HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-22 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting September 22, 1998
1. Resolution 7796 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation of the Palo Alto
Police Reserve Officers for Their Outstanding Service≅ 87-166 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-167 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................87-167 2. 425-435 Sheridan Avenue, 440-460 Page Mill Road: Application by BK Ltd, Palo Alto, LLC for City Council Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Merge and Resubdivide a 1.06-Acre Parcel into 35 Air Space Condominiums, 97-Sub-1, 97-EIA-10...87-167
4. Resolution 7797 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution Nos. 7729, 7744, 7751, 7771, and 7792 to Correct the Control Point for One Planning
Classification≅ .......................................87-167 5. 1999 League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions......................................................87-167
6. Resolution 7798 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for Federally Funded City Transportation
Projects≅ .............................................87-167 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ..................87-167 7. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-168 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Council will consider an application by Jeff Levin for a Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create 12 residential condominium units on a 41,253 square-foot parcel for property located at 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane..................................................87-168
09/22/98 87-164
9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide Additional Appropriation of $542,223 to Acquire Leased Space and Cover Associated Support Costs for a One-Stop Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue...................................87-168 10. Cancellation of the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Bicycle Path Project..................................87-185 10A. (Old Item 3) Request of Property Owners of Tract 714 and Portions of Tract 4738 for Consideration of Single-Story Overlay Zoning in a Portion of the Barron Park Neighborhood87-193 11. Council Members Fazzino and Ojakian re Extension of Building Permit Expedition for Flood-Related Construction and Extension of Fee Waiver for Flood Damage Repair.................87-195 12. Mayor Rosenbaum re Cancellation of the September 28, 1998, City Council Meeting..................................87-198 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-198 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m............87-198
09/22/98 87-165
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, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 7796 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation of the Palo Alto
Police Reserve Officers for Their Outstanding Service≅ MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Vice Mayor Schneider said as a Downtown merchant, she had worked with the reserve officers. The loyalty and dedication of the officers were noted, with thanks. Reserve Captain Robert Longwell, a reserve officer for 12 years, thanked the City for recognizing reserve officers who had exhibited an extreme level of energy, pride, and professionalism over the years. Reserve officers shared in a commitment to make the program the best, in the pride of accomplishment, and to bring the highest level of police services to the citizens of Palo Alto. Council Member Kniss asked whether reserve officers were compensated. Police Chief Patrick Dwyer replied yes. However, reserve officers were not compensated at the same level as regular officers. In prior years, legislation had been passed to raise the standards for reserve officers. A reserve officer was required to have the same academic training as a regular officer; and as a trainees, a reserve officer was also required to accompany a regular officer on patrol for many hours. Palo Alto's reserves went through as extensive a background and training program as regular officers, which was a credit to the reserve officers. The reserve officers program was a great partnership which had led to a great deal of problem solving. Council Member Kniss appreciated Chief Dwyer's comments and the reserve officers' service to the community.
09/22/98 87-166
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Iris Kriegler, 1607 Channing, representing Duveneck Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding extending dumpster privileges to flood victims. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of June 29, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins "abstaining." MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of July 6, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum "abstaining." MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of July 13, 1998, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "abstaining." CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, with Item No. 3 removed by the Mayor at the request of a member of the public. 2. 425-435 Sheridan Avenue, 440-460 Page Mill Road: Application by BK Ltd, Palo Alto, LLC for City Council Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Merge and Resubdivide a 1.06-Acre Parcel into 35 Air Space Condominiums, 97-Sub-1, 97-EIA-10
4. Resolution 7797 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution Nos. 7729, 7744, 7751, 7771, and 7792 to Correct the Control Point for One Planning
Classification≅ 5. 1999 League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
6. Resolution 7798 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for Federally Funded City Transportation
Projects≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
09/22/98 87-167
City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 3 would become Item No. 10A. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
7. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: William C. Lewis v. City of Palo Alto, et al. Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Council will consider an application by Jeff Levin for a Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create 12 residential condominium units on a 41,253 square-foot parcel for property located at 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane (Item to be continued to October 5, 1998, at the request of staff) MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the item to October 5, 1998. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide Additional Appropriation of $542,223 to Acquire Leased Space and Cover Associated Support Costs for a One-Stop Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue City Manager June Fleming said the staff report (CMR:368:98) represented the culmination of over four years of work and many more years of accumulating responses and critiques regarding the City's process for issuing permits. The issue was not unique to Palo Alto and had been addressed statewide for businesses and residents. City governments tended not to pay attention to streamlining and making the process easier. Making adjustments or entering into new construction was, in itself, a daunting process. As city government officials had acknowledged, A city government's responsibility was to make the process as easy as possible while ensuring restrictions and ordinances were in place. Over the years, as regulations had moved from simple to complicated and voluminous, staff began to work on various facets of the process and had enjoyed the cooperation of private industry members. A great deal of staff work and cooperation from such places as the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) and the community had resulted. The time was past due for putting together a proposal to
09/22/98 87-168
address a way to emphasize customer service. Staff's recommendation for a permit Development Center was an improvement over what was currently available. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said the permit center had been one of the major items contained in improvement recommendations for the City. Customers had repeatedly indicated the need for an improved process. The staff report (CMR:368:98) was not meant to represent the end of improvements to the permit streamlining process. Having the permit processing staff located in one place would allow the City to take a fresh, new look at how and why things were done. Continuous improvement was a commitment the City had made to its customer-working panel. Staff sought the Council's support bringing the concept of a permit center into reality. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said staff was excited about continuing to improve permit streamlining and was looking forward to the opportunity to improve customer service in terms of working with other staff members, e.g., Public Works, Fire, and Planning Departments, in one location. In conjunction with the future implementation of a permit tracking system, staff would continue to improve customer service to the citizens of the City. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats spoke regarding the issue of cost recovery, which had been briefly mentioned in the staff report (CMR:368:98). No new revenues were projected from the Development Center. The Council had adopted a policy of 100 percent cost recovery for inspection services, which had been accomplished since implementation in 1991. As part of relocating to the Development Center, new costs would be allocated to the
Building Division=s inspection services for rental of the facility in the amount of approximately $200,000 annually. The increase in cost would reduce the Building Division's cost recovery by approximately 5 percent. Staff estimated costs for inspection services at approximately $2.4 million and projected revenues at approximately $2.2 million. Therefore, an increase in revenues of approximately $200,000 was required to close the gap in cost recovery. Staff proposed to evaluate the true costs, both direct and indirect, associated with inspection services as part of the update of the Uniform Building Code targeted for winter 1998-99. However, some lag time would occur between the opening of the Development Center and the update to the Municipal Fee Schedule, as proposed. The information was approximate, as the final plans for the Development Center were incomplete. Staff would also review the revenue generated by the planning and fire permitting activities in the Development Center. If costs failed to meet with the Council's approval of cost recovery, staff would return with changes as part of the 1999-01 budget process. Ms. Fleming said over the past two years, her opinion had been that departments could no longer function effectively independent from one another, but that all City groups needed to work together as a
09/22/98 87-169
unit to provide services to the community in an effective way. Permit issuance was a typical example of how customers were unable to visit one location to obtain a permit. Staff members needed to be brought together as a team in order to provide the service in a cost-effective, efficient, customer-service manner. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether development centers in other cities were located within city hall or elsewhere. Ms. Fleming said the concept of taking development centers off site or in one place was not new. The decision quite often was determined by the age of the facility in which city governments resided. In older facilities, such as Palo Alto's, integrating the concept of one-stop permit issuance within the facility was impossible. A number of city governments had been built during the time the one-stop concept was being developed and were adjusted accordingly. Although some of the newer government buildings had incorporated the one-stop process into the building, space had to be expanded to accommodate the conglomerate of personnel into one single area. Older buildings were unable to accommodate the new process. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the janitorial cost was normally combined with overhead costs. She noted that janitorial cost was a separate item and extremely high. Manager Real Property Bill Fellman said the cost had been separated because the City would provide janitorial service and was not included in the lease. Vice Mayor Schneider thought the electrical service, estimated between $700 to $800 per month, was very low considering the size of the space and the amount of equipment being operated. Ms. Fleming said the amount was staff's best estimate. Mr. Fellman said the cost was based on a prorated share of the building when Caldwell Banker had inhabited the site. Council Member Huber asked about the net cost, which would be removed from General Fund money. Mr. Yeats said all of the money to fund the Development Center would come out of the General Fund. As revenues were increased to offset the increased expenditure, the cost would still come out of the General Fund but would be offset by fees paid by customers.
