Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-06 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL May 6, 2015 Special Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. Call to Order Oral Communications 6:00-6:15 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Study Session 6:15-7:15 PM 1.Potential Topics of Discussion for the Joint Study Session with theHistoric Resources Board 7:15-8:45 PM 2.Study Session on Public Safety Building and Site Selection Process Action 8:45-9:15 PM 3.Policy and Services Committee Recommendation Regarding Changes to City Council and Standing Committee Minutes (Continued from May 4, 2015) 1 May 6, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. REVISED -1 Closed Session 9:15 PM-10:15 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 3.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 Property: U.S. Post Office, 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Joe Saccio, Hillary Gitelman, Meg Monroe, Molly Stump, Cara Silver Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and United States Post Office Under Negotiation: Purchase: Price and Terms of Payment Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 2 May 6, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITYCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5578) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Joint Meeting with Historic Resources Board Title: Potential Topics of Discussion for the Joint Study Session With the Historic Resources Board From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint meeting with the Historic Resources Board on March 23, 2015 at 6:00 PM. I. Overview/Update a. Introduction to the HRB by Staff b. HRB Presentation on proposed work program and challenges II. Council Questions and Comments City of Palo Alto (ID # 5483) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Public Safety Building Study Session Title: Study Session on Public Safety Building and Site Selection Process From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This Study Session provides an opportunity for City Council discussion regarding potential sites for a new Public Safety Building and the process for selecting a site. As this report offers limited options, staff wanted Council to have the opportunity to discuss any additional alternatives that could be identified before proceeding with staff’s recommendation to further analyze three sites. No Council action is recommended. Executive Summary The June 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan identified $57 million in funding for the construction of a new Public Safety Building (PSB), which was designated as the City’s top infrastructure priority. This report identifies three City-owned sites that are proposed to be further studied in the site selection and evaluation process. The new PSB will address the space and program needs of the Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), the Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the administration needs of the Fire Department. The new PSB is expected to provide for the City’s public safety needs over the next 50 years, as well as address and resolve compliance issues with seismic, accessibility, code and regulatory requirements. Background The existing police building at 275 Forest Avenue was opened in 1970. This facility is approximately 25,000 square feet (sf). Due to changes in code and City of Palo Alto Page 2 regulatory requirements, the existing police building does not meet current seismic, accessibility or regulatory code requirements that are applicable to an essential services facility. Numerous assessments have been conducted over the past 30 years, and each has concluded that the size of the existing police building is inadequate; space needs for an adequate PSB in prior recommendations have reached as high as 70,000 square feet. Differences in these assessments were due to assumptions made during each study on cost, available sites, demographics, population growth, technological and regulatory trends, inclusion of other city department functions, potential environmental impacts, parking and emergency operations. (Please see addendum at the end of this report for chronology of earlier assessment studies). Between 2010 and 2011, the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC), consisting of 17 Council-appointed residents, met to review and make recommendations on the overall infrastructure needs of the City. The final report, dated December 22, 2011, indicated that the PSB was still a critical priority and should be pursued expeditiously. IBRC recommendation #3-1 states: “Build a new Public Safety Building (PSB) as soon as possible on a new site, incorporating the Police Department, the Fire Department administration, the Communications Center, the Emergency Operations Center, and the Office of Emergency Services.” In July 2012, the Council held another study session to discuss the IBRC’s recommendations. The Council reviewed the previous space programming work done to determine the size and cost estimate for the Public Safety Building. With input from the Public Safety departments and RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. (RDC), Council selected a new PSB program square footage of 44,848 and a project cost estimate of $57 million. The $57 million project cost estimate included $10 million for land acquisition. This square footage was based on 1) Council direction to cut the total space by 10% and 2) a generic space-constrained site. In 2013, the Jay Paul Company offered to construct the PSB at 3045 Park Boulevard as a public benefit in connection with the permitting of a large