Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-13 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTO CITYCOUNCIL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREQUENCY9O.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting April 13, 1987 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of March 16, 1987 1. Presentation of the California Educational Theatre Association Citation of Merit to the Palo Alto Children's Theatre PAGE 57-57 57-57 57-57 Consent Calendar 57-57 2._ 1987-92 Capital Improvement Program - 57-58 Refer to FinOnce and Public Works Commit- tee 3. Award of Contract with Raisch Construction Company for .1986-87 Resurfacing and Improvements Project - Project No. 86-70 57-58 4. Award of Contract with East Bay Electric 57-58 for Installation of • Standby Power Cir- cuits 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Development Agreement and .57-58 Ordinance for Property at 1755 E rcadero Road 6. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Financing Outstanding Debt 7. 1755 E b srcadero, Road - Execution of Grant Deed and Grant of Easement from City, of Palo Alto to Pine and Company (Richard Peery) 57-61 57-62 ITEM PAGE 8. Letter of Agreement Coordination . of - City 57-63 and County Hazardous Materials Activities 9. Changes in Election Code Requirements 57-63 Under Chapter 866 ]0. Request of Council Member Renzel re Suport 57-63 of AB 2450 (Sher) Adjournment at 8.05 p.m. 57-64 57-56 4/13/87 Regular Meeting Monday, April 13, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:33 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Pa ti tucci, Renee', Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT; Levy ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES,OF MARCH 16 1987 MOTION: Council Member Kloia moved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the ■inutes of March Ii, 19$7, as submitted. NOTION PASSED usaainonsly, Levy absent. 1. PRESENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA EDUCATIONAL THEATRE ASSOCIATION CITATION OF MERIT TO THE PALO ALTO CHILDREN `S THEATRE Mayor Woolley commented on the number of children that par- ticipated in the Children's Theatre. The Children's Theatre received a citation of merit for 50 years of excellence in presenting theatre by and for young people. The presenter acknowledged the role of the entire City staff when he made the award. The staff of .the Children's Theatre thanked all of their fellow City workers in all departments for their assistance in helping create the magic of Children's Theatre and for helping to keep it a safe and good environment for audiences,, participants and staff. She acknowledged Pet Briggs' endless patience and love, and gave her the City Citation of Merit to be kept At the Chiildreh's Theatre. Pat Briggs thanked the City for its support. E N I C iLENDAR MOTIONs CoOMOIL le secoadool by Cobb, approval :of tbo Consent Cal. 4.r: 57-57 4/13/87 Referral 2. 1987-92 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee (CMR:2 ) (801-07) Action N 3. AWARD OF CONTRACT WITH RAISCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR 1986-87 STREET RESURFACING AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - PROJECT HO. 86.70 a. Contract includes add alternate numbers 1.4 of Bid Package A and 1-2 of Bid Package B. b. Staff authorized to execute change orders to total contract of ,up to $122,000. 4, AWARD OF CONTRACT WITH EAST BAY ELECTRIC FOR INSTALLA- TION OF STANDBY POWER CIRCUITS (CMR:210:7) (1122-01) Staff authorized to execute change orders of up NOTION PASSSD unanimously, Levy absent. 5._ PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 1755 EMBARCADERO ROAD (300) Council Member Renzel clarified the property was .zoned Planner Community (PC) and she queried whether the City could initiate changes to a PC ordinance. City Attorney Diane Northway said while it was an. unusual occurrence, the City could initiate changes to a PC - _ordi- nance. Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the pub- lic hearing closed. NOTION: Co cil Itember Cobb moved, sosoilded by Sutor es, approval of Use Development Aspreeiest and letroda the'44105111111 for first ra4i y DIMILOPMUT AGINSUKT.: + 17S$ SWIC411610 ROAD City of Palo Alto .and Pie* and Co ', * :timmorel Partmership ORcI CE lOR P T MtiLiM '!O�;MAMCt Qr, TIN xc or �a raw We ,uPeSi1Rc rsit: osysroIralitr sasses raa rns mum at: i'ss Council Member Renze.I would abstain from voting. She did not believe the negotiations were in the best interests of the City. Council Member Patitucci queried whether every development agreement was a negotiated, separate item with an individual developer. Ms. Northway said it was the first development agreement, but anticipated it would be an individual matter as time went on. Council Member Patitucci said it seemed the sequence was somewhat backwards. .If the City wanted some restrictions, he believed it would have been nice to have the opportunity to review it prior to voting on the document in its final form, Ms. Northway said the voters