HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-15 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting March 15, 1999 1. Interviews for Human Relations Commission Appointments88-107 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.............88-107
1. Resolution 7840 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Patricia
Dentinger Upon Her Retirement≅ ........................88-108 2. Community Development Block Grant Program Community Development Week Proclamation.........................88-108 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................88-108
3. Approval of the City of Palo Alto=s Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, Second Edition 1999........88-109 4. Approval of a Blanket Purchase Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Cameron-Newell Advertising, Inc., for Recruitment Advertising Services......................88-109
5. Ordinance 4550 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $71,098 Grant from the Public Fund of the State Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Service Department of $71,098"..............88-109 6. An Amendment to the 1998-99 Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Consolidated Plan=s Action Plan to Add Acquisition of Palo Alto Gardens Apartments at 648 San Antonio Road as a Project and to Incur Project Costs Prior to the Award of 1999-00 Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG).....88-109 7. 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan......88-112 8. Approval of the Sale of Below Market Rate Unit at 922 Bautista Court and Uses of Sales Proceeds; and Authorization to Amend Below Market Program Administration Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation........88-120
03/15/99 88-105
9. Mayor Fazzino, Vice Mayor Wheeler, and Council Member Huber re Art Center Architectural Study and Master Plan........88-120 10. Mayor Fazzino re the Cancellation of the March 22, 1999, Regular City Council Meeting..........................88-121 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........88-121 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.............88-121
03/15/99 88-106
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 5:50 p.m. PRESENT: Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Schneider SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Human Relations Commission Appointments No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
03/15/99 88-107
Regular Meeting March 15, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 7840 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Patricia
Dentinger Upon Her Retirement≅ MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Schneider absent. Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy said the Resolution summarized
Ms. Dentinger=s contribution to the City and the Library. She had expertise in development of the adult library collections in the natural sciences; provided reference support including transferring the once paper, now electronic, database for frequently asked, local and global questions; oversaw the local documents collection and annually obtained pertinent information from Council packets for cataloging as part the permanent library collection or passed on the information to the Historical Association as part of the
City=s records, and had expertise with in-person service at five of the six libraries. Many Palo Altans knew Ms. Dentinger personally and could testify to her good work. Ms. Dentinger said she was honored to work for the City of Palo Alto which had a wonderful library staff. She enjoyed the library patrons and the new technology which had been an experience for her. 2. Community Development Block Grant Program Community Development Week Proclamation Vice Mayor Wheeler presented a proclamation to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Coordinator Suzanne Bayley. She thanked the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee members and the staff who worked year-round on the process. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
03/15/99 88-108
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding a Palo Alto-Stanford Heritage (PAST) slide show. T.J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding case studies suggesting need for Internet public records documents which can be searched for using key words at Alma Street Water Tower site. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding political responsibility. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 5.
3. Approval of the City of Palo Alto=s Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, Second Edition 1999 4. Approval of a Blanket Purchase Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Cameron-Newell Advertising, Inc., for Recruitment Advertising Services
5. Ordinance 4550 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $71,098 Grant from the Public Fund of the State Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Service Department of $71,098" MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Schneider. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. An Amendment to the 1998-99 Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Consolidated Plan=s Action Plan to Add Acquisition of Palo Alto Gardens Apartments at 648 San Antonio Road as a Project and to Incur Project Costs Prior to the Award of 1999-00 Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG). Cathy Siegel, Planning Division Housing Coordinator, said on November 23, 1998, the Council adopted a Resolution authorizing a commitment of $1 million in City housing funds to assist Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation (MPHC) with the acquisition of the Palo Alto Gardens Apartment complex. Since then, MPHC secured
approvals for the other components of the project=s financing plan. The prior week, MPHC received its allocations for the projects $11 million tax-exempt bond issue and the housing tax credits. Under the purchase agreement with the seller, MPHC must close escrow on the apartments by the end of May; however, it intended to acquire the project in April. If possible, staff intended to return to the Council with the funding and loan documents on the April 5, 1999, Council agenda. Because the City loan funds must be provided
03/15/99 88-109
during the current fiscal year, the Council was being requested to approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund the $1 million City loan on an interim basis with Housing Reserve funds. Staff was proposing $275,000 from the Residential Fund and a $725,000 interfund loan from the Commercial Fund to be appropriated for the
interim loan. The Council=s decision on the permanent source of funding for the loan would occur at a later time as part of the public hearings and decisions on the 1999-00 CDBG budget. CDBG Funding hearings with the Finance Committee would begin April 6, 1999, and conclude on May 10,1999 with a Council hearing. In order for the City to expand funds for the Palo Alto Gardens project during the current fiscal year and to provide for the possibility that the next years CDBG funding would make up a portion of the
permanent funding for the City=s loan, Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)required the City to amend its current year=s 1998-99 Action Plan to add Palo Alto Gardens as a project. HUD
approved the City=s proposed amendment to the Action Plan in its March 5, 1999, letter in Attachment A of the staff report
(CMR:172:99). HUD=s approval was subject to completion of the public review period which ended with the public hearing that evening. Council Member Huber clarified that the Council needed to go through various machinations in order to meet the time frame to purchase the property and retain it as low-cost housing. Ms. Siegel said yes, because of the constraints of the purchase agreement and the necessity to close the deal quickly to minimize any hazards of escalating interest rates on the bonds. It was necessary for the project to move forward as soon as possible in the current fiscal year, but decisions on the permanent mix of the funding needed to be made as part of the normal CDBG allocation process. If the Council appropriated the CDBG funds for the permanent funding mix, those funds would be received from HUD after the start of the fiscal year in July 1999. Council Member Mossar said the letter from HUD listed some required
conditions. The second bullet stated ΑCitizens will be advised of
the extent to which preaward costs will effect the >99 and future
CDBG grants.≅ She thought it might be useful for staff to state what those impacts would be. Ms. Siegel said currently, it was not possible to give a dollar amount because no decision had been made by Council as to how much CDBG funds, if any, would be allocated to the Palo Alto Gardens project. Staff ran a public advertisement in the newspapers describing the proposal to amend the Action Plan to add Palo Alto Gardens as a project. MPHC applied in December 1998, through the
City=s normal application process, which was reviewed by the CDBG
03/15/99 88-110
Citizens Advisory Committee. There was public notification and discussion through the hearings of the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee about that application and the possibility of CDBG funds being used for the project. Council Member Mossar clarified the City would be clear with the public about the impacts at the time the decisions were made about the actual funding. Ms. Siegel said yes, through the Finance Committee recommendations to Council and the Council discussion in May 1999. Vice Mayor Wheeler opened the Public Hearing. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, representing the League of
Women=s Voters of Palo Alto, thanked the staff for the tremendous job done on the complicated financing arrangements and the Council for its continued support for affordable housing. Vice Mayor Wheeler closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1) Hold a public hearing in accordance with Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) regulations and
the City=s CDBG Citizen Participation Plan to receive
public comments on a proposed amendments to the City=s
1998-99 Consolidated Plan=s Action Plan to add the acquisition of the Palo Alto Gardens Apartments by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) as a project activity in the 1998-99 Action Plan without a decision at the present time on the amount of CDBG funds to be allocated to the project; and 2) Adopt the Amendment to the 1998-99 Action Plan as submitted to HUD on February 17, 1999, as a condition of
HUD=s approval of the expenditure of local housing development funds for the Palo Alto Gardens project prior
to the award of the City=s 1999-00 CDBG grant by HUD; and 3) Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance to appropriate $1,000,000 in City Housing Reserve Funds for the acquisition of the Palo Alto Gardens Apartments with the sources of funds to be appropriated on an interim basis as follows:
Χ $275,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu (Residential) Fund; and
03/15/99 88-111
Χ $725 to be loaned from the Commercial Housing In-Lieu (Commercial) Fund to the Residential Fund; and 4) Direct staff to prepare a funding agreement and loan documents for the $1,000,000 in City funding to the Palo Alto Gardens project and return for Council action on April 5, 1999.
Ordinance 4551 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 of $1,000,000 to Supplement the Acquisition Costs for the Palo Alto Gardens
Apartments at 648 San Antonio Road≅ Vice Mayor Wheeler said it had been a long journey, and Palo Alto Gardens was a project that the City and the sponsors could be justifiably proud to accomplish as it was a worthy goal. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 7. 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan City Manager June Fleming said the Comprehensive Plan
Implementation Plan was another step in staff=s effort to thoroughly integrate the Comprehensive Plan into the planning within the City. Assistant Planning Official James Gilliland said since July 1998 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, staff, including representatives from all the departments, were working on a plan for Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan (the Implementation Plan). Given the large number of programs, that represented a formidable task, and the Matrix attached to the staff report (CMR:167:99) was the result of that work. The Matrix was reviewed by the City boards and commissions and by the Planning Commission during several meetings. The Planning Commission, after much discussion and detail review, determined it would be better to provide advice to the Council by establishing overall priorities for implementation rather than trying to second-guess the details and the Matrix. Staff believed an excellent job was done with regard to synthesizing the implementation priorities and providing an overall sense of direction for implementation to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff, through the lead of the City Manager, incorporated the Comprehensive Plan programs into the budget process and through that process, staff anticipated the detailed Implementation Plan would be updated on a regular basis. The information could be adjusted as necessary, and Council review
03/15/99 88-112
would be occurring at the same time. Further, staff formed a Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (the Steering Committee) with representatives from several departments who were involved in the programs to be implemented which was chaired by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Steering Committee met on a regular basis and would continue to review the Implementation Plan as well as recommended changes. Staff believed those actions ensured timely and systematic implementation of the programs in the Comprehensive Plan and would keep it current. Planning Commissioner Kathy Schmidt, Vice Chair, thanked staff for putting together the Matrix, and even though the Matrix was complex, it needed to be looked at in an organized manner. After the Planning Commission reviewed the Implementation Plan, staff was asked to review it looking at the priorities. The Implementation Plan still consisted of over 300 programs and some policies. There were concerns as to where the revenue would come from to implement each program. It would be costly to do everything in the plan, and as the staff report (CMR:167:99) noted, it was not likely that everything would be accomplished in the Implementation Plan by 2010. The possibility of a time frame for the completion of each program was discussed, and the time frame listed in the Matrix indicated when work on specific programs would begin. The Planning Commission discussed the necessity to focus on what was important and try to put some priorities into the Implementation Plan in order to forward the Implementation Plan to the Council with some clear statements as to where staff was going. The Introduction on page l-1 of Attachment A of the staff report was put in the same format as the introductions to all the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. After much discussion, the items in the Introduction spelled out what the Planning Commission agreed on and what the priorities should be. The Introduction included a vision that the Implementation Plan would provide an overall sense of priorities, and the policies would be put into the budget process and serve as a yard stick against which progress could be measured. The seven major themes of the Comprehensive Plan, as noted in the introduction of the Plan, were: 1) Building Community and Neighborhoods, 2) Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character, 3) Reducing Reliance on the Automobile, 4) Meeting Housing Supply Challenges, 5) Protecting and Repairing Natural Features, 6) Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs, and 7) Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership. The goal was that all themes would be addressed. First, the Zoning Ordinance update; there were approximately 50 programs that addressed parts of the Zoning Ordinance which the Planning Commission felt the community cared about and was the foundation for development and redevelopment in the community. Since land use and transportation were closely linked, the Zoning Ordinance helped address transportation. Second, was Transportation Strategy. Trans-portation was a lengthy chapter in the Comprehensive Plan which outlined a strategy, and in that was a strong emphasis on reducing
03/15/99 88-113
dependency on the automobile. The immediate goal was to increase local transit opportunities in the near future, and a Shuttle
System was being evaluated per the Council=s direction. Third, was the Coordinated Area Plans. South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) was in progress which would help inform the other Coordinated Area Plans which addressed many of the themes of the Comprehensive Plan. In the initial Matrix, Coordinated Area Plans was listed in the 8- to 12-year time frame, but the Planning Commission felt it would appear sooner and should be addressed as soon as was practical. The format of the Implementation Plan was discussed next. The Implementation Plan was a living document which needed to be reviewed and updated; priorities could change. Each year, part of
the Planning Commissions= assignment was to review the Comprehensive Plan and would now be able to look at the Implementation section and make recommendations about possible changes.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said Councils= action that evening was to adopt the Implementation Plan, including the Introduction and Matrix. Having read the Planning Commission minutes and the minutes from other boards and commissions that reviewed the Implementation Plan, she hoped the Council would focus on the major policy issues and resist the temptation to follow the same path as the Planning Commission, which was to go through page by page and program by program. The Introduction would be a good spring board for that discussion and could be used as a basis for the initial discussions, keeping it at a broader policy level. Council Member Kniss asked what figure she would attain if she added up all the financing. Mr. Gilliland replied the cost range was broad and priorities would change over time and some would not be implemented. Council Member Kniss felt the cost ran astronomically over the original anticipated cost. She asked what the cost would be to put the Implementation Plan into place since it was now completed,. Deputy City Manager Ken Schreiber said it was a serious question. When the Implementation Matrix was created, staff did not have the information necessary to give a precise cost for any of the specific programs. Estimated ranges were created of less than $50,000, $50,000 to $500,000, $500,000 to $1,000,000, and $1,000,000 up. Staff had not gone beyond that because for any of the more complicated programs, it was a major undertaking. Currently, for the Shuttle Bus project, there were consultants, an advisory committee, and a considerable variety of choices, some of which might be less or more expensive, and that was just one program. To go through the numbers at present, would not be a realistic answer to the question. The question could only be
03/15/99 88-114
answered over time as the Council grappled with implementation of the document, recognizing there were other City priorities that might mean Comprehensive Plan programs got lower or higher overall budget priorities in some years. It would be an interactive
process that would have to be worked through the City=s budget process. City Manager Fleming said the fact was that staff did not know the costs. The costs for the Implementation Plan had not been added up. She not only had concerns for the cost of the worthy but ambitious program, but there were a number of other projects in place. When everything was put side by side, the Council needed to see, at least based on where staff was currently, how much was being projected to spend at the present time and in the future. Staff was currently working on the document, and it was her target to have that document ready for the Council at the time of the budget. Staff was pulling together a matrix of all the items being worked on for approximately the next five years. There was the Shuttle, Library Master Plan, Infrastructure Program, Public Safety Building, and Comprehensive Plan. That large matrix was being put together, and staff would put some range into that matrix when it was completed. She did not want to be presumptuous, but the Council was on the right track, having the same concerns as she had, which were the size of the financial commitments being made, and the impact on the public and resources staff projected the City to have into the future. Council Member Kniss said it had been a six-year endeavor, and the Council was just presently discussing implementation of something that started in 1992. Also, there was an inflation factor. She asked whether other cities, as they went through their Comprehensive Plan update, incorporated in the cost to the community as they progressed. The Council discussed a Comprehensive Plan that would hopefully serve all segments of the community well; however, the Council seldom discussed what an implementation cost would actually be. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the question was whether other cities did it differently; did they incorporate the projected implementation costs as they went along during the Comprehensive Plan update process. His experience was that most cities did not. The Comprehensive Plan tended to be a vision of what the future could be, and it was ambitious to try to reach further than could really be achieved. Most Comprehensive Plans ended up as long-range, visionary views of where the Council would like the community to go. To try and figure out how that should be implemented and to actually get there was a series of financial and work trade-offs that occurred after the vision was established. What staff had done through the Comprehensive Plan was to establish a goal, understanding that many things would not be accomplished by the year 2010. The Planning Commission had that
03/15/99 88-115
same discussion during its debate of the issue and realized that everything could not be achieved. They had to focus on what really needed to be achieved in the 11-year period, which was how the priorities were established, those being the Zoning Ordinance, the Coordinated Area Plans, and the transportation issues. Currently, staff was prioritizing; taking 330 Comprehensive Plan implementation items and narrowing them down to make sure the most important items were accomplished. City Manager Fleming said what staff was doing with the Comprehensive Plan was unique. The majority of cities did not take the Comprehensive Plan to the extent of actually having the Council and Planning Commission review and adopt an Implementation Plan. Staff was not aware of any other city making any effort to integrate its Comprehensive Plan into its budget document. The concept staff was implementing of a Citywide Steering Committee involved taking steps not taken before, which was no excuse for staff not knowing the cost. Council Member Mossar said it was important to ask about the
finances, but she reiterated Mr. Gawf=s comments that the Comprehensive Plan was a guiding document. The fact that staff had taken steps at organizing the material and evaluating whether it was a new or old program, whether new funding was required, and giving a broad range of the funding required was useful. The
staff=s intention to use the document and incorporate it into the budget process would be helpful to the Council. It would assist in keeping the Council from spending money on projects which were not high priorities for the community. The process was examined because the Council wanted the community to give input as to what was important. The introductory material that the Planning Commission prepared highlighted what was most important to the community because the Council would be obligated to organize its work and policy making in those areas. A lot of money might be spent and all might not be implemented, but the document would help the Council keep on task. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff that the City Council adopt the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan, including an Introduction and Matrix, with the Introduction including a description of the process whereby the plan would be reviewed annually by staff, the Planning Commission, and the Council, and with the Introduction and Matrix to be included in the adopted 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the Review and Update section of the Introduction on page l-3 of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:167:99), where it stated what role the Planning Commission was
03/15/99 88-116
going to play in seeing that the priorities remained current and whether the implementation was moving along or not. She asked when the Council would perform its role, and did staff envision that to be solely through what occurred in the budget process or would there be an opportunity as a separate agenda item to review the Implementation Plan. City Manager Fleming said her vision was that the internal Steering Committee review and work on the Implementation Plan throughout the year. The Planning Commission would schedule a time for its annual review. Staff would be prepared to assist by giving updates, and would return to the Council with an informational report. The Council could take action on it when it came out of the Planning Commission. Staff was unable to find out exactly when in the fiscal year that would occur, but she hoped it would be prior to the budget process so if there were any implications from that review, she would have it in time to be included in the recommended budget for the following year. Absent that being in place the current year, the Council would receive information with the budget which would become more meaningful and increase as staff went through the process. That would be true with both the Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets.
Vice Mayor Wheeler spoke regarding the Councils= participation in the annual review. Council Member Ojakian said, as with Council Member Kniss, his concern was with money. A quick estimate was somewhere between $5 million and $50 million to implement the Implementation Plan. It was difficult to determine how much was ongoing versus one-time costs. He asked whether those numbers roughly seemed to be correct, and what the dollars would be on the ongoing items. Mr. Gawf cautioned Mr. Ojakian against using the staff report (CMR:167:99) as an accounting tool. The idea of time and money was to give some sense of priority and achieveability. The time indicated both how quickly the plan could be implemented and how important it might be, such as doing the more important things earlier in the process. Other communities had done implementations of comprehensive plans, and he had seen those fail when they tried to be too precise. Staff was trying to lay out a vision, a sense of priority, but not using the Implementation Plan as an accounting type tool. It could be used as a check during the budget process to see that what was being funded was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which was an important tool of the Implementation Plan.
Mr. Gilliland said Council Member Ojakian=s figures were probably in the ballpark. More costs were one-time than ongoing. He emphasized that the Council was having a lot of the same discussion
03/15/99 88-117
as the Planning Commission had in trying to figure out the priorities. That was the reason the Planning Commission decided to set some overall priorities instead of dealing with the Matrix. The dollars would change over time. He cautioned the Council to use the dollars the same way staff did in putting the Implementation Plan together; the timing and setting of the priorities. It was a mix of information for any given program that was intuitively used. The financial information in the document was a ballpark range of what staff thought it might cost. Council Member Ojakian understood, but the Council asked for the finance numbers to be included. He felt uncomfortable approving a plan without knowing the cost involved. Mr. Gilliland said the concerns were appropriate. Staff might be able to get a clearer picture during the next year as they actually worked with the Implementation Plan and Steering Committee. Staff did not have an answer at the present time. Council Member Ojakian understood cost was a tough subject, but felt the Council would find itself asking whether a program should be implemented that started out as a great program with a great vision but later grappled with the cost. He asked how staff would go about prioritizing, and what would happen sooner than later. Mr. Gawf said through the timing standpoint. He would look at the programs in 0 to 2 years knowing that was immediate. He would also look at how long a project might take; the Zoning Ordinance was not in the 0- to 2-year category but had been identified as the key implementation goal of the Comprehensive Plan. From a work standpoint, it would take 3 or 4 years. Even though the Comprehensive Plan was a high priority, it would take longer. Staff did not try to rank or categorize priorities, although the timing helped with regard to the sense of priority. City Manager Fleming said with the Implementation Plan came a huge dose of reality. The Zoning Ordinance was critical. She had put more time into the Comprehensive Plan than any City Manager, but she had to be realistic about a number of things. One, was that some of the plan would not transpire if the Zoning Ordinance work was not taken care, of which had to be the first priority. There were other mechanisms in the City that came into play in terms of setting priorities which the Council did each year. Staff wanted to refine that, and the general policy guidelines needed to be followed. She looked back over the past years at what Council had done as the Comprehensive Plan was being developed, and the Council had been remarkably consistent with where the Comprehensive Plan was going. The reality was the financial ability to do it, how much the community could afford to do, and acceptance that the City had emerged from a lucrative financial period which would not continue.
03/15/99 88-118
Council Member Ojakian said looking at the Implementation Plan from a timing perspective, 50 of the programs were dependent upon the Zoning Ordinance, and Mr. Gawf stated previously that it would take three or four years to put the Zoning Ordinance together, which was a top priority. From a policy perspective, priority should be given to some of the situations where there was a private initiatives to get things done such as some aspects of South El Camino Real on page Land Use-6, L-33. There was also a lot of interest in street trees and the time frame on that might be looked at differently. City Manager Fleming said the good news was there could be discussions about doing such things in a better context. The Council could make the policy decisions as to how staff should move through the Implementation Plan or the Council could look at the budget and see what funding was going toward specific programs. The comments were on target, and the Implementation Plan was not binding as to what was spelled out, but the general guidelines should be adhered to. Council Member Ojakian said he hoped to find some quick wins in the Implementation Plan which were not only important to the community but also to staff and the Planning Commission, and that the City would get to the stage where that could be focused on. City Manager Fleming said staff was enthusiastic about the Steering Committee. Staff understood the Comprehensive Plan and wanted to see it come alive and be successful. The community deserved that and had put a lot of time into Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gawf said he had not worked for an organization where the staff was so knowledgeable, understanding, and committed to the
implementation of a comprehensive plan. Council Member Ojakian=s comment about South El Camino Real illustrated an opportunity. The Implementation Plan did not imply not taking advantage of opportunities, leveraging resources, and taking advantage where private initiative might be doing the project instead of waiting for City staff to do it. He did not see that as a hindrance to seize opportunities, but as giving staff a sense of understanding as to what opportunities staff should pursue. Council Member Kniss, as an example, referred to page Land Use-7 of Attachment A to the staff report (CMR:167:99) relating to Midtown. She went on a tour of Midtown recently and was told how much Midtown had changed, how little the City was doing about it, and
how the City did not understand what Midtown=s present needs were. She understood, but asked what would be used as an underpinning in going forward when there had been such dramatic changes in Midtown. She thought those changes were to the good, but was surprised to
03/15/99 88-119
hear many people complaining that it had become too successful. It put the Council in an interesting position. She was only using Midtown as an example, but it could be the case anywhere where the material was several years old. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison replied it would be in the same way the Comprehensive Plan was being integrated into the budget. Economic Resources Manager Susan Arpan had gone through the entire plan and identified which elements of the Comprehensive Plan needed to be implemented through the Economic Resources Plan which was approved five years prior. She would bring to the Council an updated Economic Resources Plan based on the Comprehensive Plan of which Council Member Kniss had identified only one element. There were many elements within the Plan that would need to be watched and implemented. Council Member Kniss appreciated that. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Schneider absent. Council Member Huber left the Council meeting due to illness at 8:40 p.m. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Approval of the Sale of Below Market Rate Unit at 922 Bautista Court and Uses of Sales Proceeds; and Authorization to Amend Below Market Program Administration Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve the sale of the Below Market Rate (BMR) unit at 922 Bautista Court for a price of $188,000 to a qualified
buyer from the program=s waiting list. 2. Direct the City Manager to execute the grant deed transferring title to the Unit to the selected buyer. 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment in the amount of $8,372 with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for reimbursement of its legal expenses connected with the Bautista Court litigation. MOTION PASSED: 5-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS
03/15/99 88-120
9. Mayor Fazzino, Vice Mayor Wheeler, and Council Member Huber re Art Center Architectural Study and Master Plan Vice Mayor Wheeler said the Arts Guild had an interest in, at its expense, looking into the feasibility of making some improvements to the Palo Alto Arts Center building, being mindful of the plans the City had for public infrastructure improvements. The Arts Guild wanted to work in concert with City staff, and staff was supportive of the Art Guilds efforts. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to direct staff to cooperate with the Palo Alto Art Center Guild to ensure that an architectural study and master plan for the Art Center is completed. Council Member Ojakian said the case was similar to what had been discussed earlier that evening where a private group was willing to put forth the energy and even the dollars to get something done. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED: 5-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. 10. Mayor Fazzino re the Cancellation of the March 22, 1999, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kniss, to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of March 22, 1999. MOTION PASSED: 5-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar attended the National League of Cities Annual Congressional Conference in Washington D.C. the prior week and reported that Congress projected a 17 percent cut to all cities and a 6 percent reduction nationally in sales tax due to Internet sales in the next year. Vice Mayor Wheeler thanked all the individuals who made the Council meetings at the Art Center possible. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
03/15/99 88-121
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.
03/15/99 88-122