office development project within and adjacent to the California Avenue business district. The offer and the proposed office project were withdrawn by the City of Palo Alto Page 3 developer in late 2013. The June 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan identified $57 million in funding for the construction of a new Public Safety Building (PSB), which was designated as the City’s top infrastructure priority. Discussion In 2013 and 2014, the Council’s Infrastructure Committee met a number of times to determine a strategy for funding the City’s most pressing infrastructure needs in response to the recommendations of the IBRC Final Report. In 2014 after receiving the Infrastructure Committee’s recommendations, Council identified a new Public Safety Building as the top infrastructure priority and outlined a funding mechanism using existing city funds and leveraging the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue stream from planned new hotels to obtain Certificates of Participation (COPs). COPs are lease-revenue bonds that permit the investor to participate in a stream of lease, installment or loan payments relating to the acquisition or construction of specific equipment, land or facilities. Although the Council’s Infrastructure Funding Plan included an increase of two percentage points to the existing TOT tax rate (passed by the voters in the November 2014 election), funding for the PSB was not dependent on passage of the increase. Site Selection Following the 2014 prioritization by Council of the PSB, staff from Public Works, Police, Fire, Administrative Services, and Office of Emergency Services convened a working group to identify and evaluate sites for the new facility. Over 20 potential sites were considered (see Attachment A). Many of the potential sites, such as the previous top candidate (2747-2785 Park Blvd), have recently started development projects and are no longer available. A real estate broker was also retained to help with the process, but no suitable properties were being offered for sale at the time. Staff also considered a potential location within the Stanford Research Park. During recent conversations with City staff, Stanford’s real estate office staff indicated that Stanford would be supportive of combining the PSB needs with Fire Station #2 on Hanover Street, if this could be accomplished within the existing leased parcel. The Fire Station #2 site is leased by Stanford to the City. However, City of Palo Alto Page 4 the existing fire station site is only 0.98 acres and has an irregular shape. Stanford’s representative also stated that Stanford would be less inclined to enter into a lease agreement, and that Stanford does not currently have available any developed sites that are not already committed. Stanford is willing to include the City’s request in strategic planning for sites that could become available during the next 5 years. After many meetings and review sessions, staff at this point in time has narrowed the potential sites for discussion to three with the highest potential for relatively rapid development: 1. 3120 W. Bayshore Avenue (PG&E Switching Station) – Attachment B 2. 1237 San Antonio Road (Area C of the Former LATP Site) – Attachment C 3. 250 Sherman Avenue (City Parking Lot C-6) – Attachment D The cost of land per acre in Palo Alto has now exceeded the 2012 budget estimate of $10 million for property acquisition. Therefore, the list of sites above focuses on City-owned properties that do not require acquisition. The three City-owned sites under consideration are designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Major Institutional Special Facilities (MISF), which is appropriate for a PSB. Furthermore, these three sites are zoned Public Facility (PF), also appropriate. 3120 W. Bayshore Road (PG&E Switching Station): The PG&E Switching Station, at 3120 W. Bayshore Road, is a part of a larger City- owned parcel that includes the Colorado Electric Substation. To make this site available, PG&E switching equipment would need to be relocated to the Colorado Electric Substation. PG&E personnel have indicated that PG&E would be willing to consider studying this relocation. Staff estimates the total cost of relocating the switching equipment and reconfiguring the Colorado Electric Substation at approximately $7.5 million. This consolidation would reduce the annual rent paid by the Electric Fund to the General Fund. The Electric Fund currently pays rent of approximately $875,000 per year on the area used by PG&E. The PG&E Switching Station site is 3.5 acres. Funding for the relocation could be covered by a combination of the property acquisition budget and/or Electric Fund contributions that would be repaid by the long-term land rent savings. Staff City of Palo Alto Page 5 estimates that the relocation of the PG&E switching station would take between 3 to 4 years. To obtain detailed costs and schedule, the City will have to execute a payment agreement with PG&E to prepare a feasibility study. 1237 San Antonio Road (Area C of the Former LATP Site) Area C of the former Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site is 2.6 acres. It is currently undeveloped, but is rented to contractors on a month-to-month basis for staging and equipment storage. Palo Alto bought the remaining half-interest in the LATP site from the City of Los Altos in 2008. The LATP Site ownership is shared equally by the City’s General Fund and Refuse Fund. The most recent proposed use of this property was as a relocation site for the Animal Services Center, but this proposal is no longer under consideration. 250 Sherman Avenue (City Parking Lot C-6) Parking Lot C-6 at 250 Sherman Avenue is 1.2 acres, but could potentially be increased to 1.5 acres if the Sherman Avenue right-of-way between Lot C-6 and the County Courthouse is included. The loss of surface parking could be mitigated by building a new parking structure on the adjacent Parking Lot C-7, or potentially on a different surface parking lot. Additionally, under this scenario the $10 million land acquisition budget could potentially provide funding to construct secure underground parking for police vehicles beneath the PSB, maximizing the number of parking spaces available for public use in the new parking structure. Construction of a PSB on Lot C-6 was considered in 2006, but was not pursued due to opposition at that time from California Avenue merchants, who were concerned about the change from surface parking to structure parking. A new parking structure in the California Avenue area is a part of the Council’s Infrastructure Plan, but this would likely not be initiated until 2018. Siting the PSB on Lot C-6 could free up the PSB property acquisition funds to help expedite a new parking garage for this area. A new garage might also include ground-floor retail that could be designated as below-market-rate for preservation of locally- owned shops. Many of the 24 sites evaluated by the 2006 BRTF have been redeveloped or are otherwise no longer viable options. The site at 3120 West Bayshore Road was eliminated by the BRTF due to its location in the Special Hazard Flood Zone and the high potential for soil liquefaction during an earthquake. These concerns would arise with the 1237 San Antonio Road property as well. The successful use City of Palo Alto Page 6 of either of these sites would also be dependent on future efforts to address sea level rise, which is related to the Flood Zone concerns. However, such risks may be mitigated. For example, Redwood City built their new Public Safety Building at 1301 Maple Street, Redwood City, CA on similar land (Baylands). The Redwood City facility is located on the east (Bay) side of Highway 101 like the LATP Site. Staff has held meetings with Redwood City to inquire about “lessons learned” and the mitigations that were made necessary. At the same time, the building would be far removed from the center of the City and isolated. Next Steps Staff is considering that the City enter into a preliminary design services contract with RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. (RDC) in order to review/reconfirm program needs and conduct a site selection and evaluation study of [up to four] identified sites. RDC would prepare draft and final building test-fit diagrams for each site, a matrix of the site evaluations and a final technical report. The results will be presented to the Council for site selection. A contract with RDC is expected to cost between $60,000 and $80,000. RDC is most familiar with the needs of the new facility due to its work on the previous site and its work with the City to refine the 2013 Jay Paul Company proposal. Staff can complete site selection faster by leveraging RDC’s existing knowledge of the proposed PSB project. The contract amount is expected to be within the contracting authority of the City Manager. The proposed site evaluation study would include a public outreach process to obtain comments and concerns from those living or doing business near the sites as well as the general public. Resource Impact The New Public Safety Building will be funded in the Capital Improvement Fund. As mentioned previously, the cost of the project was accounted for in the City Council-approved Infrastructure Plan, and was prioritized ahead of the other projects included in the plan and will require the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs) with future Transient Occupancy Tax revenue pledged for the repayment of the debt. The Council Infrastructure Plan adopted in June 2014 contained a draft outline of how existing and future funding sources that are included in the Plan could be used to provide the necessary funding at the appropriate points in time. Staff is evaluating the timeline of projects and funding sources and will return to Council for discussion of the overall Council City of Palo Alto Page 7 Infrastructure Plan. Policy Implications The staff recommendation is consistent with prior Council direction. Pursuit of a new PSB is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy C-24 and Programs C-19 and C-20. Policy C-24 Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure. Program C-19 Develop improvement plans for the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of community facilities, and keep these facilities viable community assets by investing the necessary resources. Program C-20 Conduct comprehensive analyses of long-term infrastructure replacement requirements and costs. Environmental Review Complete CEQA documentation for any new selected site will be completed as part of the schematic design phase after final site selection. A previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard contains similar expected impacts. The EIR report for that site is availabe at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/facilities/safety.asp Chronology of Earlier Assessments In 1997, Council directed staff to initiate the process for site selection and the construction of a new PSB. A capital improvement project was initiated in Fiscal Year 1998 to select a site and prepare a conceptual design. From 1999 to 2000, extensive site assessment studies were performed for sites at Park Boulevard, California Avenue, Page Mill/El Camino, the Downtown Library, and the existing Forest Avenue Civic Center location. The costs for either renovating and expanding the existing facility or demolishing City of Palo Alto Page 8 and reconstructing a new facility in the same location while relocating the Police Department for up to two years were found to be higher than other sites. However, public opposition to other sites and potential environmental impacts kept the focus on the Civic Center site as a top candidate. In 2001, Council directed staff to proceed with the conceptual design for expansion and modernization of the Civic Center site (CMR:291:01). In December 2004, Council directed staff to begin conceptual design to expand and renovate the existing police facility, using the space needs analyses and site assessment studies that identified a building size of approximately 50,000 sf with an additional 5,000 sf of off-site warehouse space for property and evidence storage (CMR:498:04). In February and May 2005, two colleagues’ memos presented to City Council suggested that as much as $5-6 million could be saved by considering a “turn-key” police building project, allowing the Police Department to remain operational by moving into a new facility rather than incurring additional costs associated with reconstruction of the existing police building. Because of the additional costs and disruption associated with the renovation and expansion of the existing facility, as well as the concerns raised by the need to exceed the downtown 50’ height limit, Council directed staff to temporarily discontinue design of the renovation and expansion of the existing police building and proceed with a preliminary evaluation of a downtown site that included a partially city-owned parking lot behind the post office. On August 8, 2005, the Council directed staff to issue a Request for Statements of Interest (SOI) for a “turn-key” police building and return with a comparison of the “turn-key” proposal to the previously approved plan to renovate and expand the existing police building (CMR:349:05). On November 21, 2005, Council evaluated three SOI proposals and determined that there may be another option for a new police facility that would involve a Santa Clara County-owned parcel of land near the Palo Alto Courthouse in the California Avenue area. Because of this additional option Council decided not to pursue any of the SOI proposals submitted and directed staff to assess the potential of siting the new police building on the County-owned parcel. The Council also directed the mayor to appoint a community-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate the need, size, cost and site for a public safety building (CMR:428:05). City of Palo Alto Page 9 The Council requested the BRTF to evaluate overall programmatic space needs and to study feasible sites within Palo Alto. The BRTF met 13 times and considered 28 different Palo Alto sites, including an expansion of the existing site. To ensure the building size was carefully assessed, the BRTF convened a space subcommittee to evaluate the space and functional need of each program area, room-by-room. The subcommittee also compared the existing space with the proposed space needs. This reexamination of the building size resulted in a 15% space reduction of a new PSB from 58,076 sf to 49,600 sf. It should be noted that the BRTF did not include certain elements now required to be in the PSB, including the Fire Department and Office of Emergency Services. The Office of Emergency Services was created in 2011. On June 26, 2006, the BRTF issued a report, concluding: (1) the most cost- effective means of upgrading and modernizing the facility was to construct a new building, rather than retrofit and expand the existing facility; (2) a minimum site size of 49,600 sf building would be required to accommodate all required programming needs; and (3) the Park Boulevard site was the most feasible location for a new PSB at that time. On September 25, 2006, the Council approved a consultant services contract with RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. (RDC) to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), preliminary engineering and architectural design drawings and cost estimates to a 25% level of effort for a new, approximately 50,000 sf PSB proposed for two parcels on Park Boulevard (CMR:374:06). On November 19, 2007, the Council certified the Environmental Impact Report analyzing various site and building configurations located at 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard and approved a purchase option agreement with Essex Park Boulevard, LLC to acquire the 2785 Park Boulevard property (CMR:420:07). On June 1, 2009, the Council terminated purchase option agreements for two properties located at 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard, originally identified for a new PSB, due to the City's financial position and the overall state of the national economy resulting from the Great Recession. Design of the new PSB was suspended at the 35% stage. Approximately $3.2 million had been expended on the project up to that date (CIP PE-98020). Of the total expended, $1.9 million City of Palo Alto Page 10 was directly related to the 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard site. In early January 2013, the properties at 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard were sold to the Jay Paul Company for $2,390,000 and $9,087,000, respectively. In October 2014, the Jay Paul Company submitted a planning application for a new three- story 33,000 sf office building on these two properties. The planning application is still in review. Attachments:  A - Palo Alto Potential Site Matrix and Map (PDF)  B - PGE Switching Station (PDF)  C - Former LATP Site (PDF)  D - City Parking Lot C-6 (PDF) Page 1 of 2 Site Property Name RANK for Cost to Develop Rank for Time to Develop Property Address Owner Name APN Zoning Estimated Value/Price Land Size (acres) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Comments and/or Reason for Elimination 1 PG&E Substation B or C B or C 3120 W Bayshore City of Palo Alto 127-36-039 PF City Owned 3.5 MISF - Major Institutional/Special Facitility Subject to substation decomissioning. Requires negotiation and working with PG&E to remove their equipment and co-locate it on the adjacent City of Palo Alto Colorado Substation. 