gave the City a May 1 deadline. The City lost authority to exchange its property on Geng Road after May 1, 1987. The agreement issue did not arise until early March when the zoning was approved. Staff was directed to return with the documents, but first had to prepare an enabling resolution to provide a procedure; then, State law required the matter go to the Planning Commission after -the .resolution went into effect. Council Member Patitucci asked about the purpose of develop- ment agreements, how long they should run, what .types of things occurred during the period in which a developer .locked into the laws, etc. The Development Agreement locked in future City Councils, and he understood it was difficult, under State law, to lock any future City Council into any- thing except something voted on .by the people of the: City. He was concerned a future Council was being locked into the agreement. Ms. Northway said specific State legislation required the City to have an enabling ordinance to authorize development - type agreements, There was disagreement among the experts about whether the limited kinds of agreements were legal, but the weight of authority seemed to be they were. ,- Cur- rently, state legislation authorized development agreements. 1f Council was troubled by the 10 -year term, it would be no problem to amend the enabling resolution to pit a maximum limit on the term of future agreements, and Council might want to make a motion to that effect when the item was disposed of. 57-;59 4/13/87 As .corrected 5/11/87 Vice Mayor Sutorius said the State legislature created the law in 1979, which was used throughout the State. The Planning Commission had a thorough discussion regarding development agreements in 1983, because of the proposal for the development of the Maximart property. The type of development was such that a development agreement would have been appropriate had the City determined it wanted to enter into a different kind of handling of the Maximart property. Ile understood development agreements could have terms as short as several months or as . long as 20 years. The ten- year term was mid -course, and in the judgment of the two parties involved, it seemed to be a reasonable period. He shared the kind of concerns expressed in a generic sense by Council Member Patitucci, but recommended Council not change the enabling ordinance to make a precise term because when and it the next situation arose where a development agree- ment might be appropriate, the term the City wanted for its benefit might be longer than any minimum established at that time. Council Member Klein agreed with Vice Mayor Sutorius, It was an often -stated myth of local government law that future City Councils could not be bound. Council always did some- thing which bound some future City Council. He had no prob- lem with the ten-year term of the development agreement. Mayor Woolley agreed with Vice Mayor Sutorius and Council Member Klein. She believed the proposed development agree- ment was far more precise than what State law required. It was possible to give a developer just development rights in. effect and not even to have seen the project. The project received Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval, and it was a specific set of circumstances being agreed upon. Council Member Patitucci said the purpose of a development agreement was to allow a developer sufficient confidence in a long-term project that developed over many phases to be able to go ahead with those phases without worry that`the decisions which allowed the development would be overturned. Often those required a lot of community requirements which the community itself imposed and the developer, in nego- tiating, agreed to. But, for a single building on a single site, ten years seemed excessive to him. He did not par- ticularly want to change it but was concerned about the future procedure by which Council might approve development agreements.- He wanted to see the- proposed tens. and : condi- tions at least in time to express some opinion. In the sub- ject'instance, he agreed. MOTION PASSED by a yob, of 6-1-1, . Fletcher voting "not" Renzel °abstafining, " Levy absent. Council Member Renzel would abstain from voting. She did not believe the negotiations were in the best interests of the City. Council Member Patitucci queried whether every development agreement was a negotiated, separate item with an individual developer. Ms. Northway said it was the first -development agreement, but -anticipated it would be an individual matter as time went on. Council Member Patitucci said it seemed the sequence was somewhat backwards.. If the City wanted some restrictions, he believed it would have been nice to yhave the opportunity to review it prior to voting on the document in its final form. Ms. Northway said the voters gave the City a May 1 deadline. The City lost authority to exchange its property on Geng Road after '?.May- 1, 1987. The agreement issue did not arise, until early March when the zoning was