Council Member asked about the Αnet loss≅ to the General Fund=s current revenue. Mr. Yeats said the amount was $383,529 annually as seen on Page 7 of the staff report (CMR:368:98).
09/22/98 87-170
Council Member Huber thought the amount would increase per square foot per year. Mr. Yeats said Council Member Huber was correct. Council Member Huber asked how the City could increase revenues without affecting the public. Mr. Yeats said the rent being paid would be a direct cost of permitting and under cost recovery; revenues would have to be increased. Some of the increase would not be offset by permit fees and would result in a reduction, overall, in General Fund revenues. Council Member Huber asked whether staff had information of the cost and how much the reduction would increase each year. Mr. Yeats said on an annual basis, once fees were adjusted, the City would be able to recover about $200,000 in increased fees. Excluding the portion transferred to Utilities, a net decrease in revenues would be seen of approximately $159,000 per year. Council Member Huber asked what would be done with the space remaining in City Hall. Mr. Yeats said staff had been considering how staff would be moved around and used for other planning activities. Ms. Fleming said the City staff Space Planning Committee had been working for the past year and a half on space needs Citywide. City Hall had been unable to accommodate the needs of the Planning Division, therefore, the majority of the remaining space would be absorb by the Planning Division. Staff hoped some of the Planning personnel who were temporarily moved out of City Hall to another facility could return to City Hall. Council Member Huber said one of the reasons the City needed the Development Center was because of the booming economy. Because there was no guarantee the economy would continue to improve, he asked whether staff had an alternative plan for the future. Mr. Fellman said the City was committed for eight years and three months. However, the City could assign or sublease the space. Council Member Fazzino said over the next several years, the City would consider a new Public Safety Building (PSB) possibly resulting in additional space in City Hall. Staff proposed rejection of alternative space Downtown which cost less largely because of a five-year versus eight-year commitment. The five-year commitment alternative appeared more consistent with the City's own plans with respect to a PSB because the City might have additional space in City Hall in five years.
09/22/98 87-171
Ms. Fleming said the issue was much more complicated than just the number of years. The issue was one of site, size, compromises to force-fit, and the uncertainty that in five years the City would be able to move back into City Hall. A great deal of time would be necessary to resolve the issue in terms of providing space for the safety administration. The Council had not made a policy decision as to whether or not City Hall would be expanded for a PSB, moved to another building, and, if so, where. If staff waited until the decision was made to move the Development Center forward, the City would be in almost a chaotic situation in terms of providing services. With the facilities available for a shorter period of time, staff would face severe space constraints and other connections to make the facility work, making the option unfeasible. One of the more positive aspects of the eight-year commitment location was the proximity to City Hall and connections for Utility, telephone, etc., which were extremely expensive the farther away from City Hall the facility was located. Council Member Fazzino asked how close the other space was located to City Hall. Ms. Fleming said the options had all been within one or two blocks of City Hall, but the eight-year commitment location was the closest and easiest to connect. Council Member Fazzino clarified the issue of size was as significant an issue with respect to the alternative site as the issue of five versus eight years. Ms. Fleming replied yes. Staff had spent considerable time visiting other sites, and the configuration of the space available was almost as important as the size of the space because of the flow and orientation for visitors to the location. Another consideration was being able to accept and deposit funds. Council Member Fazzino asked about the front lobby area of City Hall which, although relatively small, was the space most accessible to the public. Recognizing the significantly reduced space, he asked whether staff had considered moving Human Resources or other functions currently on the first floor to other floors, or the option of using a smaller staff on duty in the Development Center, relying to a greater degree on the fiber optic Internet system to move documents back and forth, and having staff people sitting in current locations as opposed to all being located in the Development Center. Ms. Fleming said staff had considered Council Member Fazzino's suggestions. The Citywide task force had considered the lobby in City Hall, but the square footage was insufficient. Another need in City Hall was being considered for the lobby. The configuration of the lobby was also unsuitable for the Development Center. Staff
09/22/98 87-172
reductions and the use of technology had also been considered. As wonderful as technology was; however, no technology was sufficient to eliminate people. Council Member Fazzino had not suggested eliminating people or jobs but having people remain in current locations and sharing information electronically. Ms. Fleming said staff was using as much technology as possible, but there came a point where the interface was necessary. Technology was being used to the maximum but was not a panacea. No city had been able to integrate technology to any great extent. Staff had also considered other ways of doing business. As costly as the proposal before the Council was, it was a wise investment even though not the ideal one-stop permit center. The proposal contained compromises. Given the reasonable funding, the optimum utilization of technology, and realizing the inflexibility of City Hall, the recommendation was the best proposal. Council Member Kniss asked about the issues of functioning more adequately, saving time, and providing better service. Ms. Fleming said patience and tolerance was wearing thin not only for permit applicants but also for staff. The public had made its desires very clear to avoid making so many trips, standing in line, etc. Customer service would increase tremendously because almost every place a customer had to go would be found in one location. Staff often needed to consult with one another. The change would be a drastic improvement. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Planning Division had the most number of visits of any City department. Ms. Fleming replied yes. The move to a Development Center was a huge philosophical shift for Palo Alto. Department heads were accustomed to having control over people in their departments. The Development Center was another move toward the team approach. Department heads would have to establish accountability and responsibility and have staff work with people from other departments, ensuring the focus was on serving the public and not keeping an organizational structure in place.
Council Member Kniss said regardless of the Development Center=s cost, service was being emphasized more than anything else. Even though there was a cost associated, being able to interact more easily would result in a more streamlined plan of coming to conclusions, resulting in faster delivery. Ms. Fleming said Council Member Kniss was correct. Council Member Eakins asked about the compromises.
09/22/98 87-173
Ms. Fleming said ideally, the location would have more space, more automated systems, more staff, and more computerization. Council Member Eakins asked how large the facility would be. Ms. Fleming said 6,212 square feet. Council Member Eakins asked whether the facility contained "breathing room." Ms. Fleming said staff had tried to be conscious of breathing room. Although more space would be nice, the space was functional, would provide a good atmosphere, and was an efficient use of available space. Council Member Eakins had hoped for the capacity for separate counters or tracks for homeowners unfamiliar with the process. Ms. Fleming said staff's goal was to establish an interview process for every applicant from the beginning in order to understand the applicant's needs. People would be treated according to individual needs rather than whether they were a resident or developer. Mr. Herman said staff intended to provide materials for all individuals to direct and explain what was necessary. Regarding a separate lane for residential projects or homeowners, the Council had reviewed a report from the customer service working panel, which had requested an express lane for heavy-use repeat customers, and the Council disapproved it. The Council wanted all customers treated equally. The process would be easier, simpler, and more understandable for everyone, including staff. Council Member Ojakian asked for an explanation of the total cost of the operation over the life of the lease. Mr. Yeats said staff had not calculated the cost. During the eight year period, the approximate reduction in General Fund revenues would be about $2.2 million. Because of the speed with which staff had put the lease together, the calculations had not been done for full cost recovery over the life of the lease. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the 10 percent increase per square foot was against the base of the first year or incremental over each year. Mr. Fellman said the amount was 10 cents per square foot and was on the base, so every year it would increase 10 cents per square foot. Council Member Ojakian clarified the amount was in excess of $3 to $3.5 million. Mr. Yeats said Council Member Ojakian was correct.
09/22/98 87-174
Council Member Ojakian asked about the difference between a process and a location and whether alternative approaches had been considered. Ms. Fleming said a number of efforts had been simultaneously explored. Staff had not just been looking for space, but varieties in the permit process, and other processes which made the issuance of permits happen. Staff was in the process of refining many of the changes and seeking other automated methods of performing the process. Staff was unsure where the most state-of-the-art center was located. Larger centers were located in cities where the process had been in place for some time. Some had started with great promise and were just clearing out the bugs. Staff was trying to benefit from the experiences of other cities. The process would have to be adjusted. Mr. Herman said Palo Alto was unique in its ability to include utilities into the process. Staff had considered treating the utilities the same way other cities treated PG&E, but found it was a benefit being able to locate water, gas, and electric utilities in one center. He had observed permit centers nationwide. Sunnyvale's permit center had been open since 1984 and had just completed an expansion remodeling because of the need for newer processes and more people. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff had found examples without a physical plant or where only technology was used. The issue was a flow of information through the process, which would not necessarily require a physical plant. Mr. Herman said Palo Alto would use both a physical plant and technology. In prior staff reports, staff had explained how it had examined technology, process, systems, and facilities, all of which would be incorporated. The other big item was the permit tracking system, which was also in process and previously funded by the Council. Council Member Mossar asked whether departments would receive benefits in terms of staffing or space in addition to the clear benefits to the public and staff in the Development Center and permit streamlining. Ms. Fleming said the Council had been informed about the under staffing of the Planning Division. If staffing requirements were met, space would be needed to house the additional employees. As the City moved toward realization of a safety building, fire personnel would be moved in with one-stop and would not have to be accommodated other places. Other areas of the City such as Revenue Collections, etc., were at the maximum and might see some relief by consolidating people in one place.
09/22/98 87-175
Council Member Wheeler said staff had spoken in gross numbers concerning the increase in fees to partially offset the cost of running the Development Center. She asked whether an analysis had been performed on the impact to individual applicants, i.e., increases in applicant fees by 5 to 20 percent. Budget Manager Gigi Harrington said staff had considered a 10 percent revenue increase overall in Building Inspection. Staff had not discussed how the increase would be applied but had some ideas. Mr. Herman said staff was in the process of discussing the issue. The 10 percent was one way, but staff wanted to consider other alternatives such as new sources of revenue not currently being collected, more than an across-the-board approach, etc. Ms. Fleming said the City was currently examining cost recovery goals and fees, so the increase fell at the right time. If the gap was extremely large, staff would consider returning to the Council prior to budget time, but staff wanted to be able to include the increase in with the other budget processes. Council Member Wheeler asked whether building permit fees had remained stable over the past five years. Ms. Fleming thought the last time an adjustment had been made in building permit fees had been over two years ago. Council Member Wheeler asked for a comparison between how much time an applicant currently spent to process an application versus how much time would be saved with the one-stop center, particularly in relation to the aspect of possible tradeoffs between paying a somewhat increased fee and not having to suffer the consequences of delays, since presumably the one-stop center applications would be processed more efficiently. Mr. Herman said staff was currently backlogged. As many permits as possible were handled over the counter. The goal for second level or express plan checks was 10 days, but the current wait was 4 to 6 weeks. Plan check consultants had also been turning down staff because of backlogs. Currently, mailroom deliveries took three days to move a plan from one department to another. With the advent of a one-stop Development Center, plans would no longer need to be shipped by mail between departments, saving time. Staff was committed to meeting the 10-day goal for express permits, 30-day goal for residential permits, and not more than six weeks for commercial and new construction. Council Member Wheeler asked how backlogged the City was for the somewhat larger items. Mr. Herman said the majority of residential and commercial applications went through an outside plan check, running 30 to 45
09/22/98 87-176
days for the first check. Occasionally, an application was involved in a re-check, but that was out of staff's hands. Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff was far enough along in the permit tracking system process to know the magnitude of cost. Mr. Yeats said staff was not far enough in the process. The costs ranged from $480,000 for the most complex system to approximately $50,000. Staff sought a middle-of-the-road system to accommodate optical imaging, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), work flow process management for the Development Center, and a module for Code Enforcement tracking. Staff estimated costs in the range of $200,000. Mayor Rosenbaum said the staff report (CMR:368:98) assumed at some point a new PSB would be seen and the Development Center could move into the existing public safety area. The Council had yet to make such a decision, having only asked staff to examine possibilities. Ms. Fleming was aware the Council had made no policy decision and had given staff instructions to thoroughly explore all possible locations for a PSB. The timing for the Council to make the policy decision about the PSB was far into the future while a real urgency to address the needs related to the Development Center existed. The options for what the City needed were not often available and were hard to find. If staff waited until the Council made a policy decision regarding the PSB, the City would have waited too long. The entire community had been very patient, but the permit process could not remain as it was currently handled forever. The down side was if the Council decided, and staff recommended, to keep the PSB in City Hall. A decision would then still have to be made concerning the Planning Division and the Development Center. If the City waited too long, the customer service aspect of the permit process might not be salvageable. Such good opportunities seldom came along. Staff had considered proceeding with the option as a wise move. If the Development Center could not be returned to City Hall at a later time, course corrections could be made. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether Ms. Fleming had any qualms about the staff recommendation to lease the most expensive space in Downtown Palo Alto. Ms. Fleming said after years of searching for a solution, staff had found nothing better. Staff had not come to the Council with the recommendation lightly. Staff would never be 100 percent sure; but given the current conditions and the problems the City faced, she was confident the space was not the most expensive and was the best option. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing.
09/22/98 87-177
Vince Dauciunas, 2351 Emerson Street, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the one-stop Development Center which would result in a number of tangible, economic benefits over time. Support was also given to moving forward with the permit tracking system for a tighter ability to identify and control projects. R. Theodor Kusiolek, 211 Hope Street, Mountain View, had created the digital town hall initiative for the City of San Jose which had become the Bay Area Smart Permitting Jurisdiction System, a premier choice in numerous cities in the permit area. Cutting-edge technology was currently available. He encouraged the Council to jump-start approval of the automated permitting process. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the system mentioned by Mr. Kusiolek was currently functioning. Mr. Kusiolek said the system was housed in various locations in the Bay Area and was a mature product at the point of being implemented in the City of San Jose. Council Member Ojakian asked whether Mr. Kusiolek had presented the program to City staff. Mr. Kusiolek replied no. He had seen the newspaper article and had been excited to encourage the City to move ahead with the project. Serving constituents properly was important and a revenue generator for the City. Council Member Ojakian asked about the support staff necessary to make the system work. Mr. Kusiolek said an assessment was necessary since every city had different demands. The City of San Jose, as well as other cities, had made permit streamlining a major priority. Ms. Fleming said she and Mr. Kusiolek had spoken frequently and she would pursue the issue. Staff would not disregard any suggestions to anything and she would stay in communication with her counterpart in San Jose. Susan Frank, 325 Forest Avenue, President of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of permit streamlining and the Development Center. Staff was commended for making the center a reality. The location was ideal in its proximity to City Hall. Any economic change in the area would not change the need for customer service and efficiency. The Council was urged to approve the staff recommendation. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the Chamber had any qualms about the City renting some of the most expensive space Downtown.
