Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-11 City Council Summary Minutes1 i CITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTO CITY COUNCI L M EETI NGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KM-FREQUENCY90.1 ON FM d1AL�-r-- Regular Meeting September 11, 1989 PAGE 1. Drawing of the Ballot Order - General Municipal 62-101 Election - November 7, 1989 Oral Communications 62-101 Minutes of July 24, August 7, and August 14, 1989 62-101. Consent Calendar 62-102 62-102 2. Landfill Compactor Lease -Purchase Agreement - Rejection of Bids 3. Contract with Ambo Engineering for Embarcadero 62-102 Road Improvements; Change Orders Not to Exceed $6,860 4. Agreement with YMCA for Firefighters Physical Fitness Examination Evaluations 5. Final Subdivision Map,, 2705 Ash Street/ 345 Sheridan Avenue 6. First Amendment to the City of Palo Alto Deferred Compensation Plan 7. Contract with E -=*site Construction Company for Byxbee Park Phase I Road Reconstruction; Change Orders Not to Exceed $30, 000 - 62-102 62-102 62-102 62-102 62-99 9/11/89 8. Ordinance Regarding Definitions in the Commercial Downtown District and Variance or Conditional Use Permit Appeal Fees Refunds 62-102 9. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommen- 62-102 dation Environmental Impact Report Consultant Selection 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Special Assessment 62-102 11. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommen- 62-103 dation Regarding Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund 12. Ordinance Relating to Driveways 62-113 13. Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund 62-118 14. Report from City Manage*~ Regarding Attendance 62-119 at Harvard University's Program 15. Council Members Leland Levy and Gail Woolley 62-120 Regarding Recruitment Process for Boards and Commissions Adjournment at 10:27 p.m. 62-122 62-100 9/11/89 Regular Meeting September 11, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:32 p.m. Vice Mayor Bechtel announced that a Special Meeting to interview candidates for the Historic Resources Board was held in the Council Confere e Room at 6:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein (arrived at 9:20 p.m.), Levy, Patitucci, Renzel (arrived at 7:33 p.m.), Sutorius, Woolley SPECIAL_ ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Drawing of the Ballot Order - General Municipal Election November 7, 1989 (705-89-02) Ballot Order was picked at Rebecca Irwin as follows: 1 - Garrison Jaquess 2 - Ted R. Chun 3 - Stephen A. Owen 4 - Mike Cobb 5 - Ron Andersen 6 - Richard Gruen 7 - Joseph Hirsch 8 - Edmund Power 9 - Ptah ORAL C9194t)14ICATIONS random by high school 10 -- Jeff Brown 11 - Liz Kniss 12 - Gary Fazzino 13 -- Jacqueline ine Stewart 14 - Jon Schink 15 - Dena Mossar 16 - Jean K. McCown 17 - John Joynt student Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Harbor and government accountability. Dan Epstein, 735B Homer Avenue, spoke regarding waste dollars, particularly the Planning Commission's review zoning. MIN= OP any 241 AUGUST 7. M» aMOSA 14. 1989 of tax of R-1 KOTIONI Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the Minutes of July 24, August 7, and August 14, 1989, as submitted, MOTION PA88ZD 7-0-1, as t = the Minutes of July 24 and August 14, 1989, Patitucci "abstaining," Klein absent. 61-101 9/11/89 NOTION PASSED 8-0, as to the Minutes of August 7, 1989, Klein absent. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, tc approve Consent Calendar Items 2 - 9. 2. Landfill Compactor Lease -Purchase Agreement - Rejection of Bids (1072-01) (CMR:426:9) 3. Contract with Ambo Engineering, Inc. for Embarcadero Road Improvements; Change Orders Not to Exceed $6,860 (1010) (CMR:429:9) 4. Agreement with YMCA for Firefighters Physical Fitness Examination Evaluations (503) (CMR:424:9) 5. Final Subdivision Map, 2705 Ash Street/345 Sheridan Avenue (300) (CMR:423:9) 6. First Amendment to the City of Palo Alto Deferred Compensation Plan (501) 7. Response to Grand Jury re Addendum to Follow -Up Report on Toxic Gas Safety in Santa Clara County (1440-01-01) (CMR:419:9) 8. ORDINANCE X896 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (THE ZONING CODE) REGARDING DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL RECREATION, GENERAL BUSINESS SERVICE AND PERSONAL SERVICE, CERTAIN PARKING REQUIREMENT EXCEPTIONS IN THE COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AND VARIANCE OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPEAL FEES REFUNDS" (1st Reading 8/14/89, PASSED 8-0, Bechtel absent) (237-01) 9. Finance and Public Works Committee recommends. to the City Council that the Sand Hill Road Environmental impact Report consultant selection be referred to the Finance and Public Works Committee for review (701-15) (cR:372:9) MOTION PASSIM 8-0, Klein absent. PUBLIC JIEARJNGS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Special Assessment (1250-01 (CMR:390:9) Vice Mayor Bechtel asked whether any written objections had been received. 1 1 61-102 9/11/89 111 City Clerk Gloria Young said no. Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION* Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Resolution. RESQUJTIQJ1 6823 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING WEED ABATEMENT REPORT AND ORDERING COST OF ABATEMENT TO BE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES HEREIN DESCRIBED" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Klein absent. grimETAALssattinutrajwiLsmaratugm. 11. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommendation re Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund (1073) (CMR:427:9) MOTIONI Council Member Cobb for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved approval of the following: 1. The fee methodology (CMR: 40 7:9) : a) Charges a uniform fee for single-family residential property which is based upon a predefined impervious area; and b) Charges a fee for all non single-family residential property based upon actual measurement of the impervious area on each property. 2. The proposed implementation schedule starting in September rather than October. 3. The public awareness program consisting of direct media contact, an issues paper, public meetings, a bulk mailing, utility flyers, and business/high rate payer contacts, with the caveat that staff circulate the issues paper among the Council for additional review before sending it to the public. The Finance and Public Works Committee also recommends approval of the storm drainage program requiring an annual total fee collection of $1,560,000 with a single-family property fee of approximately $3.88 per month, and that the General Fund payback not be incorporated in the long-term debt. 61-103 9/11/89 Council, Member Cobb noted the amendment that the General Fund payback not be incorporated in the long-term debt passed by a vote of 3 to 1, with Council Member Woolley voting "no." Council Member Levy spoke with the City Attorney's Office about whether an alternative way of developing assessments for the noncommercial property was legal. He understood it would not be easy to support an alternative method of developing assessments for the noncommercial property. While the proposed plan might be more costly, it would be appropriately defensible if any questions arose. Senior Assistant City Attorney Tony Bennetti said the fee methodology based on some approximation of measure of use was good. A benefit assessment system similar to what Santa Clara Valley Water District used would probably require financing sore specific capital improvements. Council had the flexibility to finance some particular improvement, Council Member Cobb said much of the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee's discussion focused on Attachment 1 to the staff report (CMH:427:9) which compared the monthly single family fee for both the existing minimal program, the recommended program, and a fully implemented program, and how much the fee should be. The general consensus was that the storm drain situation had to be dealt with in a timely manner. Council Member Sutorius requested comparative data on utility rates of neighboring cities, which was shown as Attachment 2. Since the F&PW Committee's action, he had heard from the press and the public, and he queried whether there were any other situations like the storm drain system which would need the same type of fiscal attention in the future which had not yet been brought before Council. City Manager Hill Zaner referred to information which had pre- viously been submitted to the Council and the F&PW Committee regarding all infrastructure needs. Some infrastructure needs continued to not be funded as fully as staff would like, e.g., the Water Fund had difficulties which had existed for many years. He did not believe there was another system in as much need as the storm drain system The other utilities were operating and had reserves. The City had a planned program of maintenance end replacement, and while some did not hove as quickly as he would like, e.g., the water system, he did not believe it was fair to say it was being approached on a piecemeal basis. The Enterprise Funds operated as separate businesses, and as each fund and each business, e.g., water, gas, sewer, electric, required additional capital improvements, the costs were borne by those funds. If Council approved the recommendation, staff proposed to put the Storm Drainage Fund on the same basis where its needs would be 61-104 9/11/89 0 identified and costs would be determined by the need for the particular service. It would not interact with any of the other funds, and tha needs of other utilities would not affect the Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund. It would be unfair to say that Council would never have to deal with major capital improvements in the other utilities. Mechanical structures needed preventative maintenance, repairs and replacement. If the Storm Drainage Fund was set up to operate independently and was required to fund itself, eventually it would be on sound footing. He believed the City was in good shape in terms of working on its infrastructure. Council Member Patitucci queried whether an improvement which only benefited a limited number of property owners could be separated from the overall costs to the system or whether everyone had to buy into the total costs even though some areas were developed with proper storm drainage and others were not. Director of Public Works Dave Adams said the present plan was for the Enterprise Fund to be Citywide. Unique situations would have the flexibility to have an assessment district. Mr. Zaner said the proposal was analogous to present situations e.g., undergrounding for the electric utility in an area where a particular neighborhood had a special service and an assessment district was formed. Council Member Patitucci clarified the rates would have Citywide impact. Mr. Adams said yes. Council Member Woolley was sensitive to going about the City's infrastructure needs in a piecemeal manner. She referred to a comprehensive report submitted by Bruce Cummings in 1984 regarding infrastructure needs and when she went back over the report, it seemed as if the City had dealt with the probleets identified in that report, and she was, therefore, comfortable with rejecting the idea that the City was going about its infrastructure needs in a piecemeal basis. In terms of the City's rates being comparable with other cities, she had asked staff to call for a comparison of Sunnyvale. When the electric utility was dropped, Sunnyvale's rates were lower than Palo Alto's by about $3 or $4. It would be interesting to hear from Santa Clara since it also owned its own utility. It was a concern to see the gap getting smaller or disappearing altogether. She queried what would happen in the event of an emergency if there were no System Improve;ent Reserves within the Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund. 61-105 9/11/89 Mr. Adams said a loan would have to be obtained from the General Fund or another utility, which was done before with the Water Utility. Mr. Zaner said loans had been obtained between utilities and with the General Fund. Council Member Woolley queried the System Improvement Reserve total for the Gas, Water and Electric Enterprise Funds. Mr. Zaner said the System Improvement Reserves for all the utilities combined totaled approximately $2.8 million. Council Member Sutorius appreciated the response regarding potential assesriment district situations. He referred to a situation where an expenditure might be more directly assessed in the event the source was readily identifiable. For example, a portion of the City's storm sewer and drainage effort focused on the quality of the water which ultimately reached the groundwater or the bay. Just as the City spent considerable time and dollars in the sanitary operation, it looked at point source situations where there were harmful materials getting into the water stream. If a source were identified as going into the storm drainage system, he clarified the City would have the ability to separate that out from general user fee and apply a specific source fee. Mr. Zaner said if the source could be identified, it could be isolated and the source charged for whatever repair work or remedial work was required. Council Member Sutorius ways concerned about a perception that not much in the way of expenditures had occurred over the past several years related to stoma drainage. He referred to Capital Improve- ment Programs over the past several years and the significant dollars associated with Foothills Park Erosion Control and Dam Construction; Esther Clark Park; a variety of pump stations; the University Avenue area, and he queried whether it was possible to provide some indication of the level of Capital Improvement Program funding which had been dedicated to the storm drainage subject over the past five to seven years. Mr. Adams said staff could recap the money which had been spent over the past few years. The City did have a multi -year program for storm drain improvemeets based on a Brown and Caldwell report which was completed in the late 1960's, and as such staff was pretty well aware of the system deficiencies. The condition of the existing system needed to be investigated. For fiscal year 1989-90, part of the budget for storm drains included two erosion control projects, one on San Francisquito Creek and one to complete the work in Foothills Park. 61-106 9/11/89 1 Council Member Sutorius believed the utility bill comparisons were useful because a part of the City's processes were education and information in order for there to be as fair an understanding of the subject as possible. The storm drainage activity had been a user of General Funds historically. The City expended some moneys reviewing the creation of a "pay-as-you-go" enterprise. In some sense, he saw such an expenditure as risk capital --moneys expended to analyze, evaluate and decide` Whenever risk capital was expended, sometimes it paid off and the undertaking moved forward, and sometimes the upfront expenditure resulted in not moving forward. Risk capital was not recouped, and it was not fair to say it was foolishly spent because something was learned. In terms of managing the start-up of an Enterprise Program and looking at its early years, he queried whether the City could consider that the General Fund need not recover the expenditure made to get to the decision point. Hr. Zaner believed it could reasonably be said that the General Fund had made an investment to determine whether it ought to relieve itself of an obligation, which was a normal business expense. If the result turned out positively, the expense was relieved: and if not, the money was invested without a return. He referred to the situation where he recommended the same result with regard to the Water Fund and the General Fund where one fund owed the other money. He had recommended that the repayment not be made, and Council overruled the recommendation. The City currently carried a debt on its books which had not been paid and someday the Water Fund owed the General Fund those moneys. He tried to be consistent in the subject instance. Council Member Sutorius saw the situations as completely different. In the Water Enterprise Fund case, the Enterprise Fund already existed with a procesm and rate structure. It was not a A:etter of evaluating whether to create a water utility. The Water Enterprise was short of dollars, a loan was made, and repayment should be expected. If Council proceeded with a start-up situation, the General Fund and, in turn, all of the citizens would benefit because the General Fund would be relieved of an expenditure in the future. The investment of risk capital in that instance was a good investment. If implemented, he did not believe the risk investment necessarily had to be recouped. Mr. Ze ner concurred with the logic except in toms of not paying the risk investment funds back in they event of a successful con- clusion because he believed the funds should be paid back. The decision was the Council's. 61-107 9/11/89 Council Member Woolley asked about the difference between storm water quality under the operating element of the budget versus under the new Capital Improvement element. Acting Assistant Director of Public Works Rick Smelser said the storm water quality element under the operations was mainly for sampling and monitoring storm water and performing the studies required for the capital rehabilitation element. The storm water quality under new capital improvements was only for new facilities to be constructed for water quality. The item was a high priority because the City would shortly be permitted for its discharges into the San Francisco Bay. Under the permit, certain conditions for eliminating pollutants from the water discharged into the Bay would have to be met. The projected date for the Countywide permitting by the Regional Water Quality Control Board was March, 1990. Council Member Levy clarified Council's action was to approve a total amount of money, the specific expenditures of which would return to Council for approval as a separate budgetary item at a later date. Mr. Adams said that was correct. Staff provided the estimates upon which the rates would be based. The specific program would be handled like any other budget which went before Council. Council Member Levy referred to the figures for the Fully Imple- mented Program as set forth in Attachment 1 to the staff report (cMR:427:9). The Engineering costs were approximately $150,000; the City Overhead was approximately $100,000; and Management and Administration was $110,000. He queried whether the figures were proper. Mr. Adams said at that time the figures were good. Council Member Levy said the Recommended Program was a reduced scale version of the Fully Implemented Program, and he queried why Engineering, City Overhead and Management and Administration were not somewhat reduced in scale since there would be less City expenditures. Mr. Adams said the work to be done in the three areas mentioned were required no matter how large the magnitude of the capital projects. Mr. Smelser said staff would continue with the use of coireultants for most of the work. In-house staff would be used to monitor the consultants. Vice Mayor Bechtel queried why Utility User Tax funds were not being used. 61.108 9/11/89 Mr. Zaner said there was some accumulated surplus in the Utility User Tax Fund. The ten-year projection indicated a period of time when the tax actually generated a surplus and when it began to go the other way where surplus funds were not generated. Staff had programmed the use of the surplus moneys for the renovation and capital work at Cubberley. Council was sent a summary of the material received from the outside consultants who recently completed the work on Cubberley indicating a substantial amount of work to be done to the structure before the City could make it usable for the community. The work would use most, if not all, of the existing surplus. Vice Mayor Bechtel queried whether the start-up of the Enterprise Fund could be deferred another year in order to use some Utility Users Tax. Mr. Zaner did not believe the program could be deferred since .it was wholly dependent on receiving revenues. The funds from the Utility User Tax surplus could only be used once. If the money was spent on storm drains, it could not be used for Cubberley. The policy choice was council's to make; but in order to follow through with commitments on Cubberley and do the repairs and capital work necessary, the costs could be up to $5 million. The necessary work was about $2 million which would just about deplete the surplus. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said the entire City paid a Utility User Tax; however, Barron Park did not receive a benefit for sidewalk repair, and it seemed unfair to consider assessing specific areas for drainage repairs since Barron Park did have drainage problems. The figures shown for Administration and Managenont, represented an excessive 18.5 percent of the actual budget, not including the unlimited amount to be spent on consultants. He urged further consideration of the program. He believed the 200 miles of curb and gutter should be maintained in the Streets and Sidewalks Fund since, with the exception of Barron Park, every time a street or sidewalk was repaired, the curb and gutter c'ere repaired nt the same time. He preferred to see more money spent on actual facili- ties and operations and less into consultants and overhead. Mr. Zaner believed the administrative costs were modest because they consisted of two people, an engineer and a clerk, plus the overhead costs for running the fund. Overhead consisted of central department services such as City Attorney and Finance Department, and its share of overhead costs for utilities and other expenses, in line with what all the other utilities paid. Regarding consultants, staf I purposely kept tha staff small. The program could have been accomplished by increasing the administrative costs and hiring an entiie staff of engineers to design and inspect all 61-109 9/11/89 the work and put the program together. He believed the staff and consultant costs were reasonable. Vice Mayor Bechtel queried why the 200 miles of curbs and gutters were not maintained in Streets and Sidewalks. Mr. Adams said staff did not mean to imply all 110 miles of curbs and gutters would be repaired using Storm Drain funds. Where a storm drain problem needed to be addressed on the gutter and it did not require replacement of the adjacent sidewalk or street, it was appropriate for the Storm Drain Fund to be used. When the street was repaired and the curb and gutter had to be replaced, the costs were appropriately charged to the Street Fund. Some of the same work was done for different reasons and paid for by the two different funds. AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fenzel, to revise the second part of the motion to reduce the single-family property fee from 0.88 per month to 53.25 per month and direct staff to revise the $1,560,000 figure to reflect the change. Council Member Woolley said there was no question in terms of the need. The only questions were how much and how fast. In previous years, less that 5200,000 per year were spent on storm drains, and the figure had jumped to 51,560,000, a 700 percent increase per year. Sunnyvale was catching up to Palo Alto in terms of its rates, and she believed the tremendous increases in the utilities, gas, water, refuse and the relatively new Utility User Tax which was added to utility bills, was too much too fast. She was concerned Council regarded Utility expenditures differently than other expenditures. If an expense came out of the Enterprise Fund, it was not scrutinized the same way as expenditures from the General Fund. She believed part of it was the nature of the expenditures from the Enterprise Fund were technical in nature and most Council Members did not have the technical expertise to pass judgmert. She hoped the campaign would consider the suggestion of Council Member Patitucci of perhaps having a board to closely review utilities. The need for generating more money in the City had resulted in some creative ways of "milking" the Utilities. For several years, the City charged rent for the space used by Utili- ties. Recently, the City started charging rent for the land. The Water Utility had to pay for the land where the wells were located. Recently the Refuse Utility was used to pay the General Fund fee lease of the landfill. She preferred Council take a hard look at policy decisions and at what point the Enterprise Fund became the Enterprise Fund --should it start paying from the beginning of the study or from October when the fund was actually created. Questions were raised about the money for Administration and Management Engineering, and that should also be considered more carefully. Curb and gutter repair wore discussed in F&PW 61-110 9/11/89 Committee, and she had the same questions as those raised by Mr. Moss. She believed the System Improvement Reserve (SIR) was a luxury. The City should have it but possibly not at the same level. The City had $2.8 million in its other SIRs and perhaps there would be money elsewhere in the event of an emergency which could be tapped and paid for later. She was concerned about whether the savings were as important as the attitude conveyed by the Council by saying $3.25 per single family house was enough. Council Member Sutorius supported the concept of the motion as long as there was clearly the internal and public understanding that the level suggested by the motion could only be looked on as a starting level. If the City was to do the proper job of being forward looking and prudent with respect to a fundamental infrastructure area of activity, the rate would be adjusted over time. The City did a lot of sidewalk work that was not connected to gutters at all because a sizable amount of the City's sidewalks were separated from the curbs. Much of the work he observed dealt only with the sidewalk, and the only time it involved the curb was on a corner situation where the handicapped ramps were being handled at the same time. Historically, it was for storm purposes that gutters and sidewalks were developed. The first sidewalks were boards elevated above the regular surface because the regular surface was not usable for periods of time in the winter. He was concerned about suggestions and phrases like "milking the utilities." In fiscal year 1988-89, the electric and gas rates were significantly reduced, and a gas refund was provided that for the average residential customer offset the gas usage for about a six-month period. He was concerned about expectations that Santa Clara might have lower rates than Palo Alto when Council knew its electric rate was lower than the residential rate of Santa Clara albeit they were a municipal utility. Rate comparisons were provided annually by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) , and annually Palo Alto either had the first, second or occasionally the third lowest electric utility rates for residential subscribers in the entire state of California. There was no way Sant; Clara's water rates could be less, it was principally a subscriber of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Santa Clara's gas could not be any less because it was also principally provided by PG&E, and it expended moneys looking for additional gas resources and had invested in additional gas exploratory resources. He was comfortable with the comparison of the City's utility rates with nearby and adjacent cities. Sunnyvale's electric rates had to be $48.70 for their average residential customer consuming 500 kilowatt hours. In the continuing dialogue, he hoped for fair recognition of the credible job historically done by the City of Palo Alto with respect to the actual rates it charged. Me also hoped for 47air recognition that the manner in which the rates were set for the years he had served on the Council were done in a lawful, credible manner that would stand the test of law. Palo Alto did not set rates after the fact 51.111 9/11/89 4 of determining the General Fund budget and its requirements. Palo Alto used a rate of return process and a specific individual rate of return for each of the utilities in conformance with the specific rate of return that the California Public Utilities Commission authorized to the investor -owned utility. He was proud of Palo Alto Utilities, the service provided, and the success at keeping rates reasonable for subscribers. It would be tough to continue, but he believed Palo Alto was dedicated to do so. He hoped for a fair understanding of the subjects and that people would not forget the quality of service and the low cost of service being provided. Council Member Levy did not believe there was any question about the need for a Storm Drainage Fund, and that historically the infrastructure support in Palo Alto, and in most communities generally, had been low. The amendment queried to what level the City should sustain the Storm Drainage Fund at the beginning of its life. He concurred with Council Member Woolley it was probably prudent to begin at the lower level and to "get our feet wet" slowly. He also agreed there were a number of questi.onable elements in the tentative budget presented. It would, be nice to have the reserve element, but initially, he believed the City could move forward without the inclusion of a SIR element in the budget. Council needed to more carefully review Management and Administra- tion and the City Overhead allocation. He believed there was enough flexibility in the budget to reduce it to the level suggested in the amendment, and at the same time move forward and begin to remedy the infrastructure shortcomings. The City was limited in the amount of money it could raise through normal taxation, and, therefore, specialized funds were required. Palo Alto should strive to continue to keep the public appearance of Palo Alto Oonsanant with what the co unity wanted in its private lives. Council Member Cobb did not believe one engineer and one clerk were an excessive staff. The concept of going out and buying engi- neering services as needed made more sense from a cost effective point of view than did hiring staff up front with its associated overhead. As it becaiie harder to finance City operations, more of the activities such as Enterprise Funds would have to stand on their own "fiscal two feet." Enterprise Funds made sense as against other activities which were part of the larger City budget. With respect to the issue of the Utility User Tax, it was important to understand the big picture in terms of the other demands which might be placed on the money, how the public felt about it, how much should be done at Cubb.rley, how such it would cost, etc. , and not make those decisions on a piecemeal basis. It was important to deal with the money in the context of soma type of larger economic plan for the City before specific decisions were made regarding the excess funding. 61-112 9/11/89 1 AMMDKENT PARSED 8-0, Klein absent. MOTION AB AMENDED PABBED 8-0, Klein absent. Council Member Sutorius clarified the motion spoke to a fee of $3.25, but no reference was made to the stoma drainage program per se. He clarified staff would either need to adjust the program level or return with alternative means if the higher program level was desired. Council Member Woolley clarified she did not intend to transfer the difference of the single family to commercial properties to come up with the same total ORDINANCES 12. Ordinance Relating to Driveways (268) (CMR:439:9) Council Member Cobb understood the ordinance would apply to approximately six properties. He also understood a particular piece of property on Forest Avenue was fairly well on its way through the pipeline which would not be affected by any action that evening. Zoning Administrator Nancy Maddox Lytle said about six properties were readily identifiable. The particular property on Forest Avenue was scheduled for a plan check to occur that week, and it would be through the process before the effective date of the ordinance. Council Member Menzel said the original definition referred to "two or fewer lots" and the revised language referred to "ten or fewer lots." She queried the impacts if the language read to provide access to one or more lots from a street. Ms. Lytle believed the language could be simplified to read "to provide access to one or more lots" but it would draw in a few additional private streets. Staff did a pretty thorough search of all the private streets that would be affected and all of them were already affected by the substandard lot provision. In essence, there would be no regulatory affect. A few private streets served 20 lots and they might be drawn in with the change in wording, but the parcels served off of those streets were already substandard in size and had the single story restriction. Vice Mayor Bechtel .queried the private streets in the Palo Alto foothills, e.g., John Marthens Lazne, which were not substandard lots. 61-113 9/11/89 Ms. Lytle said the flag lot ordinance only applied in the R-1 and R -E districts, not the OS zone. Council Member Patitucci said a flag lot seemed to be consistent with the ongoing definition, but the proposal seemed to open up a new area of re julafiing private streets and access. The question of private streets and access should be considered as a separate issue. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said there were some minor differences but many similarities. The issue of privacy related to abutting neighbors and the fact that a single family development was located adjacent to many side and rear yards of other lots occurred on flag lots and some of the private street. Council Member Patitucci was concerned about unintended conse- quences. He believed Council should consider the issue of private streets separately not as flag lots. Ms. Jansen said when a lot did not meet the intent of a change, there was still the ability to apply for a variance to a second story. If a property did not .meet the privacy to abutting neighbors, the kind of issue staff saw as the fundamental reason for adoption of single story restrictions, then there would be the possibility for grounds for a variance. Council Member Patitucci believed that was backwards. Council should do its homework to determine who should be regulated. It seemed as if Council was making a fairly big sweep of regulation without the proper analysis or debate. Juliet Stewart, 1141 Forest Avenue, had been trying to obtain a building permit from the City for over a year and had been caught in its emergency moratorium on R-1, its emergency moratoriur, on flag lots, the changed driveway definition, etc. She had applied for and received a variance and would like her building permit to go through so she was not caught in any more of the City's moratoria or processes. Tarry Stewart, 1141 Forest Avenue, wanted to be allowed to continue through the City's process and get a building permit. Leo R. McCarty, 724 San Carlos Court, bought his property in 1956 when the property was zoned R-3, garden apartments. The general revision to the zoning plan adopted more than 25 years later rezoned the property to R-1. Having suffered the replacement of three residences opposite by a stone wall and a Safeway Store, he now found that San Carlos Court would be called a driveway, which was incomprehensible. Because of Safeway's close proximity, his 61-114 9/11/89 i property had suffered a decline in value of about $100,000. The property also decreased in value when it was rezoned from R -3G to R-1. Comparing his property which was very well maintained with the castle on 780 Sutter he was baffled by the limitations sought to be put on his property. Alice McCarty, 724 San Carlos Court, was concerned about the rezoning which had taken place around her lot. She had a brick wall in front of her behind which was Safeway, a two-story box type house on a small lot, two-story apartment house, the bottom story of which contained parking. Her lot was the largest one on San Carlos Court and it made no sense to impose such restrictions. Their land had been continually devalued due to rezoning decisions and she was upset. Council Member Renzel queried whether it would be appropriate to add language to Section 3 that the ordinance shall not apply to projects which received discretionary approval prior to the date of the ordinance. Her intent was to include projects which received review by the neighbors through the variance or some other public process. Senior Assistant City Attorney Tony Bennetti said l..anguaee would be added at the end that the ordinance would not apply to applica- tions which received a variance. MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the negative declaration and introduced the rev si e to the Subdivision Ordinance, broadening the driveway definition to include all private minor vehicular rights--of-way, the primary function of which is to provide access to ten or fewer lots from a street. This change will mean that all lots which are generally considered flag lots will be included as such by the ordinance. Further, to include the following amendments: 1. Revise Section 1. (16.1) to change the wording "access to ten or fewer lots" to "access to one or more lots." 2. Revise Section 3. to add "properties which plans have been submitted for review and have received a variance" after the word "adoption." Ordinance let Reading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SUBSECTION 21.04.043 (16.1) OF TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DRIVEWAYS" Council Member Renzel supported the proposed definition. Many parcels in the City had flag lot characteristics. She recognized the McCar°ty's situation was special, and suggested theywould be 61-115 9/11/89 ready candidates for a variance through the process provided in the flag lot ordinance because they would be able to easily demonstrate the necessary findings. On the whole, the lots to which the driveway definition would apply were ones which had flag lot characteristics, e.g., small private accessways which did not have the normal epace and parking provided on a public street, they usually had four or five abutting neighbors, and the impacts of excessive construction in those lots tended to have a lot of impacts on surrounding neighbors. She supported the definition revision so it clearly applied to those properties with flag lot characteristics. Council Member Cobb asked staff to comment on the McCarty's property. Ms. Lytle said if the parcel was unusually large and it was abutted by a mixed category of uses, it would meet the first finding for a variance exception of extraordinary circumstances. The other findings would be based on the particular application, e.g., whether it had a detrimental effect on surrounding properties would need to be analyzed according to the proposed plan, and a substan- tial property right would need to consider the level of development was being requested and how it compared to other properties in the district and neighborhood essentially. Counci]. Member Sutorius clarified the definition of driveway would apply to all types of property whether it was commercial or residential at whatever level. Ms Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Sutorius queried the knowledge which said that by making the change, Council was not doing something which could be deleterious to another property owner who might have multi -family property, R-2 property, or commercial property. Ms. Lytle said the only other cross-reference staff found with regard to driveways was in the cottage ordinance where the cottage was required to be served off a common drivel'ay with the main residence. In that respect, the proposal Lroadened the definition slightly particularly as it related to the open space district where private right-of-ways sometimes dissected parcels. Staff could not come up with other ramifications of the definition change. Council Member Sutorius referred to the modification of the effective date, and believed saying *'and shall not apply to projects for which a variance has been approved" was a narrow extension. Usually when Council made a change, except when it was a moratorium where a emergency was declared, the effective date of 61-116 9/11/89 the ordinance was stated as not applying to bonafide applications accepted by the City. He queried why the extension was so narrow as to only incorporate the variance aspect. He queried the situation where an application was already in the pipeline and the party did not presently know they were being affected by the ordinance and it could potentially be a case the Council had not identified as being affected. Council Member Renzel said her purpose in using the variance language rather than just having an application in the pipeline was because of the sensitive nature of flag lots and the variance process meant the neighbors had participated in the decision - making process and there was a clear understanding in the neighbor- hood of what could happen. The ordinance might well apply to other properties which received variances and which had long since passed through the application process but on which buildings had not yet been built. Again, they went through the discretionary review, and she believed met the needs Council attempted to address in the flag lot ordinance. She believed it would be overly broad to just say anyone who had a project in the pipeline even though she was not aware of any other flag lot applications currently before the Planning Department. Council Member Patitucci believed Council was heavy-handed in its first dealing with flag lots. He was concerned with the over reaching into areas in which Council did not fully understand, and the staff by its answers, did not have clear ideas of the implica- tions of the expansion of the definition. While the definition might be the same with more analysis and the involvement of more affected people, basically taking every private street and equating it to a flag lot did not seem to be good law making on behalf of the Council. He queried whether the Planning Commission had reviewed the item. Ms. Jansen said no. MOTION TO RlP s Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Sutorius, to refer the proposed ordinance tia the Planning Commis- sion for a recommendation. Council Meter Renzel said ordinarily she supported referrals to the Planning C3mmiss.ion, but in the particular instance, she believed the change was minor although it had important ri:mifica- tions. Staff did a fair amount of research to ascertain low many properties would be affected and all or most we: -3 uncovered. She did not believe additional research would reveal each piece of proparty. If Council did not act, it was likely to see many enhappy neighbors in a variety of neighborhoods. 61-117 9/11/89 Mayor Klein would not support the motion to refer the matter. It was a simple, straight -forward issue. Council Member Fletcher opposed the motion to refer. It was said that Council did not know the effects of the change, but she pointed out the detrimental effects if it did not make the change. She saw no point in delaying action. Council Member Levy supported the referral. He had trouble figuring out the proper definitions of private driveway, private street, and private alley under the new proposal, and the fact that it was now open-ended made it more than a minor change. MOTION FAILED 4-5, Levy, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley "aye." AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to delete revision to Section 1. (16.1). CouncilMember Patitucci referred to the verbiage which referred to "ten" or fewer lots. He queried the significance of the number ten. Ms. Lytle said staff surveyed the private streets and looked at those where there would be flag lots which might need to be included in the flag lot definition, and the number turned out to be ten. Council Member Patitucci opposed the entire form of regulating land uses. Council Member Sutorius supported the amendment but would oppose the main motion, AMDMENT PASSED 7-2, Patitucci, Woolley "no." MOTION AS AXEKDED PASSED 7-2, Patitucci, Sutorius "no." REPOT OF OFFIci S 13. Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund (1073) (CMR:428:9) Director of Public Works Dave Adams said the proposal was to provide staff with the authority to proceed with the next step in establishing the Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund. Council Member Sutorius asked about the effect of Council action and any interpretations in terms of a source of funds. The report (CMR: 4 2 8 : 9) referenced the System Improvement Reserve. 61.118 9/11/89 Mr. Adams said the System Improvement Reserve referred to was established in the current budget. Ptah, 524 Middlefield Road, complimented the Public Works Depart- ment for past storm drain operation. He opposed the Enterprise Fund for financing large remodeling projects and urged Council to reconsider before spending millions of dollars to remodel and upgrade the storm drain system. NOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $150,000 for Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund costs. 2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Agreement No. C-0001082 with Aelytek, Inc. in the amount of $1250710 for the Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund and Greer Park napping services. This brings the total compensa- tion payable under the Agreement to $313,660. 3. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Agreement No. C-0000524 with CH2M Hill in the amount of $50,000 for additional services to establish the Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund. This brings the total compensation payable under the Agreement to $258,200. ORDINANCE L 3897 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 47701, 'STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS," Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. C-0001082 with Aelytek, Inc. for Consultant Services Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C-0000524 with CH2M Hill for Consultant Services NOTION FANS= 9-0. 14. Report from City Manager re Attendance at Harvard University's Prc}am for Senior Executives in State and Local Government (105) (NPG) City Manager Bill Zaner gave a brief, but comprehensive report of the Harvard University Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government. Approximately eighty elected/appointed senior - level officers; Council Members, Mayors, State Senators, Lieutenant Governors, a Secretary of State, a number of very high ranking lair 61-119 9/11/89 enforcement officials. all of whom were elected, some members of boards of supervisors, county boards of supervisors from various counties in the United States, and the balance of the group consisted of appointed officials, such as himself, from throughout the United States who attended the Seminar conducted by the regular Kennedy School Faculty. The activities were on a case -method basis followed by small group and total group discussions. Reading materials have been made available to Senior Staff. The cases were real situations which varied widely in scope; one case involved a former City employee, an "Armenian Deputy City Manager" now in another city, who was involved in a troublesome affirmative action case. Cases varied from powerful political figures to the most obscure type of technical material. The purpose was to understand what went on in public administration. The program was broken down into three categories: the first area was building the internal and staff capacity of the organization and getting the necessary resources. The second area dealt with external pressures. Finally, the cases demonstrated how the first two areas play against the values of a community. The assumption was the officials were elected/appointed to implement the values the people of the community held important, so great weight was given to understanding how the values and carpeting interests fit together. Council and staff operated in an authorizing environment; a set of rules and circumstances giving authority and power to do what the community expected. A valuable exercise dealt with using experts to make policy decisions. A city had many experts; the planning people, engineers, finance people; areas difficult to challenge the experts because the experts had all the data, language, and expertise. The conclusion was expert advice needed to be tempered with experienceand common sense. Interplay between elected and appointed officials was also a major emphasis. Each had respon- sibilities and obligations which worked if good stewardship existed. The obligation of public administrators regarding commitment to public service was emphasized. The experience was valuable both academically and socially and he appreciated Council providing him the opportunity to attend. COTJN IL MATTERS 15. Council Members Leland Levy and Gail Woolley re Recruitment Process for Boards and Commissions (702) MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to direct the City Clerk to return to Council with a revised process for consolidating recruitment and appointment activities. Council Member Woolley said the Sunnyvale process was presented in a memo to Ccuncii last spring. Two major suggestions were to hold an annual Citywide recruitment: period and to conduct interview and 61-120 9/11/89 appointment activities twice a year. Hopefully, the costs of advertising and noticing could be reduced. Vice Mayor Bechtel supported the motion. She noted Sunnyvale was not completely happy with its process. It had 11 existing vacancies, plus the vacancies that would occur that year. The current practice ,ay be better. Secondly, if recruitment only occurred twice a year, she queried what happened after appointments were made and everybody resigned from a particular commission leaving no members and no recruitment for six months. She was not sure the Sunnyvale system was better than Palo Alto's system, but she would support the City Clerk studying the process and determin- ing more effective ways to recruit members of boards and commis- sions, and revising the process, if possible. Council Member Levy spoke with Pat Castillo, a Council Member from Sunnyvale, about the Sunnyvale process. The City of Sunnyvale used the same system we did prior to 1980 and had the same dissatisfac- tions; primarily, that members of the public did not know when interviews were being conductef or when terms of various boards and commission began. Sunnyvale had eleven boards and commissions of 76 members, whereas Palo Alto had five boards and commissicns consisting of 31 members; so understandably Sunnyvale had more problems. However, the Sunnyvale public was more knowledgeable with the new process. A much more intensive recruitment drive was held which gave applicants more time to apply. A preliminary announcement was made in December, an intensive recruitment drive was held in March and April, interviews were conducted in May, appointments were made in June, and all of the boards and commis- sions began service in July. Palo Alto's boards and commissions terms began during different months. Simplification could make the process easier and more understandable icr members of the public. Council Member Fletcher was interested in adopting some of the features of the Sunnyvale process; however, she queried how one orientation workshop could be held for all of the boards and commission., since the functions were so different. The interview- ing process was intensive and it might be difficult to remember who was suitable for what position. She was supported the motion. Council Member Cobb believed the idea of looking .at the process was good and noted the purpose should be that good people were aware and would apply. Council. Member Renuel said while she supported the motion, she was not dissatisfied with the current process. The large number of vacancies before the expiration of terms in Sunnyvale demonstrated its process might not be working well. Some aspects of the process eight be of benefit to Palo Alto; however, she did not want to con - 61 -121 9/11/89 solidate the process into one time frame because she did not want to blur the distinction among candidates. She preferred to keep the process personal. The number of candidates could be increased by giving more advanced notice at the beginning of the year and by holding an orientation session describing all the boards and commissions. Mayor Klein was concerned with the actual language of the motion because it seemed to assume a certain conclusion. He preferred to give staff assignments enabling them to communicate their needs to Council and to report back as to the desirability and details of a revised process. AMENDMENT TO NOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to add "the desirability and details of" before "a revised process for consolidating..." AMENDMENT PISSED 9-0. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the dete of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 61-122 9/11/89 i