approved. Staff was directed to return with the documents, but first had to .. prepare an enabling resolution to provide a procedure;., then, State law required the matter go to the Planning Commission after the resolution went into effect. Council Member Patitucci asked about the purpose of develop- ment agreements, how long they. should run, what types of things occurred during the period in .which a developer locked into the laws, etc. The Development Agreement locked in future City Councils, and he understood it was difficult, under State law, to lock any future City Council into any- thing except something voted on by the people of the state. He ways concerned a future Council wes being locked into the agreement. Ms. h`orthway said specific State legislation required the City to have an enabling ordinance to authorize development - type agreements. There was disagreement among the experts about whether the limited kinds of agreements were legal, but the weight of authority seemed to be they were. Cur- rently, state legislation authorized development agreements. If Counei1 was troubled by the 10 -year term, it would be no problem to amend the enabling resolution to .put a maximum limit on the term of future agreements, and Council might want to aaake a motion to that effect when the item was disposed of 57-59 4/13/87 Vice Mayor Sutorius said the State legislature created the law in 1979, which was used throughout the State. The Planning Commission had a thorough discussion regarding development agreements in 1983, because of the proposal for the development of the Maximart property. The type of development was such that a development agreement would have been appropriate had the City determined it wanted to enter into a different kind of handling of the Maximart property. He understood development agreements could have terms as short as several months or as long as 20 years. The ten- year term was raid -course, and in the judgment of the two parties . involved, it seemed to be a reasonable period. He shared the kind of concerns expressed in a generic sense by Council Member Patitucci, but recommended Council not change the enabling ordinance to make a precise term because when and if the next situation arose where a development agree- ment might be appropriate, the terry the City wanted for its benefit might be lodger than any minimum established at that time. Council Member Klein agreed with Vice Mayor Sutorius. It was an often -stated myth of local government law that future City Councils could not be bound. Council always did some- thing which bound some future City Council. He had no prob- lem with the ten-year term of the development agreement. Mayor Woolley agreed with Vice Mayor Sutorius and Council Member Klein. She believed the proposed development agree- ment was far more precise than what State law required. It was possible to give a developer just development rights in effect and not even to have seen the project. The project received Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval, and it was a specific set of circumstances being agreed upon. Council Member Patitucci said the purpose of a development agreement was to allow a developer sufficient confidence in a long-term project that developed over many phases to be able to go ahead with those phases without worry that the decisions which allowed the development would be overturned. Often those required a lot of community requirements which the community itself imposed and the developer, in nego- tiating, agreed to. But,for a single building on a single site, ten years seemed excessive to him. He did not par- ticularly want to change it but was concerned about the future procedure by which Council might approve development agreements. He wanted to see the proposed terms and condi- tions at least in time to express some opinion. In the sub- ject instance, ne agreed. $*TI I PASSIM by s vote' of 614 -1, Tletebar ,otjag !�o, 6 Semse1 absta lsiag, '' Levy ailment* 57-69 4/13/87. 6. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE FINANCING OUTSTANDING DEBT Council Member Klein said the refinancing was based on the falling interest rates. Since the Finance and •Public Works (F&PW) Committee meeting interest rates had .risen, and he requested an update from staff as to whether the facts, which were the basis of the F&PW Committee vote, were still true; and if not, where they were with regard to interest rates and the refinancing of the outstanding debt ques- tions. Financial Planning Administrator. Gordon Ford said the interest rates moved and in both cases the resolution called for action based upon a 3 percent savings and a 6.5 percent rate for conversion. In the case of the conversion, the current rate would be somewhere between 7 and 7.3 percent and the current savings was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.8 percent. Neither action was contemplated at today's market but if the market changed, state wanted to be pre- pared. Be recommended Council authorize staff to ; take action