09/22/98 87-178
Ms. Frank said the Chamber had been at the same staffing levels at one location for about 10 years and were completely maxed out given the technology and needs. One of the problems the Chamber faced was the cost of rent Downtown. She had no qualms. She knew what rent in Downtown cost, and the price the City would pay for the Development Center was reasonable. The investment would pay off. Many members of the business community had already expressed a willingness to pay increased fees for better service. The City could not afford not to move forward with the center. Mark Johnson, 3242 South Court, Varian Associates, stated that he had seen the permit process from a variety of perspectives, and supported the creation of a one-stop center. The Development Center and streamlining process would move the City a giant step forward in achieving the ultimate objective outlined by the working panel a few years ago, e.g., the ability to guarantee a reasonable permit processing time to applicants prior to submission of a package, even if it cost more to the applicant, primarily because of the savings in construction costs. John Northway, 437 Lytton, supported the staff recommendations. The current system no longer worked with the increased volume in the construction industry. Staff worked hard but were overwhelmed by the process. Obtaining a building permit in Palo Alto was a very intensive, human interaction process. The new goals would save applicants a tremendous amounts of money in processing time which was important. Council Member Huber asked whether Mr. Northway's clientele would be willing to pay for the service. Mr. Northway said although he would not want to advocate increasing fees, the reality was that the fees applicants were paying for outside plan checking was much greater than a 10 percent increase in current costs. Plan checking currently took four to five months for residential projects and sometimes six months for commercial projects. The system was very complicated. An application could be sent to another department besides Building Inspection and sit because no one was specifically assigned plan checking duties. If a staff member in the Utilities or Public Works Department was dealing with some other problem, a plan could just sit. Being able to talk with all of the departments at one time was an enormous service to avoid cross-conflicts, plans returned unapproved, or plans sitting in someone's in box. No one wanted to pay additional fees, but many homeowners faced the same problems as businesses trying to get loans and contractors lined up. If permits failed to be processed in a timely fashion, it was very disastrous. Every single person coming in for a building permit would be helped. Council Member Kniss asked how the process would make a difference not only in allowing the public to have access to every department
09/22/98 87-179
in one spot, but also having the department staff able to contact each other immediately. Mr. Northway said the change would make an enormous difference. He gave an example of a specific application which sat in the Planning Division for an entire month because the department was overwhelmed with Sand Hill Road and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). The problem was having staff doing double duty, no matter which department. Having one person solely responsible for processing permits was an enormous step in efficiency. Staff was overwhelmed by the volume. Having all interested departments in one room working on the plans at one time would save a tremendous amount of time. Brad Lopacinski, 3050 Hansen Way, had been involved in the process improvement team as well as the permit streamlining effort for a number of years. Staff was commended for their long, arduous work. The Development Center was a necessary part of the improvement process. Support was given to a continued effort for improvement, including established turnaround times, improved department-to-department communications, plan checkers at the counters for more over-the-counter plan checks, an expanded self-help area, and common code interpretations by all departments. Randy Okomura, 345 Hamilton Avenue, said Pacific Bell was interested in the permit process, with over $128 million and over 51 miles of fiber optics invested in Palo Alto. Laying a simple cable in south Palo Alto had taken nine months because of the need to have the Utilities and Building Departments communicate. The Council was urged to approve the staff recommendation. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the Council's policy direction for 100 percent cost recovery, not 95 percent exclusive of allocated administrative costs cost recovery mentioned on page 8 of the staff report (CMR:368:98). A large number of the City's permit applications were handled by an outside plan checker. Consideration should be given to City staff vacancies or the need for more positions to handle plan checks in house to change the balance. City government permit functions actually had two customers: the permit applicant and the general public, querying whether the information and records the public might need could be handled at the Development Center. Copies of applications sent to outside plan checkers should be kept in house and additional space should be considered for storing plans. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council: 1. Direct staff to implement a Development Center
09/22/98 87-180
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the lease of 6,212 square feet at 285 Hamilton Avenue for a term not to exceed eight years and three months and a rental cost of $3.95 triple net (NNN) per square foot, plus $0.70 per square foot for support costs (property tax, insurance, assessment, building maintenance, gas, water, sewer and garbage) for a total annual lease cost (i.e. rent plus support costs) of $346,630, not including electricity and janitorial services. 3. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $542,223 from the Budget Stabilization Reserve and Utilities Funds to cover one-time moving, furniture, equipment, security deposit and network hook-up costs ($311,537) and eight months of expense in 1998-99 for lease payments (i.e. rent and support costs of $231,086), electric utilities ($7,000) and janitorial services (&17,600).
Ordinance 4523 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide Additional Appropriation of $542,223 to Acquire Leased Space and Cover Associated Support Costs for a One-Stop Development
Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue≅ Council Member Kniss said a number of concerns had been expressed by the Council. She noted that since 1989, more complaints had been expressed about the Planning Department and how permits were handled in Palo Alto than almost any other. Service in the permit area was one of the most problematic issues the City had dealt with for a long time. Regardless of what direction the City took as far as the overage and cost, the amount of service being provided would make a difference. The difference might not be measurable, but it was inherent in what was being proposed. Although having to pay premium rents was disappointing, the time was right to address the problem. Staff had done a good job. In the interest of providing good service, which had gone wanting for some time, it was time to move forward, at least in concept. Council Member Wheeler had mentioned in her State of the City Address some time ago, the City's immediate anticipation of a one-stop permit center and tracking technology implementation. She was pleased to see the item come forward on an agenda. The Council had asked a number of questions and expressed a number of concerns. She knew staff agreed the concerns the Council raised were legitimate ones of which staff would be mindful. She still had a concern about the potential increases in permit fees. The business community fully backed the institution of the center and agreed that there would be increases in fees which might be appropriate for large projects and contractors. However, she was concerned about burdening smaller projects such as a homeowner wanting to modernize a bathroom or kitchen. The fees should not outsize the
09/22/98 87-181
size of the project. As much as the City needed to implement the second piece of the Development Center with the permit tracking system, she was mindful that regardless of any amount of technology the City put in place in the permitting system, it should remain a people-oriented process. People-to-people contact was the greatest asset of the Development Center. Council Member Huber thought eight years was too long for the lease. He felt the lease should be shortened or some means of recovering the cost should be found. Considerable costs currently incurred should not be incurred if the process was accelerated. As part of the process, some means of recovering the additional costs should be found over the eight years, e.g., staggering costs, etc. Eight years prior, the City had been trying to figure out where to cut services. The future eight years were unknown and the City might be stuck with a "lemon" of a lease. The $400,000 per year could finance a great deal of police officers or playground equipment. He supported the motion as long as the issue of cost recovery was addressed. Council Member Kniss asked staff to come up with an appropriate amendment to the motion to address Council Member Huber's concerns. Mayor Rosenbaum asked Mr. Yeats to justify his figure of $1.2 million over eight years rather than eight times $400,000 over eight years or $3.2 million. Vice Mayor Schneider wanted to hold staff to the time frame of 10 days for express permits, 30 days for residential, and six weeks for commercial. She agreed with Council Member Kniss that the Council had heard more about the issue of permits than any other. The staff recommendation was a step in the right direction toward permit streamlining and easing the overcrowding in City Hall. The location's expense reflected the cost of doing business in the Downtown area and reflected the convenience of one-stop shopping. She had concerns about a possible downturn in the economy which could affect development in the community and the need for a one-stop center. Currently, Downtown saw near zero vacancies in commercial spaces. After examining the staff report and the basics of the lease, the City could easily sublease the building. No property in the Downtown area over the past ten years or more had decreased and $.10 per square foot was reasonable. Council Member Fazzino was advised by the City Attorney that he had a potential conflict of interest on the item due to a new interpretation of the State Conflict of Interest law by the Fair Political Practices FPPC. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff was not aware that Hewlett Packard (HP) would take an advocacy stance on the matter. A line of the FPPC decisions suggested an employed government advocate for a company had a conflict of interest on matters where his/her
09/22/98 87-182
company took a position before the body. Given HP's support for the proposal, notwithstanding the fact that it should affect everyone else in town equally, it was prudent for Council Member Fazzino not to participate. Staff could not have known of the situation until Mr. Dauciunas spoke. Council Member Fazzino's stance was distinguishable from Council Member Ojakian and Kniss by virtue of his employment as a governmental affairs representative. Council Member Fazzino clarified his position as being responsible for HP's state and local government affairs activities across the country, although he would not participate in anything involving Palo Alto. Individuals reporting to him had responsibility for working with the City. Council Member Eakins said the financial concerns that had been raised were legitimate. She was interested in two main areas of optimism for which the Development Center would produce improvement, one being customer service. She had heard from individuals and professionals in the development business that just waiting in City Hall's cramped areas was difficult. The atmosphere even seemed chaotic at times, which she hoped would improve. A matrix could be established from the time the application was completed to the time the permit was issued for different kinds of projects. A follow-up after six months of operation was also desirable. Council Member Mossar said the location staff had proposed was key to the sense she had from colleagues that the Development Center be a service to the public. Having the facility located three blocks away from City Hall would not accomplish the primary goal. By having the Development Center located across the street from City Hall, not only could the public park in the City Hall garage, pay a Utility bill, apply for a permit, and tell Ms. Fleming what a good job staff was doing, but also everything would be better integrated. Staff would function better by being in closer proximity to City Hall. Had staff not recommended a facility adjacent to City Hall, she would be asking hard questions as to why not. Council Member Ojakian would not support the motion, not because he thought the City was not in need of improvement in the streamlining process. In prior statements by people active in Santa Clara County (SCC) on the matter, he had come to realize Palo Alto was one of the few cities in the area without one-stop shopping. From the information received that evening, both from the public and staff, he saw what he considered a process that was not working, i.e., people running up and down stairs or shuffling paper around, which could be dealt with in process manners. The organizational set up was not feasible because what was needed was a team approach. He was troubled with the location, which was in one of the highest rent areas in the Bay Area if not the Country. Not only could the City spend over $3 million, the cost might exceed $4
09/22/98 87-183
million when the location was outfitted. Nothing was ideal or necessary in having the location Downtown, especially since all types of permits would be handled. A more central location might be more beneficial if it was not near City Hall. The length of the lease was also troubling. He had been responsible for leasing commercial spaces in the past with shorter term leases containing renewal clauses giving the ability to extend the lease, if necessary. Eight years was a very long lease. Separate from the PSB, other issues about relocating staff might provide options in relieving personnel in City Hall, not necessarily through the staff recommendation. Thirdly, he had heard staff say and others note that the set up was not ideal. The City was betwixt and between, not having the size necessary on the one hand because of the focus on remaining in the Downtown area. He had always taken the financial approach that a one-time cost during good economic times was acceptable, but an ongoing cost over time should be questioned because of the impact on parks, etc., which were just as valuable. He was also concerned with the somewhat conventional approach being taken. The product Mr. Kusiolek mentioned would not just track permits but move information around in a way that expedited the process. He was unsure whether the City would obtain what was desired by creating a one-stop center in the Downtown area. Mayor Rosenbaum would not support the motion. Staff's recommendation seemed to be aimed at acquiring additional office space in City Hall and was less about the interest in a Development Center, although he acknowledged there was some attractiveness to the idea. Comments made by members of the development and commercial community related to the process, as Council Member Ojakian suggested. He felt that when the City, as a center of technology in Silicon Valley discussed fiber optics and telecommuting as a way to enhance communication within the City, that the expenditure of $400,000 per year to relocate staff in one site because staff was unable to communicate and transfer documentation between departments in a timely manner because they were housed on a different floor or offices was unfeasible. Clearly the proposal would be more attractive if staff had polled people who would be using the service whether they were prepared to pay $400,000 in fee adjustments, so as not to affect the City's bottom line. With $400,000 per year, the principal and interest at current interest rates of $6 million worth of infrastructure improvements could be paid, i.e., bonds worth $6 million could be floated to pay $400,000 per year. He was more inclined to consider such an expenditure if he was to spend $400,000 per year. Ms. Fleming suggested wording for an amendment to the motion. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the Council approve the lease and direct staff to conduct an analysis and recommend changes in fees to achieve full cost recovery as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code and to
09/22/98 87-184
make appropriate changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule before the opening of the Development Center. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Ojakian, Rosenbaum "no," Fazzino "not participating." RECESS TO A CLOSED SESSION: 9:18 P.M. - 9:49 P.M. The City Council recessed to a Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 7. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that City Council took no disclosable or reportable action regarding Agenda Item No. 7 during the Closed Session that evening. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 10. Cancellation of the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Bicycle Path Project Council Member Mossar noted she would not participate in the item due to her employment with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Council Member Ojakian noted he would not participate in the item because his spouse was employed by PAMF. Acting Chief Transportation Official Ashok Aggarwal said the staff report (CMR:362:98) for the Embarcadero Road bicycle/pedestrian bridge and bicycle path project contained two corrections. Page 6, second paragraph, should read, "As shown in Attachment I," not "Attachment A." The second correction was under Resource Impact, second to the last sentence should read, "The City would forego $437,056 of state and federal funds," rather than $592,316. Staff had provided a memo at Council's places to keep the attachments consistent with the body of the staff report. The project had a long history, which began in 1983 with the advent of state and federal funds for completion of a feasibility study for the bicycle path alignment. Since that time, the scope of work and related issues had grown and changed. The project was to construct a 4,800 foot bicycle path from Churchill Avenue to University Avenue, with related signage, striping, fencing, and lighting. Construction of the new pedestrian bridge across Embarcadero Road was also included. The bicycle path passed through properties owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), the PAMF, and Stanford University. As part of the PAMF project approval, PAMF was required to build a segment of the bicycle path from its property just north of Encina to University Circle. The design of the portion of the bicycle path from Churchill Avenue to PAMF's property line north of Encina, including the new bridge over Embarcadero Road, was completed by the City in May 1996. However, the Council had rejected all bids which had come in 50 percent over the engineer's estimate and the available funding. Since May 1996, several developments had
09/22/98 87-185
occurred, including but not limited to: 1) a decision to postpone construction of the bridge until funding became available; 2) only pursue construction of the bicycle path portion of the project; 3) negotiations with the JPB to use the existing railroad bridge as an alternate connection; 4) objections by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to using the existing bridge; and 5) strong opposition by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (the railroad union) regarding the use of right-of-way. Staff was making recommendations related to the primary recommendation to cancel the project. The two key issues for Council's consideration were: 1) the overall estimated cost of the project, which currently far exceeded the funds available for construction; and 2) an equal, if not greater importance, that track by railroad unions which continued to vigorously oppose the use of the railroad right-of-way for construction of the bicycle path. Even if additional funding became available, opposition by the railroad union might remain. The PUC, railroad unions, and Federal Railroad Administration representatives had been notified of the project and several changes made. Nevertheless, one railroad union continued to oppose the project and had indicated several times that a formal complaint would be filed with the PUC should Palo Alto begin construction on the project in the JPB right-of-way. In that case, the PUC would stop the project until a hearing could be conducted, which would be time consuming, very expensive, and require additional staff and financial resources. The project estimated a shortfall of approximately $380,000. A connection could be made through Palo Alto High School, which had been explored in 1996, but the alternative had not been revisited since there was no guarantee the PAUSD would agree, given the concerns of 1996. If the bridge over Embarcadero Road were considered, an estimated shortfall of $671,000 was expected. Since mid-1996, the City had applied for state and federal funds to make up the shortfall in project twice. However, both times the project had not qualified for additional funding. Staff had applied for Federal funds. Currently the project appeared to be scoring reasonably well within Santa Clara County (the County), but staff would not know until later how it would compete with other projects or whether it would even qualify for additional funds. Since staff had amended construction of the path from Churchill Avenue to the PAMF property line, the path north of Encina would be canceled (shown in black). There was currently no need for the PAMF to construct a segment of the bicycle path on the property south of the Northerly Connection. However, PAMF would build a portion of the path to provide connection from the Northerly Connection to University Circle to travel to and from the north. Council Member Huber asked whether the PAMF was responsible to
provide easement and build the path in the Αred≅ portion. Mr. Aggarwal replied yes.
09/22/98 87-186
Council Member Huber asked whether staff suggested to no longer hold the PAMF to the agreement to build the path. Mr. Aggarwal said staff wanted to maintain the easement for future construction by the City. Council Member Huber asked why the City would not instead suggest the commitment be kept for ten years, should the City obtain the funding, and still have PAMF participate. Mr. Aggarwal said the only concern was if and when Town & Country Village were redeveloped. At that point, there would be pressure to complete the bicycle path at least to Embarcadero Road. There was no certainty as to whether that would happen. The Council could add the condition suggested by Council Member Huber. Council Member Huber said holding the PAMF to the obligation would not hurt the City or cost PAMF anything, particularly if the City was fortunate enough to obtain funding. Mr. Aggarwal understood. Mayor Rosenbaum asked about the original project, which called for a bridge over Embarcadero Road. Mr. Aggarwal said the original project consisted of construction of a bicycle path from Churchill Avenue to just past Encina Avenue, including a bridge over Embarcadero Road, to connect the two ends of the bicycle path. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether any problem had existed with the JPB or railroad in connection with that approach to the bicycle path. Mr. Aggarwal replied yes. The problem had not been with the JPB but with one of the railroad unions. The union had not objected to construction of the bridge. The unions and PUC staff were opposed to the use of the existing bridge which connected the two ends of the bicycle path. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the original proposal contemplated using the original bridge. Mr. Aggarwal said the original proposal had not contemplated using the existing bridge. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the original proposal had caused any problem with the JPB or railroad unions. Mr. Aggarwal said when the staff first went through the bid process, it had encountered no problems with the JPB or PUC.
09/22/98 87-187
Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the City would currently have a completed bicycle path without problems with other jurisdictions if in 1996 it had decided to come up with the additional $300,000. Mr. Aggarwal said staff was unsure the unions had been aware of the bicycle path at that time. The City had had all necessary easements but had been short of funds. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the union or JPB objection was associated with anything other than the use of the existing bridge. Mr. Aggarwal said the union was absolutely opposed to allowing the City the right-of-way. The section from Embarcadero Road, behind Town & Country to PAMF property line was the problem area. Mayor Rosenbaum confirmed the problem was not just the bridge. Mr. Aggarwal said Mayor Rosenbaum was correct. The section in question was approximately 1,200 feet in length. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, spoke in opposition to abandoning the bicycle path project, particularly with the number of additional trips the PAMF would draw to the area. Completion of the path would allow bicycle trips from residential areas beyond Churchill Avenue, thus avoiding travel on busy El Camino Real. If the Council voted to abandon the project, the application for the new funds from the Transportation Bill for $800,000 to benefit the project, would be killed. The Council was asked to place the project on hold, so staff would not spend additional resources to keep options open. A substantial fence had been proposed to appease the union, but the union was still not satisfied for fear more people would be attracted to the tracks. David Jury, 300 Homer Avenue, Real Estate Manager for PAMF, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. If the project was canceled, the Council was asked to consider a change to the PAMF's portion and condition of approval. The question of whether to place the item on hold for a period of time was very difficult since plans had been drawn, decisions made, and PAMF could not wait for another six months. The question of waiting for ten years and then funding the path begged a basic fairness issue. PAMF had already set aside a sizeable sum for an underground crossing of the railroad tracks, payable in some future date should the City decide to move forward with that project. The bicycle project easement had been required of the PAMF as the access to the PAMF property from the CalTrain station. No other access had been acceptable to staff at the time. PAMF had various recommendations and ideas for paths at a lesser cost while accomplishing the same thing, but because the bicycle path would be built, PAMF had to be part of the bicycle path and, therefore, had to build a portion. PAMF sought
09/22/98 87-188
some relief. If the bicycle path was not going to be built, the portion past the entrance to the PAMF to the end of the project should not be built. PAMF was willing to provide the City with an easement to be built in the future. The Council was urged to provide PAMF with some relief. Edward R. Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, spoke in favor of completing the bicycle path, at least as far as Embarcadero Road, to avoid bicyclists having to ride on El Camino Real to PAMF. A few years prior, a group had wanted bicycles on trains and all the unions and JPB had objected. After convincing the JPB and unions to at least try bicycles on trains, the train became proud to announce bicycles were allowed on trains. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. Council Member Kniss explained that part of PAMF being given the new site had been the bicycle path easement and contribution by PAMF. She asked what was required to put the project on hold or remain in the PAMF agreement for 10 years. Mr. Aggarwal said several issues would be raised by placing the item on hold. TDF funding would expire within three years. Approximately $195,000 of TDF funding from over three years had been expended on the project and each funding cycle ended after three years, with $95,000 left for authorization. Sacramento originally wanted to be involved in the project. However, since no activity had occurred since 1996, Sacramento was ready to take the money back. City Manager June Fleming said that if no action was taken, and the project placed on hold, some funding would be in jeopardy and current funding might not be available in a few years. Council Member Kniss had been surprised that staff recommended canceling the project. She asked about funds that would be lost if the project was abandoned. Mr. Aggarwal said approximately $437,000 in State and Federal funds would be lost. Council Member Kniss clarified $437,000 would be lost if the City failed to proceed. Mr. Aggarwal replied yes. Council Member Fazzino thought the City had not lost the funds since the funds had not been spent. Council Member Kniss said the City would be unable to spend the funds if the project was abandoned.
09/22/98 87-189
Mr. Aggarwal said the funding was on a reimbursable basis. The City would not lose any money out of pocket. The money would have to be spent out of the City's funds before being reimbursed. Council Member Huber asked where the state and federal funds would be used if not used in Palo Alto. Mr. Aggarwal said the funds could be used anywhere within the nine Bay Area counties. Palo Alto could compete again for the project. Council Member Huber clarified the funds would remain in the Bay Area. Mr. Aggarwal said not necessarily. The funds were not guaranteed and were bid for on a competitive basis. Mayor Rosenbaum asked why the City would not want to continue to pursue the project, waiting for the union to appeal to the PUC, and going through the process on the chance that Palo Alto would prevail. Mr. Aggarwal said staff would have to proceed with further design of the project, which had been substantially modified with PUC staff to satisfy some of the PUC, Amtrak, and union concerns. Therefore, the City would lose money in the design. Additional funds would also be needed because of the necessity of crossing Embarcadero Road either by constructing a new bridge or going through Palo Alto High School, both of which had cost implications. Even if the project began, the City faced the risk of having a formal complaint filed. Once construction commenced and the union found out, the City might have over a year of processes to ensure resources. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the City had to break ground before a formal objection could begin rather than a formal evaluation before the PUC prior to starting construction. Mr. Aggarwal said the union had no reason to file a formal complaint until the City acted. The PUC had no procedure to handle such issues. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the City could apply a monetary value to the staff suggestion that PAMF be forgiven part of its obligation. Mr. Aggarwal said staff would have to consider the question. The proposed PAMF portion of the path was 500 feet long by ten feet wide along with the associated fencing, landscaping, and lighting. Council Member Eakins said the City had known it would have a large regional center when the PAMF was approved, with the bicycle path being part of the circulation plan for approval of the project.
09/22/98 87-190
Mr. Aggarwal said Council Member Eakins was partially correct. However, PAMF would build a part of the bicycle path. The portion from University Circle to the Northerly property line was on the list of conditions. The remainder of the path started from just north of Encina Avenue to the northerly property line, which was the one the City required be built as part of the process. Council Member Eakins said there were two issues. Bicycle paths which were continuous through the community and the specific access to the new PAMF project. Although related, there were two purposes. Mr. Aggarwal said that the portion spanning from the south property line of the PAMF to approximately the north property line of the PAMF, had been negotiated as part of the bicycle path. He indicated the portions that the PAMF would be building as part of the circulation plan. The circulation plan was part of the extension. The reason staff required PAMF to build this portion as part of the package with JPB, was because it was a private development. The portion that ran along the right-of-way was shifted from JPB to private property. Council Member Eakins asked whether there were any alternatives to providing the through trips for bicycles. Mr. Aggarwal said a gap would exist where bicyclists would have to use El Camino Real or Palo Alto High School. Council Member Eakins asked whether the bicycling community had provided any input on the path. Mr. Aggarwal said the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) had indicated a desire to see the path and project completed but understood the concerns. Council Member Ojakian announced he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Huber asked whether the City had some means of getting the process through the PUC without having to go through further design and ground breaking to get a challenge from the railroad union. City Attorney Ariel Calonne was not aware of anyway to do so. If the City anticipated such a challenge, it would be anticipated in the contract to minimize exposure to damages to the contract. The process had to begin before the City was assured it would see a challenge. Council Member Huber asked what constituted "beginning."
09/22/98 87-191
Mr. Calonne was unable to say from a technical jurisdictional standpoint. He was unsure the PUC would be concerned how far along the City was in the process but would assert continuing jurisdiction over any operation within the right-of-way whenever and however it was built. Council Member Huber said Mr. Aggarwal had expressed concern about a possible challenge before the City spent a lot of money. Mr. Calonne was unsure how to force the issue prior to spending some money. Exposure to a contractor could be minimized while the challenge was being resolved. The City had, at various times, lobbied the PUC to the extent its ex parte rules allowed, which was an option as well. Council Member Kniss was not pleased with the staff recommendation and sought an alternative. The arrangement had been negotiated in the building permit with the PAMF, which was somewhat problematic as well. She was more troubled about the long-term commitment to bicyclists in the City. She asked whether the item could be placed on hold for six months while staff pushed the PUC to obtain some sense about whether such incidents had occurred in the past. Ms. Fleming suggested taking no action at the current meeting except to refer it back to staff to explore options for dealing with the issue along with the cost implications. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to refer the item back to staff to explore alternatives and return to the Council early in 1999 with options including the costs associated with each option. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He struggled with the issue. On the one hand, it was viewed as a very important public policy objective to link the bicycle path to Menlo Park, CalTrain, Southgate, and the southern part of the City. The safety issue had always been a vexing one for the City. Although he wanted to move ahead with the path, he was not unsympathetic to the letter written by the railroad union. Comments by the legislative representative regarding tragic and near tragic incidents involving individuals near or on the tracks was something the City and the PUC needed to take into account. He wanted to better understand exactly how the PUC might weigh the issue based on similar experiences across the state. The PUC might change dramatically in six months and become more sympathetic to unions, making it more difficult to obtain support and oppose a union position. The proposal was a good one. He wanted to move forward with the project, if possible, but the City should evaluate whether or not the safety issue was one that represented too much of an obstacle. As far as the PAMF, the City would treat PAMF fairly. Extensive negotiations had been held over the past seven years. If the City continued to be committed to the bicycle path, it should preserve the conditions. If not, he could
09/22/98 87-192
think of other ways in which the PAMF could provide mitigation for its new site. Council Member Huber supported the motion. There was no reason the City should not also be dealing with the union, since that seemed to be the major concern raised. Alternatives with fencing, etc., had been proposed with no subsequent response from the union. He was not as concerned about maintaining the funds, since other communities could make use of them. He asked when the staff thought the item would return to the Council. Ms. Fleming said the staff would return to the Council in approximately three to four months. Council Member Huber believed maintaining some tie with the PAMF by way of an easement and commitment, even if the City decided not to move forward with the project, was important and part of the development agreement. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian "not participating." 10A. (Old Item 3) Request of Property Owners of Tract 714 and Portions of Tract 4738 for Consideration of Single-Story Overlay Zoning in a Portion of the Barron Park Neighborhood Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the request was for initiation of a single-story overlay for Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738, surrounding La Jennifer Way in Barron Park. Action on the overlay zone itself was not anticipated, but whether or not to initiate the overlay. If initiated, Planning Commission review would occur on October 14, 1998, returning to the Council on November 16, 1998. Staff had identified a few issues with the application, one of which was the size of the overall area, the fact it was 20 lots, and whether or not it constituted a neighborhood pursuant to the guidelines for single-story overlays. The second issue was whether the size of the lots qualified for mid-size and were called out in the guidelines as 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. A memo at places discussed letters included in the packet, which addressed other single-story overlay zones for two different tracts located off Charleston Avenue. The memo also provided the location of the neighborhood of Blossom Park, which was the area along Ruth Alma Drive. A single-story overlay had been initiated for the small neighborhood in 1997, adjacent to a larger single-story overlay neighborhood in place for a year, and contiguous to that neighborhood. A minor correction was found on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:369:98) which referenced "Meadow Park," but should have read "Barron Park." Staff recommended the overlay zone be initiated so residents could express their concerns and desires. Council Member Fazzino had heard from a number of residents about the issue, and several people might have come prepared to debate the merits of the issue. He wanted to be clear the Council was
09/22/98 87-193
merely sending the item back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations to be returned to the Council in October, at which time debate and discussion would be held with a final decision forthcoming. Ms. Grote said Council Member Fazzino was correct, except the item would return to the Planning Commission in October and to the Council in November. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. James Witt, 925 Roble Ridge Road, spoke regarding the petition which had circulated throughout the neighborhood. The petition which had been started because of fears of a monster house spoiling privacy. Two-story houses had never been planned for the site, only one-story. Single story houses were described as being more difficult to build, used more land, and were more costly to build. The issue was one of privacy, which could be addressed with such things as windows removed from second floors, glass blocks for windows, trees planted, moved mass of second floor away from property lines and setbacks, etc. Single-story overlays could force existing deed restrictions and bring zoning rules into line with restrictions, but the property under question was different. Greg Shepherd, 683 Driscoll Court, spoke regarding the inappropriateness of the overlay concept in areas such as Barron Park for accomplishing what the neighbors were attempting to achieve. A design review process was encouraged for two-story homes to ensure the needs of individual homeowners were considered and protected, rather than a blanket non-two-story assignment to a segment of homes. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. Council Member Wheeler said the point Council Member Fazzino made in his opening remarks was that the Council's action was to allow such discussions and debates to take place before the Planning Commission and again to the Council. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council initiate and refer to the Planning Commission consideration of a single story overlay zone for the R-1 single family area in a portion of the Barron Park Neighborhood. Council Member Eakins thanked the members of the public who had spoken. The issues raised were ones more appropriately aired in the Planning Commission setting. She had always voted in favor of initiating the process since it was the only protection people could be offered at the current time. The issue was being explored in other parts of town and in other situations and was becoming more controversial. She hoped the public would listen to each other and explore the issues carefully to make the best possible
09/22/98 87-194
public record on how to move forward with more single-story overlay zones, if that was the case, or some kind of design regulation for issues of privacy and neighborhood compatibility. Vice Mayor Schneider thanked the members of the public who called and came out to speak. The issue had been removed from the Consent Calendar. because it was a good exercise. It was important to keep the public advised that items appearing on the Consent Calendar had further opportunities for discussion. MOTION PASSED 9-0 COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Members Fazzino and Ojakian re Extension of Building Permit Expedition for Flood-Related Construction and Extension of Fee Waiver for Flood Damage Repair City Manager June Fleming noted she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted he would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. Vice Mayor Schneider noted she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest.
Council Member Fazzino=s understanding of the conflict of interest law was that if something impacted an appreciable percentage of the community, then people who had been impacted by the incident or had a relationship to the action before the Council should be able to participate. The fact that the City Manager and City Attorney were unable to participate in an issue such as the one on the floor was absurd. City Manager June Fleming said normally the Assistant City Manager would have addressed the item. She was unavailable, however, and would review the tape as soon as possible. If something about the Council's actions were urgent, the Senior Executive Assistant would perform the work. Council Member Fazzino thanked Council Member Ojakian who had agreed to place the item on the agenda along with him. The proposal was to extend the ordinance which had expired a few weeks prior with respect to expediting building permit applications for flood-related conditions and extending the fee waiver for flood damage repair. The flood on February 2 and 3, 1998, was, hopefully, a once in a century incident. A number of people in the community had been heavily impacted, if not devastated, by the flood. In an effort to assist individuals in rebuilding their lives, City staff and the Council had taken a number of actions with respect to City services to make it easier for individuals to
09/22/98 87-195
rebuild their homes and get on with their lives. In at least one case, individuals whose homes were heavily damaged by the flood had decided to take the opportunity as a result of the damage to make extensive renovations to their homes. Since extraordinary damage had been caused by the flood, the extensive renovation of the home should be treated no differently than minor repairs associated with the floods. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the recommendation that the Council direct staff to:
! Continue to expedite the building permit process for those residents affected by the February floods another six months (to expire March 31, 1999).
! Broaden the scope of the special consideration in expediting the building permit process to include not only flood repair work, but also additional, more extensive work, the timing of which is prompted by the need to repair flood damage. This work may entail additions, or home demolition and replacement.
! Draft a resolution for adoption of the Council to extend the waiver of building permit fees for the repair of flood damage for another six months (to expire March 31, 1999). Council Member Ojakian said twenty-five homes had already taken advantage of the permit process and approximately 400 homes had been damaged. Several people had indicated they had not started construction for various reasons. The need was pressing. He said there was clear indication from people in the community for the need to continue the process. He hoped the City considered what had been raised during oral communications and how dumping fees or dumpster situations were handled. He had received telephone calls informing him that some people had just begun to unpack items packed during the flood and realized the articles had mildew or water damage. The situation was extraordinary and the City should do whatever it could to help people restore their lives to normal. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified the intent was for a waiver of building fees for that part of construction associated with flood damage, i.e., if there was $20,000 worth of work associated with the flood but someone was doing $200,000 worth of work, only the work associated with the $20,000 was excused. Council Member Fazzino replied yes, but the entire proposal would be expedited. Council Member Mossar asked about expediting the process for significant renovations on historic homes.
09/22/98 87-196
Council Member Fazzino assumed current historic rules would apply but if damage was caused by the flood, the application would be expedited. Council Member Mossar asked whether such an historic application with flood damages would appear on the Historic Resources Board (HRB) calendar more quickly than some other application. Council Member Fazzino thought so. Council Member Mossar thought language should be included to make it clear that historic homes were not being exempted from the historic regulations. Council Member Fazzino was willing to do so as long as not dealing with a natural disaster situation which had eliminated the historic nature of the property, which was a separate issue. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. David Flamm, 758 DeSoto Drive, spoke in agreement with the comments previously made by the Council Members. After a long delay due to insurance adjusters, he had been able to file for a building permit on August 6, 1998. However, in spite of the fact the original resolution included collection of fees for repair or reconstruction made necessary by the flooding, the Building Division decided that the damage to his home was too extensive to fall under the resolution. As a historic structure with 50 percent "significant" damage, he was being required to elevate the structure two feet and was too extensive to fall under the resolution. Because of the expense to elevate, builders had indicated it was cheaper to demolish and rebuild. Prior to the flood, he had planned to add a family room, so the elective element was also added. He urged the Council to take into consideration the issues and appreciated any assistance the City could provide in returning his family to its home. Peggy Stevenson, 758 DeSoto Drive, spoke in support of expediting permits for flood damaged structures and appreciated any help the Council could offer through the resolution. Raymond Herbert, 2339 Sierra Court, spoke in support of extending and enlarging the prior resolution. The delays which had occurred on the part of many homes which had not been rebuilt or remodeled was not intentional. In some instances delays were due to the permit process. Extra bills were being paid by flood victims in having to rent elsewhere, making expediting even more imperative. The Council was also urged to include the suggestion by Iris Kriegler, made earlier in the evening, when she called the Council's attention to reimbursements for debris bins, rentals, suspension of landfill disposal, and utility relief.
09/22/98 87-197
Council Member Wheeler asked whether Mr. Herbert knew how many people were in similar circumstances to him and Mr. and Mrs. Flamm. Mr. Herbert estimated that there were approximately 50 percent or more still not in their homes and were in various stages of repair or rebuilding. He was not aware of any house where nothing had been done. Many of the homes that had not been reoccupied had not even applied for permits. Council Member Wheeler said the crux of her question was how great the time frame should be, i.e., whether six months was sufficient time. Mr. Herbert estimated that of the people who were still displaced from their homes, another 50 percent or so had not received permits. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the intent of the motion was not to exempt historic homes from historic regulations. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider "not participating." 12. Mayor Rosenbaum re Cancellation of the September 28, 1998, City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of September 28, 1998. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Rosenbaum noted that Millie Swan, former administrative secretary to three Palo Alto city managers, passed away on September 21, 1998. Vice Mayor Schneider noted that Mark Werry Childress, whose family was among the earliest settlers in Palo Alto, passed away on September 19, 1998. Council Member Wheeler noted that Cynthia Reader Wilstein, member
of Palo Alto=s Disability Awareness Task Force, passed away on September 18, 1998. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. in memory of Millie Swan, Mark Werry Childress, and Cynthia Reader Wilstein.
09/22/98 87-198
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.
09/22/98 87-199