, 821 Waverley Street, said his property looked at the parking lot of PAMF, and he was delighted at the progress made by the Working Group. Three years prior, Hal Luft helped put together a survey. The main consensus of the survey was that the residents wanted architectural fit. The PAMF site should end up looking like the block between Channing Avenue and Addison Avenue and the block between Addison Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. It should look like Palo Alto. Most of the neighbors felt strongly about the need for a park. Jeanne Moulton, 319 Addison Avenue, expressed appreciation for the time her friends and neighbors put into the CAP Working Group and also the people who participated from the PAMF. They came a long way toward resolving what was a very complex issue. She hoped the Council would continue to support the process and results of the Group. Hal Luft, 1020 Ramona Street, said some of the estimates were that there could be 200 new residences developed in the SOFA area. That had a number of implications in terms of density and schools. Schools in the area such as Addison had already reached capacity without the new residences. There had been requests for senior housing and lower cost housing. Most of the high density was occurring in the SOFA area. A park was one of the important things that could help make the neighborhood feel more comfortable about taking on a disproportionate share of some of the density, low income housing, and other types of things that the natural flow of economics would do. He encouraged the Council to continue with its process and continue listening to the Working Group. M. E. Pratt, 1136 Waverley Street, said he tried for some time to get consideration of the Urgent Care Center which was crucially located between Professorville and the Downtown. It also offered an element that would be necessary with any park, and that was a community meeting area. The Urgent Care Center had an auditorium/seminar rooms/ community room upstairs. The downstairs could be used for a historical library or museum, particularly typing in with the Professorville area. It was a shame to tear down such a building to make way for two homes. It would be important to have a community center tied to a park in the Professorville/Downtown area. The parking lot around the Urgent Care Center was one of the most beautiful of the parking lots in Downtown. It was important to preserve the Urgent Care Center as a community facility with parking area.
04/13/98 86-202
JeanneAnne Breen, 949 Scott Street, said her house was on a small lot without a backyard. Scott Street Park was her backyard. She urged the Council to keep Scott Street Park as well as adding a park or greenbelt to the current land under consideration. She advocated for the lowest option possible due to the traffic and congestion in the area. Single-family housing would be her vote, along with diversified housing options. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:00 P.M. - 9:22 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 5. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 5. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to bring forward Items No. 7, 8, 10, and 11 to become Item Nos. 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
6A. (Old Item No. 7) Resolution 7753 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 7412 Relating to City Funding for the San Francisquito Creek Watershed
Coordinated Resources Management and Planning Process≅ MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
6B. (Old Item No. 8) Resolution 7754 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Participation in the WWARN 1997 Omnibus Mutual Aid Agreement Dedicating Services and Equipment to Other Agencies in State Region 1 During Disaster
Situations≅ MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6C. (Old Item No. 10) Council Members Huber and Wheeler re Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 224 MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to request staff to return to the Council with a resolution. Council Member Wheeler said as members of the City/School Liaison Committee, she and Council Member Huber were made aware of the Palo
Alto Unified School District=s (PAUSD) position. The issue would have
04/13/98 86-203
a great impact on the PAUSD=s Building for Excellence Program; but, in
the longer term, it would have significant impact on the City=s projects. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6D. (Old Item No. 11) Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Rosenbaum said that Council Members Huber, Mossar, and Ojakian would not be participating in the item due to conflicts of interest which were noted at the April 6, 1998, City Council Meeting. DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 6 RE PAMF/SOFA CONTINUED Council Member Kniss said much emphasis had been put on the open space in the park issue and asked staff for a general overall cost of buying, developing, and maintaining a 1.5 acre and a 2 acre park. Matt Kowta, Bay Area Economics (BAE), referred to Table 3 in the memo to the Council from BAE which attempted to explore cost issues for some of the parks. A specific dollar value per square foot or per acre for the parkland was not specified because it would depend on the property in question what other potential uses of the property were, and what type of features were already there. An illustration was provided based on $50 to $100 per square foot which covered a broad range of property values that might be seen in the SOFA area. The actual cost to develop the park, including play structures, turf, hardscaping, etc., were minor. The range was between $125,000 to $250,000 per acre for the physical development of the park. The real cost was in the actual cost to acquire the land; $50 per square foot an acre would cost approximately $2.3 million. Maintenance park costs for an intensely-used neighborhood park facility was approximately $12,000 per acre. Issues that came up with actual park maintenance were the fact that the size of the park was relatively small, the park personnel needed to get their equipment to the site to load and unload, and the maintenance of landscaped areas required more hand work. Council Member Wheeler clarified that Table 3 addressed one particular funding mechanism. Mr. Kowta said the Table attempted to relate the amount of development that might occur in the SOFA area as a result of the plan, such as the build out and the transition of the PAMF property from its medical use into other types of uses. The question was how a proposal for a two-acre park related to the amount of new development coming into the City, assuming some sort of a parkland standard was upheld. Discussion at the Working Group involved the standard of two neighborhood park acres per 1,000 residents. Applying that standard, assuming 2.7 persons per household, 370 housing units would share the cost of a park. In terms of an average cost per housing unit, at $50 per square foot, the cost would be $12,500 per unit that would need to
04/13/98 86-204
be contributed; at $100 per square foot level, the cost would be about $25,000 per housing unit that needed to be contributed. It was possible that fees for pulling building permits could be charged. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said that was not legal advise but an arithmetic conclusion. Mr. Kowta said with an assessment district a person would be assessed about $1282 per year on the $12,500 initial cost; $2600 per year would be the assessment on the $25,000 park cost. Vice Mayor Schneider said staff had asked the Council to concentrate on density. The valuations provided ranged from $91 per square foot for a single-family dwelling to $28 in a 16-30 unit apartment building which was an enormous gap. The clinic needed to obtain the value of the land. Her direction was to find the point where the clinic received the amount of money that the property was worth without putting undue stress on the neighborhood because of increased traffic and density. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council would have to conform to the onerous rules under Proposition (Prop) 218 if the Council was to establish an assessment district. Jim Steele, Manager, Investments & Debt, said the most significant Prop 218 requirement was that only special benefits were assessable. If the City wanted to fund a park, some portion of the park was a general benefit because anyone could use it. The general benefit had to be separated from the specific benefit, and only the specific benefits could be assessed. Mr. Kowta said there was only so much precedent as far as how that happened under Prop 218. There were varying levels as to how far someone could go to identify the specific benefit. Council Member Fazzino asked whether any benefit related to existing development could be viewed as a general benefit, or would that be included as part of the specific benefit. Mr. Calonne said the allocation to existing development would not necessarily be all general benefit. Council Member Fazzino clarified a separate analysis would have to be engaged and then determine what portion of new and current development would be defined as the area that was specifically impacted by the proposed park. Another area would have to be looked at, such as Downtown North, and then come up with a calculation as to what the general benefit was. Mr. Calonne said the traditional method for finding special benefits would relate to the property value benefit of the amenity.
04/13/98 86-205
Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the Council was ready to address the question of what density or level of housing production was desired. Council Member Wheeler thanked the people who were appointed to the Working Group, staff, and consultants for the level of work and commitment and the work product that emerged from the group. The comments by Ms. Munoz, made under Oral Communications, were very relevant to the discussions, in particular, the emphasis on senior citizens. The Council had on its current agenda an item regarding preserving housing for seniors and the disabled and had been dealing for several months on another low-income, senior project. There were very few opportunities to develop additional housing for those people. The same was true for families in similar financial situations. The Council should find opportunities in that area to satisfy some of the broader community needs. She did not expect the area to absorb all of the affordable housing. The City needed to look at the broader community needs, as well as looking out for the neighbors of the property. The Working Group was urged to be more diligent in its approach to looking for and putting aside some sites within the SOFA/PAMF area for affordable housing for both seniors and families. Additional residents in the neighborhood would create a need for provision of open space. She concurred with the attempts to increase the amount of open space and parks and encouraged building massing that left open space. She wanted to explore the possibility of the use and future use of the Scott Street Park and whether the open space could be contiguous to that, or whether the space could be utilized as a leveraging tool to acquire open space land that was contiguous open space area. The staff report mentioned there might have to be a citywide election if the City wished to convert the Scott Street Park to some other usage. The City had a history of being understanding in such elections. Swaps had been done before on dedicated parcels of land that were designated for park purposes when it made more sense to consolidate holdings in other areas. She would not let a ballot measure stop her from thinking in terms of what was the best land use decision in the area regarding parks. Mayor Rosenbaum said he was not sure whether the Council had sufficient information to come to a unified decision that a motion would imply. City Manager June Fleming said there was an advantage with a motion because staff would not be left to interpret the meaning. The staff would rather have a comment than nothing at all. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance originally conceived did not have a staff recommendation for a Council mid-point intervention, and the Council added that. In the early formulation of think pieces that came to the Council on coordinated area planning, the governance
discussion of the Comprehensive Plan was fresh in everyone=s mind and the ordinance contemplated a delegation of the Council to the neighborhood cauldron wherein the issues would be cooked, worked out, and sorted through. The process in its original form assumed and
04/13/98 86-206
depended upon political reliance by the Council on the Working Group. The mid-point intervention role was designed to be something that would work by itself. The flip side was that in order for it to work, the Council needed to be willing to accept the result that came back to the Council when it was done without expecting or reserving for itself the opportunity to significantly change the product. That might be tough to achieve but was the early political underpinning that came out of the governance discussion behind the ordinance. The idea that the Council needed to change that was something that did not have to be overdone. The way the ordinance was designed, the Council did not need to feel pressured to take over the process. Ms. Fleming said staff did not want to go off in the wrong direction. If the Council was unable to get a motion, staff would be clear about that.
Council Member Kniss asked to rehear Council Member=s Wheeler=s comments on ballot measures.
Council Member Wheeler said the staff=s comment about the Scott Street Park parcel was that a possible impediment to leveraging the parcel, using it for something else, would be the necessity for a ballot measure to undedicate the parkland. One of the alternatives for financing a larger park parcel would involve going to the voters. Council Member Kniss said it would help staff if there were some direction as to what direction the Council would be heading in. Council Member Wheeler said she did not want to preclude up to two acres, but she was concerned from the economic feasibility standpoint. When the Council looked at real dollars and cents and the economic realities, hard decisions would come up. She did not say that the City ought to spend $9 million out of pocket to develop two acres of park. She asked if there were things the City could do that would not cost $9 million. Council Member Kniss supported the Council heading in the same direction. She was aware that pocket parks lent a feeling of space in a city that felt denser in many ways. Page 7 of the staff report (CMR:138:98) mentioned densities. One of the areas she was always taken with was the Bungalow courts, which had interesting open spaces left when completed. Areas mentioned included the Times-Tribune site which offered a different style of housing. It was difficult to get large pieces of property like that one. Mayor Rosenbaum said the Working Group indicated a preference for low-density, single-family on the main block. If the Council wanted to take a position, it preferred something denser or more creative. That was a position that might provide useful direction if that were what the Council thought it wanted to do.
04/13/98 86-207
Council Member Kniss said she did not want to lose the opportunity to try something that the Council had not been able to do before. That was a direction she would not mind pursuing further. Council Member Eakins asked about the current residential population in the SOFA area. Contract Planner Allison Kendall said the study area was approximately 50 acres and 10 acres of that was PAMF. Most of the study area averaged 15 units per acre. Council Member Eakins said it was difficult to say what the increased density should be when she had a hard time translating colored blocks into numbers in order to get a professional sense of it. Assistant Planning Official Jim Gilliland said census figures did not work for that area because boundaries were different. The population for the study area was somewhere around 2,500. Council Member Eakins said to talk about adding between 100 and 350 units over ten years did not seem like a lot. The reason she heard for not having density above single-family was there would be too much traffic. There was no one who generated more car trips than a single-family residence and was not a persuasive argument for staying with low density. She wanted to do whatever could be done to have a moderate to substantial increase in population density that would not overburden. Car use should not be encouraged. The area was a convenient, walkable area which was part of the charm for the residents who lived there. She was interested in more density rather than less done in creative, attractive, and pleasant ways. As to the affordability question, she heard from a number of residents who said they did not want any identifiable, affordable housing site, but it was okay to have below market rate duplexes. The Working Group should be encouraged to look at the best examples in the Bay Area for affordable housing projects. The more density, the more there was a need for attractive green spaces. She wanted the Committee to take seriously production of affordable housing in that area, to work out a park that the whole City could afford. Vice Mayor Schneider said Palo Alto had several projects where mixed use had been suggested, projects had been approved, and it did not work out. Other communities such as Mountain View had good examples. Palo Alto had one on El Camino Way, the Hamlet. Mayor Rosenbaum questioned the size of homes, if a single-family development was built on the main site. He recalled at the last meeting that Leanna Hunt indicated to the Council that 3,000-square-
foot homes were proposed on 5,000-square-foot lots, whereas the City=s normal R-1 would only allow 2,250 square feet. Judith Kemper, member of the PAMF/SOFA Working Group, said the considerations had been made that housing and lot prices were very
04/13/98 86-208
expensive in Palo Alto and some consideration could be made for having smaller lots with larger houses on them. They would like to see single-family homes there, realizing the cost of the lot would dictate that they be very small. Larry Hassett, member of the PAMF/SOFA Working Group, said many of the existing lot sizes around the main block were smaller than the typical 5,000-square-foot lots. An effort was made to mirror what was one side of the street to be allowed to happen on the other side of the street. Mayor Rosenbaum said if there were 5,000-square-foot lots, there might be a lot of opposition to put 3,000-square-foot homes on those lots. There was a fair amount of incremental value in allowing someone to build a 3,000-square-foot house where 2,250 would otherwise be allowed. A tradeoff could be made if that incremental value could be devoted to open space. Ms. Kemper said the Working Group considered seeing each of the houses able to have another unit, whether it was an apartment over the garage or a smaller cottage in the back, which was in keeping with the current neighborhood. Mayor Rosenbaum said that the PAMF had a linear park of some fraction of an acre and asked if that was a voluntary contribution. He asked what could be required of the Medical Clinic with respect to park space. Mr. Calonne said there was no policy in place that would let the Council impose a development fee in the nature of a Quimby Fee. The Quimby Act was a provision in the Subdivision Map Act which was commonly used to acquire parkland. The implementation mechanism for
the product was left up to the staff with the Working Group=s advice to develop. The Coordinated Area Plan could be used much the same as a Specific Plan in order to develop a self-contained implementation mechanism to enforce whatever exactions were justifiable. His understanding of the PAMF proposal was it was in the nature of a planned-unit development and not considered to be open space. The other authority built into the Coordinated Area Plan ordinance that the working group, Council, and staff needed to be mindful of what was the combination authority obligation to have an economically feasible project, something that could be developed with a reasonable rate of return to the property owners. The answer of how much could be exacted through the process was dependent on the economics. The planning process had the authorization to do that type of economic analysis if the staff, advised by the Working Group and Council, was so inclined. Mayor Rosenbaum had in mind one acre for the park but could see that made up of three sources, including Scott Park where he would see a trade. If there was a rationale for the Medical Clinic contributing a small portion and a small portion to be paid for by the City, then
04/13/98 86-209
from those three components, one acre could be obtained without any major City contribution. Council Member Fazzino said process should be allowed to play itself out. He was delighted with the progress of the Working Group, and the Group should be allowed to go back, complete its work, and bring the Council a plan which enjoyed the support of the major stakeholders. With respect to governance, it was important to remember that this was a Council-appointed group with responsibility to the Council. Maintaining a direct relationship between the Working Group and the Council as the process is worked through was important. When a final product was brought to the Council, it should be viewed as a product of the Working Group being brought directly to the Council and not changed by staff or anyone else. He was excited about the possibility of affordable housing, some parkland and preservation of the Roth Building possibly as a public use. At the same time, it was important to remember that the area was already fairly dense. The last thing the Council should do was shove as much building as could be done. He preferred Times-Trib-type of housing on the main block to additional trophy homes which occurred in other areas of the City. The City had the opportunity to accommodate more open space in that area. He was open to the concept of a park if financing and trades could be arranged. The case would have to be made that the parkland benefitted the entire community and not just a few property owners in that area. He was also open to the possibility of some additional density on one part of the main block or parts of the area in return for additional open space. He supported the idea of slightly higher density closer to Alma Street, including affordable housing, and was open to alternative housing approaches such as co-housing. Mixed use was difficult and had not worked successfully in Palo Alto. There were tremendous opportunities for affordable housing in that area. Focusing on the needs, objectives, and impacts of all the proposals with respect to the area itself was important. The Roth Building was a city treasure and should be preserved for public use. He encouraged the Working Group to look at the possibility of preserving some type of public use for the Roth Building. Council Member Wheeler said Council Members had made statements in terms of a variety of uses they would like the Working Group to consider such as bungalow courts, affordable housing, co-housing and mixed use. She asked what the Council would get back in terms of a product if the Working Group said the site would be perfect to place a low-income, senior housing project. She asked whether there would be a new zoning classification that said the piece of land had to be used for affordable senior housing or for co-housing. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said the intent of staff and the Working Group was to come up with a land use plan map designating specific properties and to write new zoning districts and new design regulations that would govern the development of the property, leaving it flexible enough so as not to be designated for one specific use.
04/13/98 86-210
The intent was to look at the existing zoning districts and refine those to allow them to be more flexible. Mayor Rosenbaum asked if the City considered affordable housing and had expended all of its housing funds on the project discussed earlier in the meeting, how would the land be reserved for affordable housing. Mr. Calonne said the issue came back to the economic feasibility problem. By blending together the land use plan, typically from the Comp Plan, with the development standards and district regulations from zoning in one document, the Council had the opportunity to move the pieces about within the plan area. The answer might be density trades, but by combining the planning and zoning, the Council had the single source authority to adjust the rights necessary to preserve the site. No formal action taken. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
04/13/98 86-211