in the event the rates stated in the resolution could be achieved. There was a good possibility of rates moving to the levels being sought, and staff wanted to be able to proceed. In order to reach the market. and`its timing, it was necessary to take many actions in advance, and staff needed to' proceed as far as it could in order to be prepared to enter the market. Council Member Klein asked if Council approved the resolu- tion recommended by the F&PW Committee, how long the authorization would be valid and whether other circumstances might make ° it stale after a certain period of time. Mr. Gordon said in the case of the utility bond offering, they were looking at fixing rates primarily due to the con- struction period and •arbite,a%ge - calculations which were probably valid for at least a year. The calculations would change after that time period. In the case of the Civic Centel, Security Pacific was retained to assist for approxi- mately a one-year period. The actions taken to date would be valid for that type of time period. Be had no problem with Council approving the authorization for a period 02 one year. Assistant; City Manager June Fleming said Council would be notified by memorandum when such action was taken. 57.61 4/13/87 MOTION; Council Member Klein for the Finance and Public Yorks Committee moved that staff be directed to proceed\with refunding the Civic Center Certificates of Participation, as longs as the present value savings exceeds 3 percent, and to convert the 1989 Utility Revenue Bonds to a fixed rate, if ifter.ac cost is below 6,5 percent. AMENDMEX3'= Council Member Klein moved, seconded by R•nxel, to limit the authority for a period of one year from April 13, 1957. Vice Mayor Sutorius supported the motion and amendment and appreciated the attention given to the matter by Council Member Klein. He shared the concerns as to whether the City was losing an opportunity. Although the City had few refinancing opportunities, the window could be quickly closed. After the budget process was over, he hoped staff world consider whether any procedural recommendations might allow for Council's taking the action it took at an, earlier time; and, when an item was referred to F&PW as was the case, and the Committee discussed the subject on March 16, 1987, whether it could have been turned around more expedi- tiously. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. NOTION AS AMENDED PASSED. unanimously, Levy absent. 7. 1755 EMBARCADERO ROAD EXECUTION OF GRANT DEED AND GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CITY OF PALO ALTO TO PINE AND COMPANY (Richard Peery) (CMR:205:7) (300) MOTION* Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the staff recommendation as follows t a. Mayor to execute Grant Deed and Grant of Easement; and b. Staff to place executed documents into escrow to com- plete transaction prior to lay 1, 1967 deadline. GAT DEED GRANT OF EASEMENT MOTIF PA SED by a vote of 7 9 1, Levy absent. Menzel Raebstainiu9s 4 1 8. LETTER OF AGREEMENT COORDINATION OF CITY AND COUNTY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACTIVITIES Item removed by staff 9. CHANGES IN ELECTION CODE REQUIREMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 866 (SB 2480) (705) Mayor Woolley asked about the staff impacts of the two alternatives. City Clerk Gloria Young said if State legislation was imple- mented, the impacts would be to reply to written and verbal requests. Basically the costs of printing the bu.lvi: mea- sure would be approximately $3,500 to 44,000, which was the equivalent to 150 to 175 persons requesting a .copy of the ordinance or measure by mail at 22 cents for mailing costs. She suggested it would be easier to print the material than to provide it upon request. Council Member Renzel asked whether staff time and copying costs were included in the estimate. Ms. Young said no. The figure .only represented miling costs. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the staff recommendation and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for the printing of the full test of the ordinance or measure to be voted on in the sample bal- lot. Ms. Northway pointed out the ordinance would appear on the Consent Calendar. LOTION MUD unoni.ous1 , Levy absent. 10. REQUEST OF COUNCIL,MEMBER RENZEL RE SUPPORT OF AB 2450 (SHER) (1440) Council Member Fenzel said the Bay Conservation and Develop- ment Commission needed -a means of enforcement and the reso- lution provided the enabling legislation to do so. She urged approval. NOTION:. • Council Number 2snsel moved, socO::d :d by Bechtel, to approve the resoluti• , RESOLUTION 602 untitled °R'E.SOLUTION of TOE COON IE vP Tag CITY OF FLLO ALTO . I8 SUPPORT OF AE 2450 (BOER) Amman TOR GCATEERTPETRIS AC_T TO£DD CIVIL PENALTIES - FOR IF/MATING.THE LAN euahsIS?I BY -Tick SAN FRANCISCO: BAT, CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONKISSI X' NOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. AU,JVU ldlmENT Council adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED