HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-13 City Council Summary Minutes (2) Special Meeting July 13, 1998 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator........................87-3 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m...............87-3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .........................................87-4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .........................................87-4 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Construction Inc. For Phase XII Water Main Replacement Project........................................................87-5 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Henkels & McCoy, Inc. For the 4KV to 12KV Overhead Line System Voltage Conversion and Rebuild Project..........................87-5
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 4100 and 4120 El Camino
Real from RM-15 and RM-30 to PC-Planned Community≅ ......87-5 4. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation..............................................87-5 5. Vice Mayor Schneider, Council Members Eakins, Wheeler and Kniss re Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (continued from 7/6/98).......................87-5
6. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Interim Historic Regulations) Shall Be in
Effect≅ (continued from 7/6/98) ........................87-17 7. Finance Committee Recommendation re Approval of the Basic Elements of the General Fund (Gf) Infrastructure Prioritization Methodology and Financing Plan..........87-18
07/13/98 87-1
8. Request for Approval to Lease Space for Utilities Engineering Division on East Bayshore Road; Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Acquire This Space and Convert Civic Center A Level Space; and Authorization to Pursue Leasing Space for the Creation of a One-Stop Permit Center...................87-18 9. Approval of Golf Course Improvement Project Financing Documents, and Authorization for Staff to Execute the Sale of an Amount Not to Exceed $8,600,000 in Certificates of Participation to Finance Golf Course Improvements......87-21 10. Appointment to Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle Advisory Body..........................................87-23 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........87-23 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.............87-23
07/13/98 87-2
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:40 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins (arrived at 6:41 p.m.), Fazzino (arrived at 6:48 p.m.), Kniss (arrived at 6:42 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Lynne Johnson, Susan Ryerson, Brad Zook, Linda Craig, Tom Merson) Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
07/13/98 87-3
Regular Meeting July 13, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Howard J. Smith, 720 La Para Avenue, spoke regarding "Reach Rehabilitation Parking." Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, spoke regarding an apology. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding ramp metering (submitted a letter). Murray Suid, 1111 Greenwood Avenue, spoke regarding getting along, overcoming acrimony and divisiveness. Bob Rutherford, 1924 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek concerns (submitted a letter). Warren Kallenbach, 1248 Harriet Street, spoke regarding
telecommunications (City Manager=s Report CMR:256:98). Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of April 13, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of April 27, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 3.
07/13/98 87-4
1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Construction Inc. For Phase XII Water Main Replacement Project 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Henkels & McCoy, Inc. For the 4KV to 12KV Overhead Line System Voltage Conversion and Rebuild Project
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 4100 and 4120 El Camino
Real from RM-15 and RM-30 to PC-Planned Community≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 4. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation Subject: Potential Initiation of Litigation on Two Separate Matters Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(c) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Vice Mayor Schneider, Council Members Eakins, Wheeler and Kniss re Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (continued from 7/6/98)
Vice Mayor Schneider said the tone of the prior week=s meeting was intense and at times uncivil. She agreed with Caroline Willis who said it was time for the community to come together to stop the intensity that had come about. Too much time had been spent in fractionalizing the community instead of coming together. One
addition to the colleagues= memo was that the Council appoint a balanced committee comprised of preservationists, property rights people, owners of modern homes and historic homes, and the Council. The study sessions held earlier in the process were not as instructive as they could have been. The community did not feel it had an opportunity have their views expressed. What started out as a method of saving some historic houses had grown into a monster. It was time that the Council simplify things. The committee was a starting point. She had received a letter the prior weekend from the builders who had sued the City over the demolition moratorium,
which read, ΑWe the undersigned developers agree to the compatibility review of homes designated as Category 2 in every case where the home is not our primary residence. We agree that
for profit ventures there may be more complex review standards.≅
07/13/98 87-5
The developers were saying that for non-owner occupied homes in Category 2, they were willing to go through stringent review, and
asked that also be included in the Colleagues= memorandum dated June 25, 1998. The Comp Plan said the process should be simple, should not be punitive, and the community should have input. Contributing structures should be changed to voluntary instead of mandatory compliance. Council Member Kniss said the committee was a superb idea, but it needed more definition. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council was focusing on the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (Interim Ordinance) first. He asked to what degree was the Council able to go beyond the Interim Ordinance and make comments or suggestions with respect to the process for developing the permanent ordinance. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the open meeting law would only allow the Council to introduce the items and direct staff to bring them back for consideration at a future time. The Council was not able to get into any detailed policy consideration of changes to the permanent ordinance. If any action on the interim extension necessarily implicated a change to the permanent ordinance, staff should be directed to agendize that matter at a future date. Council Member Ojakian said that since the Monday, June 6, 1998, City Council Meeting, the City Attorney had checked with the Fair Political Practices Commission and determined that he could participate. Mayor Rosenbaum said he watched the video of the meeting he had missed and was prepared to participate. Council Member Kniss said she also watched the video and found it interesting. Both Caroline Willis and Mr. Suid talked about finding the common ground. The Council had often found itself off track because the Council did not always understand exactly what some of the terms meant or passages of ordinances meant. Council members indicated three issues. One, that Palo Alto had houses and garages that should be mandatorily preserved. Second, to see that houses were developed in a sensitive way. She was not sure how that would be accomplished, but suggested the City might consider districts. It might be discovered that, in the case of zoning and historic preservation, one size did not fit all. That was an issue
that needed to be looked at. The Colleagues memo read, ΑWe will be
extending the Interim Ordinance until June 30, 1999.≅ She thought
the Council meant Αmay extend.≅ The memo also stated, ΑThe
homeowner benefit of historic preservation will include...≅ She
asked whether the City Attorney purposely used the word Αwill.≅
07/13/98 87-6
Mr. Calonne said the Council directed in March that the list of
benefits be considered. He thought Αwill≅ was the right word. The Council gave specific direction about a list of benefits to be studied by the Planning Commission with direction to staff to return with an ordinance including those benefits. He understood that to be final policy direction.
Council Member Kniss clarified the word Αwill≅ would remain. Mr. Calonne said yes, to the extent that the language might suggest that they had already been enacted. That was not true, but the Council gave staff firm policy direction. Council Member Kniss said the Council found that, as it dealt with an original, interim, and an eventual permanent ordinance, it was difficult for the Council to know what was governed by guidelines, by regulations, and resolution. She found that difficult as did the public.
Mr. Calonne said the word Αregulations≅ referred to something the staff developed, that the Council did not enact by ordinance. The original historic preservation chapter had no regulations. The Interim Ordinance that the Council put into place in Fall 1996 set out a structure and then requested that the Planning Department staff prepare implementation regulations. Those were named
ΑHistoric Preservation Regulations≅ and ΑCompatibility Review
Standards≅ which were currently in effect and approved by resolution of the City Council. It was intended to be an administrative document that set out important, detailed steps for the staff to follow in applying the Interim Ordinance. The draft of the proposed permanent ordinance included a place for staff to develop guidelines. That was found to be advisable so the working practices of the Planning staff could be documented and available
to the public in written form. The reference to ΑCompatibility
Review Standards and Historic Preservation Regulations≅ on page 3 of the Colleagues Memo was a reference to the administrative rules that the Council authorized in Fall 1996 in order to allow the staff to implement the details of the Interim Ordinance. Council Member Kniss clarified whether there was an appeal process, that would need to be written into the resolution. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Kniss said that could return to the Council by August 3, 1998. Mr. Calonne said staff, in reviewing the Colleagues memo, felt that the proposed changes could be accommodated by August 3, 1998.
07/13/98 87-7
Council Member Kniss said it was important that the Council speed up the process. She wanted to see the Interim Ordinance completed by the end of the year. There was a need for much stricter time lines. Those who needed to go through the process should not take more time than those going through a normal planning review. The way the Planning Department functioned needed to be revamped. Council Member Mossar said Council Member Schneider referred to the new Comprehensive Plan. For many years, the community talked about its desire to preserve its historic structures and preserve neighborhood compatibility. The Comprehensive Plan set out to encourage the preservation of the historic structures, review and update the historic inventory, reassess the ordinance to make sure it was effective, strengthen design review for exterior remodeling and demolition of historic structures, encourage the compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards, develop incentives, streamline the review process, and treasure the special qualities of the City, including its historic buildings. As a member of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), she knew those were issues that were strongly supported by the community at large. The Interim Ordinance was an attempt by the Council to address a community that was upset about the loss of its neighborhoods and historic structures. The Council minutes clearly explained that the Interim Ordinance set out to do two things: preserve historic structures and preserve compatibility in neighborhoods. She did
not believe it was the Council=s intention that the Interim Ordinance be in place as long as it had. She shared the concerns of Council Member Kniss about the duration proposed for the extension of the Interim Ordinance. The Interim Ordinance was a mechanism to provide the community with what the community asked for during the comprehensive planning process and what the community asked for when it came to the Council upset about what was going on in the neighborhoods. The Interim Ordinance had three primary parts of which some caused the community more problems than others. She did not believe the merit screening evaluation caused much difficulty. One problem with the Interim Ordinance that dealt with landmark structures was that fees were set at cost recovery. The Colleagues memo set out to reduce those fees considerably. That was fair and a way the City could provide free advice from a preservation architect to owners of Landmark homes. The third area of compatibility sometimes dealt with historic structures, and at other times did not. In March, the Council directed staff to include in its 1998-1999 Work Plan the whole neighborhood compatibility discussion for the year. The Council had not yet
seen the Planning Division=s Work Plan. She had received many phones calls the prior week suggesting the Council eliminate the Interim Ordinance and deal with neighborhood compatibility. The compatibility process caused a number of problems. She was taken by a comment from a member of the public stating the Council had been reactionary. She believed that as problems had arisen, the City had moved to make some corrections. The Colleagues memo had several suggestions that would take some of the pain out of the
07/13/98 87-8
compatibility review process. The Interim Ordinance was necessary, and she was interested in looking at ways to move the time table forward. She was not prepared to do anything but extend the Interim Ordinance. Council Member Eakins said during the Comprehensive Plan development process, a strong, committee-wide statement was made that turned into the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs for historic preservation. There were statements being made that people could not do anything to a house, and they were being held hostage because of the drastic interim or proposed permanent ordinance. Changes could be made to Landmark structures and Contributing structures. The draft permanent ordinance proposed how alterations could be made. Contributing was a weaker designation than a historic designation. It was self-explanatory; it meant contributing to the quality and experience of the street and streetscape. She listened carefully to all the people who told her they wanted more architectural and creative freedom and believed those people were on the right track. The guidelines should not be so strict for the community. The gap between the designation Contributing was and the order or nature of the design standards initially set up was where the difficulty began to arise which, was what the Colleagues memo attempted to correct. Council Member Fazzino said the issue was difficult. Everyone needed to work together to develop a solution to a variety of concerns. There were fundamental differences among people in the community which could be addressed. The reality was that a few years prior, the City was faced with the demolition of some historic homes and changes in neighborhood character. The Council responded legitimately to those concerns. An ordinance to preserve historic homes was established. If a mistake was made, it was that the Council tried to incorporate concerns about two separate issues: historic homes and neighborhood character design review. It was important in the long term to divide the two issues. The staff and Council acted in good faith to create an ordinance and regulations, but the public had not been well served by implementation of the ordinance, interpretation of the regulations, and the adversarial posture taken by the contract employee towards the public. The Council needed to work constructively and positively with the public to develop a program. He was in France
when the preservation architect=s contract came up and would have voted not to extend the contract. He encouraged the City Manager to terminate the contract as quickly as possible and change the way in which the staff worked with the public on the issue of historic preservation or the entire program would collapse. He thought the process needed to be changed dramatically; it needed to be streamlined. With respect to the proposed ordinance, some had suggested terminating the ordinance. He was not willing to do that. It was important to move forward, and December 31, 1998, was a critical date for the Interim Ordinance to be completed. If the staff needed additional resources in order to complete the ordinance by that date, the staff needed to let the Council know on
07/13/98 87-9
August 3, 1998, what additional resources were needed to complete the work. It was important to wave all fees associated with the program. The benefit was community-wide. The community was paying for historic preservation and the community at large should bear the cost of historic preservation, not the individual homeowner. Outstanding, meaningful incentives were included in the memo. He recommended that, by a date certain such as September 30, 1998, or mid-October, the meaningful incentives be incorporated in the interim regulation. A strong signal must be sent to the public that the Council was committed to incentives. He would be happy to walk as many streets in Palo Alto as necessary to get the job done as quickly as possible. Predictability and reliability were major concerns on the part of the public. In the longer term, issues that needed to be addressed included insurance. He asked for answers from the staff about insurance and whether the Council could work with the public to ensure adequate insurance for historic homes. The issue of no interest or low interest loans came up to preserve historic structures throughout the community. More work needed to be done in that regard. The issue of definition of demolition needed to be addressed. He asked for a response from the City Manager as to the creation of a staff process that was helpful and supportive of the public. Council Member Wheeler said the community had long prided itself on having very intelligent, articulate citizens. The City had encouraged and endured lively debate over a number of important community issues throughout the history of Palo Alto which was a proud tradition in Palo Alto, she did not want that to change. There were three items in the memo that she wished to elucidate on. First, the issue of incentives which was always an important part of permanent historic regulation. She expected additional incentives to be added to the list. Second, the of public information and communication. Many people had indicated to her that there was a fairly widespread misunderstanding of the interim regulations and much confusion between the interim regulations and proposals that had been made for permanent regulations. Terminologies and rules were mixed and matched. It was difficult
to keep that straight, but it was the City=s obligation to be helpful to people in doing that. Compliance with regulations could not be expected if the City was not clear up front on what the regulations entailed. A much better job needed to be done to inform the public of what the rules were before they brought plans into City Hall under mistaken assumptions. Third, the issue of the appeal process. When the City set out two years prior to adopting the interim regulations, one of the questions Council Member Fazzino had raised, was how the process could be made quick for applicants who owned structures that were deemed to be Contributing structures. Staff indicated to the Council at the time that they felt the most expeditious way was to have a ministerial staff review. That did not work in all cases the way the Council had envisaged. The Council injected in the Colleagues memo that if staff and an applicant got stuck, there was the right of appeal to
07/13/98 87-10
a public body which would bring the item to closure. That was an excellent idea which gave staff impetuous to work with applicants so staff decisions did not get appealed and gave applicants a sure way out. It was important to build into the regulations surrounding the appeal process a definite time table so people would know, when they submitted a completed application to staff, that staff had a finite amount of time to work with them. If that did not result in a mutually satisfactory decision, a hearing would be held within a certain period of time before the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and if that was not satisfactory, an appeal to the Council would be held. It would be similar to other types of design review ordinances already on the books and was fair for the applicant and others concerned in the process. She hoped her colleagues would support the provisions in the memo. Council Member Ojakian supported the continuance of the Interim Ordinance. The issue was a difficult one, causing high emotions among many people. The key question was whether there was a level of trust that people had in the Council and ordinance. He wanted to see a process where the community and the public would gain something by incentives. A portion of the structure should be retained, offset with possible development rights that were better than what the general public got which was a huge gain. Most people in Palo Alto would agree that Palo Alto had ambiance. The question was how to get people to maintain their homes. He saw no reason for fees unless there was a dramatic reason for fees. He did not want to see the City continue in a process that left a single person the sole decision maker. Some things in the staff report (CMR:300:98) were important, including the notion about the consultant, assistance for public outreach, and an ombudsperson. More public customer service should be provided while trying to speed up the process. A date certain of December 31, 1998, was a better situation. He was willing to agree to more resources toward increased staff that would be dedicated to getting through the study priorities and the inventory decided upon. He was supportive of a mediation process which in the end which would allow people to live with a decision even though they may not be in agreement. Vice Mayor Schneider asked the City Attorney what could be done with suggestions she had. Mr. Calonne advised Vice Mayor Schneider that suggestions, such as the appointment of a committee, needed to be taken care of in the final ordinance and were not appropriate in the interim ordinance. The Council could ask staff to agendize the committee concept. The proposal to change Contributing to voluntary was a proper discussion for the current meeting. At the end of May, he was asked to look at the legality of the spec home developer issue, but he was unable to tell the Council whether or not it was legal. He suggested the Council give him direction to return with a report, noting that he had received direction to research the issue but not
07/13/98 87-11
to include a regulation that changed the rules for a non-owner/occupant/builder. Vice Mayor Schneider said December 31, 1998, was suggested as the date the Interim Ordinance expired. She clarified that currently a Contributing structure required mandatory compliance with compatibility. Mr. Calonne said Contributing was a term in the Interim Ordinance. The Council gave direction that the Significant Resources would be subject to mandatory compliance with the preservation regulations. Staff had recommended that Landmarks be subject to mandatory compliance and that Significance Resources be subject to voluntary compliance. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified that Vice Mayor Schneider suggested that review of a home designated Contributing would be voluntary rather than mandatory. Vice Mayor Schneider said that was correct. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified that would be an appropriate revision to the Interim Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said that was part of the Interim Ordinance. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct staff to make several important amendments to the Compatibility Review Standards and the Ordinance to give applicants more flexibility; provision of additional information and training to applicants, amendments to the review process to streamline minor modifications and to allow appeal of staff decisions to the HRB and Council. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Schneider moved to amend the motion to require that the Interim Ordinance include the owner of a home designated Contributing could determine whether or not to submit to the compatibility guidelines. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Vice Mayor Schneider said there was discussion about individuals who received white cards stating they were Priority I or Priority II would receive a letter explaining what the cards meant. She asked whether a letter had been drafted. Ms. Fleming said she was not sure the City committed to sending out letters to clarify what the cards meant. There was discussion about that, and staff made the commitment that it would not send
out confusing information like that without an accompanying Αin-
English≅ explanation. She did not remember committing to going back retroactively.
07/13/98 87-12
Council Member Mossar said she was interested in having the Interim Ordinance replaced by a permanent historic ordinance at the earliest possible date and interested that the Council make sound public policy. The Interim Ordinance was functioning in different ways than the community wanted. AMENDMENT: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, that staff be directed to return on Monday, August 3, 1998, with information for Council that assumes the sunset date of the Interim Ordinance for December 31, 1998, with a final date of no later than June 1999, and that a matrix be prepared which sets the strategies and the cost benefits of the change in date. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER Council Member Fazzino said the Council needed to send a clear message to the public that the job would be finished and recommended the expiration date for the Interim Ordinance of December 31, 1998. The Council needed to hear what additional resources were needed to complete the job by December 31, 1998. It was essential that the community have that guarantee. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, that the sunset date be set for December 31, 1998. Council Member Kniss was concerned that the message being relayed was that the Council was going to extend the Interim Ordinance for an even longer period than was already. Council Member Ojakian said it was easier to set a goal and live up to it. Council Member Eakins said it might be simpler to set a goal, but she was not sure it was easier because the Council did not know what the tradeoffs were. The message she heard was that the Council would live with the tradeoffs. She would like the Council and the public to know what the tradeoffs were and let the public have a chance to tell the Council what they thought of the tradeoffs. Council Member Mossar said although she had sympathy and desire to see the Interim Ordinance finished by December 31, 1998, she would feel she abandoned the public who came to the Council two years prior saying their neighborhoods were being destroyed. What was put in place was not a moratorium but rather the Interim Ordinance. She asked the Council Members who wanted to give a strong message, to do so when staff returned with the requested information in order that the Council understood the consequences of its decision.
07/13/98 87-13
Council Member Fazzino said the proposal he suggested sent a clear message to the public that the Council wanted to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and move onto the permanent ordinance. Vice Mayor Schneider was not willing to give any more time to the matter. She would like to see the work done by September 30, 1998. Mayor Rosenbaum said the notion of changing the deadline for the Interim Ordinance without inquiring how staff would do what the Council told them in May was not the way to run government. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Fazzino, Kniss, Ojakina, Schneider voting
Αaye,≅ Huber absent.
Council Member Fazzino asked what staff=s intent was with respect to incorporation of the proposed incentives in the program. Mr. Calonne said the Planning Commission had the item initially scheduled for its July 27, 1998, meeting. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said it was scheduled for the July 27, 1998, meeting. Staff would discuss the process and a schedule. He would prepare a memo outlining what staff envisioned the schedule to be, and he hoped to obtain ratification of the schedule at that meeting. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved that staff report back to the City Council no later than September 30, 1998, regarding the progress made on incorporation of the incentive of the Interim Historic Regulations. Mr. Calonne said a December 31, 1998, date would be virtually impossible. One of the reasons the incentives were severed was the fact that they implicated the Zoning Ordinance, compelled the Planning Commission hearing process, environmental review, and then Council action. He would be irresponsible if he let the Council believe staff would be done before the end of the year. Mayor Rosenbaum understood the Colleagues memo as pointing out the incentives as items that should be ready for inclusion in the permanent ordinance when it came to the Council. The request for a report would be in order. Council Member Fazzino wanted a mid-course progress report. He wanted the community to have an opportunity to see what had occurred and what had changed to improve the process. Vice Mayor Schneider wanted to see the committee be formed soon and give the community the opportunity to ask questions. She did not believe the community had enough opportunity to express their needs.
07/13/98 87-14
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER Mayor Rosenbaum said that was an excellent idea which should be discussed when the Council devised how to resolve the issues over the permanent ordinance. Vice Mayor Schneider said she and Council Member Fazzino would write a memo regarding that item in order for it to be agendized for discussion. Ms. Fleming said staff tried to address in its memo to the Council that staff had given serious consideration to an extensive outreach program which staff planned to talk to the Council about on August 3, 1998. Which would be an element of the program. Mayor Rosenbaum suggested Vice Mayor Schneider discuss her ideas with the City Manager. AMENDMENT: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kniss, to request that the Planning Commission review and consider the possibility of providing low interest rate loans as incentives. Council Member Ojakian wanted to include low interest loans as part of the discussion of incentives. Mr. Calonne said the incentives were part of the permanent ordinance and the best the Council could do with the agenda that evening was to include broad direction to the Planning Commission, in its course of incentives, not to feel constrained by the list but to look to other suggestions that might arise. He was concerned about having a specific direction on incentives. His advice was to turn that into a broader instruction to the Planning Commission to consider any variety of incentives, including but not limited to, what the Council previously directed. The current meeting was not set up to analyze the pros and cons of different incentives. His concern was that someone would complain proper notice of the issue was not given. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether that was an issue for the Planning Commission. Some incentives were sent to the Planning Commission because the Zoning Ordinance required the Commission deal with them. There were other incentives the Council was interested in that would not go to the Planning Commission. He asked which category low-interest rate loans fell under. Mr. Calonne said the Council had to interpret its own action. He
did not interpret the Council=s action in March as evidence of any intention to take things away from the Planning Commission. He understood it to send what was legally required to the commission. If the Council did not want the Planning Commission to enter into certain incentive areas, the Council was free to give that direction.
07/13/98 87-15
Ms. Fleming said if the Planning Commission wished to recommend an incentive for the Council to study and take to Finance, the staff would do that. Council Member Mossar said the Council decided that low-interest loans would be part of the incentive package. It was not the
Council=s job at the current meeting to come up with a complete list of incentives. Council Member Ojakian said the Colleagues memo listed incentives with an indication that it should be sent to the Planning Commission. He did not want to lose the opportunity for them to look at a range of other incentives. It was important for the Planning Commission to determine incentives other than low-interest loans. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. Council Member Wheeler wanted the Council to give direction to staff indicating specific time frames for staff, HRB, and Council review, if necessary, when they returned with information on implementation of the appeal process Mr. Calonne clarified the Council intended to limit the time frame discussion to appeals only and not the processing in advance of an appeal. Council Member Wheeler said the time should be from the submission of the completed application. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it would be possible to include issues surrounding availability of insurance for historic homes as one of the items to be reviewed by staff during the following months. It was a potential incentive for people to move ahead and remodel their homes. Several people had commented that they were unable to secure insurance for historic remodels. He felt That should be included as part of the study. Mr. Calonne said the issue would probably be anecdotal; staff would have to talk to insurance brokers to find out the issues. The place it fit in logically was in the grounds for demolition and that the proposed permanent ordinance have economic and feasibility at the top of the list. Staff did not consider uninsurability, and it might be something viewed as an economic infeasibility issue. Mayor Rosenbaum suggested the item had to do with the implementation of the permanent ordinance rather than the Interim Ordinance, and he asked the City Attorney to prepare a memo directing staff to look into that in consideration with the ultimate permanent ordinance.
07/13/98 87-16
Council Member Kniss asked whether, in addition to the fees, there had been other charges made in any capacity such as consulting to homeowners who had applied under the Interim Ordinance for changes. She had heard indications that there were other cost incurred and asked that staff return with more information on August 3, 1998. In the meantime, she would get more specificity and suggested that people in the audience give information to Eric Riel or Ann Cronin Moore. It was unusual to bring a Colleagues memo to the Council with four Council Members listed. The four Council Members did not all stand in the same place on the issue, and it was unusual that they were able to agree on so many points. The move was unusual and unprecedented. She hoped that some progress had been made in moving toward a common ground. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Huber absent.
6. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Interim Historic Regulations) Shall Be in
Effect≅ (continued from 7/6/98) Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison made corrections to the staff report (CMR:300:98). The Background section indicated the Council
approved a recommendation. It should have read, Αreceived a
recommendation.≅ Page 2 indicated staff was proposing to bring
back ΑAmendments to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance,≅
not the ΑConsultant.≅ MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council approve the extension of the Interim Historic Ordinance to December 31, 1998, and to direct staff to return on August 3, 1998, with recommended amendments to the ordinance and revisions to the Historic Preservation Regulations and Compatibility Review Standards. Council Member Mossar was interested in seeing the Work Program and asked whether the motion meant December 31, 1998, or would the Council find itself extending the deadline again. Council Member Fazzino said his intention was that the ordinance would end on December 31, 1998. Council Member Mossar asked whether it would be better to make a decision as to when the Council would sunset the ordinance with the information that was needed to know what was feasible. Council Member Fazzino said the City Manager indicated she would bring to the Council what she defined as consequences, which he defined as resources or needs in order to accomplish what the Council wished to achieve by December 31, 1998. He believed that
07/13/98 87-17
clear direction from the Council would force the result the Council wanted to achieve, which was a Work Program and adequate resources to do all that was necessary to finish by the end of the year. Otherwise, the Council would be allowing the possibility for an open-ended process which created more aggravation and unpredictability and would undermine support for the critical elements of the program. Council Member Wheeler intended to commit for herself that the Council would not extend the Interim Ordinance again. A good, permanent ordinance would be in place. She did not want to be in a position where the work was conceivably not completed and the Council would have to extend the interim regulations. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Ojakian, to change the sunset date to March 30, 1999. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-2, Schneider, Fazzino "no," Huber absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Huber absent.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:50 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 4. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 4. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 7. Finance Committee Recommendation re Approval of the Basic Elements of the General Fund (Gf) Infrastructure Prioritization Methodology and Financing Plan MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the item to the July 20, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: 8-0, Huber absent. ORDINANCES 8. Request for Approval to Lease Space for Utilities Engineering Division on East Bayshore Road; Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Acquire This Space and Convert Civic Center A Level Space; and Authorization to Pursue Leasing Space for the Creation of a One-Stop Permit Center Susan Frank, President and CEO, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber enthusiastically supported the creation of a one-stop permit center, wherever the location might be. She
07/13/98 87-18
thanked Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison for her leadership on the issue. The concept of permit streamlining had been discussed for many years. The Chamber supported any action the Council might take that would improve convenience and efficiency and ultimately create a better customer service environment for the people who needed to go through the process. David Ross, 2712 Cowper Street, member of the Executive Board of
the Chamber of Commerce, supported the City Manager=s Office=s request for funding to establish a one-stop permit center. It was clear that the City Hall building had physical constraints that made the center infeasible. The Chamber agreed that an off-site location would be fine if it was handled appropriately. The need for the center was strong enough to support either a mini-service center as outlined in the staff report (CMR:307:98) or a full-service center. He strongly supported the full-service center. More decisions would be needed as to how to split resources, staff, time, and supervision to achieve the goals for a mini-service center. Mayor Rosenbaum said page 11 of the staff report (CMR:307:98) indicated the cost of the full center was $655,000 to $688,000 per year. The report also indicated that the amount could be afforded out of permit revenues, which suggested to him that there was an excess of permit revenues of at least $655,000 per year. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the numbers were being refined. In some parts of the permitting function, there were revenues which exceeded cost, but other parts were below cost recovery. It was possible that staff might be looking for some type of increase especially in the Planning Development fees, in order to support the rent. The numbers were on the high side in terms of the rent. The high limit was set based on market value both in the Downtown and Elwell Court. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified there might be increases in permit fees to cover the rent associated with the proposed facility. Ms. Harrison said she did not know at the current time if the rent could be completely covered. It depended on where the center was located. Council Member Mossar said the one-stop permit center was part of what the City would have to pay to achieve the type of public service goals the Council discussed earlier in the meeting. It would be expensive, but well worth it in the long run. She saw a one-stop permit center work in Pasadena which was very impressive. She looked forward to the day when Palo Alto had the same thing. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there was space at the Municipal Service Center (MSC).
07/13/98 87-19
Ms. Harrison said staff hoped the long-term space solution for the Utilities Department would be incorporated into the MSC Master Plan. There would be logistical challenges with locating a one-stop permit center at the MSC, but in terms of the Utilities consolidation, it might make sense in the long term. A seismic study and long-term work needed to be completed before ascertaining what would happen with offices at the MSC. Council Member Fazzino asked about the issue of a more centralized one-stop permitting center. Mr. Harrison said the vision for a solution to the long-term one-stop permitting would be incorporated into the Public Safety building solution. Staff wanted all the hearings, reviews and development functions in one location. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Authorize the Manager to execute the lease of 9,202 square feet at 1007 Elwell Court, for a term not to exceed 10 years and a rental cost of $2.35 per square foot triple net (NNN), plus $0.55 per square foot for support costs (taxes, insurance, janitorial, etc.) for a total annual cost of $320,250. 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance to: acquire leased space for Utilities Engineering in the amount of $385,775 to cover $303,100 in one-time relocation expenses and $82,675 in rent payments in excess of rent currently paid by Utilities Engineering to the General Fund; to create a new capital improvement project to relocate Level A archival storage at a cost of $47,500 to cover $32,500 in one-time renovation and relocation expenses and $15,000 in first year remote storage fees; and to reduce General Fund reserves by $184,200 due to a reduction in rental income paid to the General Fund by Utilities Engineering. 3. Direct staff to pursue leasing of space for the creation of a one-stop permit center subject to the parameters set forth in the following two options: a) up to 7,000 square feet in the Downtown at a per square foot lease cost not to exceed $4.50 NNN plus $0.40-$0.60 per square foot for support costs; or b) up to 14,000 square feet in an area of Palo Alto other than Downtown at a per square foot lease cost not to exceed $3.60 NNN, plus $0.40-$0.60 per square foot for support costs.
Ordinance 4508 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to: Acquire Leased Space for Utilities Engineering in the Amount of $385,775; to
07/13/98 87-20
Create a New Capital Improvement Program Project, Number 19921, Relocation/Consolidation of Level A Archival Storage, at a Cost of $47,500; and Reduce General Fund Reserves by
$184,200 Due to Reduction in Rental Income from Utilities.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Approval of Golf Course Improvement Project Financing Documents, and Authorization for Staff to Execute the Sale of an Amount Not to Exceed $8,600,000 in Certificates of Participation to Finance Golf Course Improvements Manager of Investments and Debt, Administrative Services, Jim Steele said there were some complicated procedures before the Council. In July 1997, the City Council approved a budget amendment ordinance that included funding for the construction of all the golf course improvements. Approval of the financing documents was before the Council that evening. Council approval was required in order to sell an amount not to exceed $8,600,000 in financing instruments through a competitive bond sale that was tentatively set for August 4, 1998. The exact amount would not be known until competitive bids were received. The amounts should be less given the favorable interest rates. Council was being asked to approve an outside not-to-exceed amount. The financing instrument that financial advisors recommended were called Certificates of Participation (COPS). The City used that mechanism in 1983 when it originally issued COPS to retrofit the City Hall garage. COPS were heavily used in municipalities throughout the state. In order to sell COPS, the City must set up and utilize a nonprofit financing corporation. For a more efficient financing process, staff had worked with the bond counsel to change the bylaws of the existing nonprofit corporation which was the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation. The Resolution recommended for Council approval at the current meeting included a clause that the City Council would take over being the Board of Directors of that corporation and accept its bylaws. Mayor Rosenbaum asked why the amount of the bonds was related to interest rates. Mr. Steele said an outside amount was presented to the Council. If interest rates went up, the bond reserve requirement and some of the issuance costs would go up as well. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Staff recommends that the City Council:
07/13/98 87-21
! Approve a Resolution Approving, Authorizing, and Directing Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents, Approving Official Notice of Sale, Approving a Preliminary Official Statement, and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. These documents include the acceptance by Council of the role as and duties of, the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation.
! Authorize staff to execute the sale of an amount not to exceed $8,600,000 in Certificates of Participation to finance golf course improvements.
Resolution 7778 entitled ΑResolution Approving, Authorizing, and Directing Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents, Approving Official Notice of Sale, Approving a Preliminary Official Statement, and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with
Respect Thereto≅ Termination of the Existing Lease between the City of Palo Alto and the Golf Course Corporation Property Lease of the Golf Course Site between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) Lease Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation Trust Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation, and U.S. Trust Bank National Association Escrow Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, Golf Course Corporation, and U.S. Trust Bank National Association Notice of Sale to the Investment Community Continuing Disclosure Certificate MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. 2. Staff recommends that the Council, acting as the Board of Directors of the Public Improvement Corporation:
! Approve a Resolution Approving, Authorizing, and Directing Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents, Approving Official Notice of Sale, Approving a Preliminary Official Statement, and
07/13/98 87-22
Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. MOTION: Board Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation that the Board of Directors of the Public Improvement Corporation approve the following Golf Course Financing Documents:
Resolution 98-02 entitled ΑResolution Approving, Authorizing, and Directing Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents, Approving Official Notice of Sale, Approving a Preliminary Official Statement, and Authorizing and Directing Certain
Actions with Respect Thereto≅ Assignment Agreement between the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation and U. S. Bank Trust National Association Property Lease of the Golf Course Site between the Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) and the City of Palo Alto Lease Agreement between the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation and City of Palo Alto Trust Agreement between the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation, City of Palo Alto, and U.S. Trust Bank National Association MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Appointment to Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle Advisory Body MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve
the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee=s (PABAC) recommendation to appoint PABAC members Amanda Jones and Martin Clinton as representative and alternate to the Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Advisory Committee. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Rosenbaum announced that Menlo Park Mayor Chuck Kinney would be holding a meeting on Saturday, July 18, 1998, at the City Hall Fireside Room. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
07/13/98 87-23
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.
07/13/98 87-24