2 Former Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) A B 1237 San Antonio City of Palo Alto 116-01-013 PF(d)City Owned 2.6 MISF - Major Institutional/Special Facitility Total site is 13+ acres. Approximately 4.6 Acres are designated for development and suitable PSB land use. Only 2.62 acres has full environmental clearance for immediate development. 3 City Parking Lot C-6 C C 250 Sherman Ave City of Palo Alto 124-29-016 PF City Owned 1.2 MISF - Major Institutional/Special Facitility Area is 1.5 acres with Sherman Avenue Right-of-Way. Combine with new garage on Lot C-7. Program compromises may be necessary to fit PSB on this site. 4 GENERIC - Stanford Research Park Site C C examples: 3406 Hillview 2625 Hanover St ECR & Page Mill Rd Stanford Real Estate Office various Reseach Park Negotiate Lease various Research / Office Park This site option is a holding place for a potential leased site from Stanford Lands Management. Other examples includes site adjacent to FS #2 and the parking lot of Palo Alto Square. 2785 Park Blvd Jay Paul 132-31-042 GMB $11,000,000 1.1 2747 Park Blvd Jay Paul 132-31-071 GMB $3,000,000 0.3 Total $14,000,000 1.4 6 Former DataSafe property 3160 W Bayshore Almona Properties, LLC 127-36-030 ROLM $ 29,140,800 3.2 Research / Office Park High rank site. Carmel Stone is a tenant on a large warehouse. Eliminated due to high cost and proximity of City-owned PG&E switching station site option. 7 "2013 Jay Paul Proposal"3045 Park Blyd Jay Paul 132-32-053 GMB $14,000,000 1.4 Light Industrial Too small with a poor location. The 2013 private development offer involved a compromised program to make it work. Eliminated due to high cost and proposed office development in progress. Not for sale. 8 County Mental Health Facility across from Court House 231 Grant Ave Santa Clara County 132-31-074 PF 1.4 MISF - Major Institutional/Special Facitility Eliminated due to long and uncertain property acquisistion process. County Land would need to be declared surplus property and sold in a manner similar to the Post Office property. 9 1755 Embarcadero 1755 Embarcadero Richard Peery 008-02-033 ROLM (E)(D)(AD)$30,643,200 3.7 Research / Office Park Eliminated due to location, excessive cost, and displacement of current site occupants. Not for sale. 10 Fire Station #4 & Substation 3600 Middlefield City of Palo Alto 132-06-012 PF City Owned 1.8 MISF - Major Institutional/Special Facitility Eliminated due to long and uncertain process to vacate the site. Existing electrical substation and Fire Station 4 would require relocation. 3600 El Camino Real Giovannotto 137-08-079 CS $2,300,000 0.23 3606 El Camino Real Giovannotto 137-08-080 CN $6,500,000 0.65 Giovannotto 137-08-016 CS $1,200,000 0.12 3508 El Camino Real Mary Blaine 137-08-088 CS $2,500,000 0.25 Total $12,500,000 1.3 12 Previous Chop Keenan proposal (Gilman St)300 Hamilton Ave Hamilton Associates 300 120-16-096 CD-C (P); PF Regional / Community Commerical Eliminated due to cost, small size and complicated configuration required. Not for sale. 2211 Park Blvd Burnside 124-28-043 RM-30 $3,800,000 0.35 2151 Park Blvd Skinner & MacDonald 124-27-039 RM-30 $2,800,000 0.26 2181 Park Blvd Skinner & MacDonald 124-27-038 RM-30 $2,800,000 0.26 Total $9,400,000 0.9 14 385 Sherman 385 Sherman Minkoff Group 124-33-055 CC (2)$75,000,000 0.6 Regional / Community Commerical Eliminated due to small size of site and current redevelopment project in progress. Not for sale. 15 Deer Creek 3420 Deer Creek Rd Stanford Real Estate Office 142-16-064 AC (D)Negotiate Lease 5.0 Open Space Eliminated due to land use designation. 16 Pac Bell Property 3350 Birch St Pacific Bell 132-33-050 PF Joint Use/Lease?1.6 MISF - Major Institutional/Special Facitility Eliminated due to size restrictions of a split and shared site with Pac Bell's facility. 17 Animal Services 3281 East Bayshore Road City of Palo Alto City Owned 1.4 MISF - Major Institutional/Special Facitility Eliminated due to need to relocate Animal Services. 18 Cubberley Community Center 4000 Middlefield Road City of Palo Alto City Owned 8.0 MISF - Major Institutional/Special Facitility Eliminated due to recent lease renewal terms. 19 Ming's Restaurant 1700 Embarcadero HC Investment As 008-03-084 CS (D)26,000,000$ 2.5 Eliminated due to cost and the proposed hotel on the site is a source of transient occupancy tax that is to fund the new PSB. 20 Site on El Camino & Cambridge & California 2390 El Camino Real Menlo Land and C137-01-129 CN 0.8 Eliminated due to small size of the site and displacement of current site occupants. Not for sale. 21 Palo Alto Square Palo Alto Square Equity Office (99 yr lease from Stanford) 142-20-072 PC-4637 Negotiate Lease 15.0 Research / Office Park PSB would not replace existing development. It would be placed on existing parking lot with a garage to offset displaced parking. Eliminated due to overly complicated nature of the proposal. 22 Existing Six-story Office Building 2600 El Camino Real Stanford Real Estate Office 142-20-048 CS Negotiate Lease 1.7 Public Safety Building Project - Staff Evaluated Sites Attachment A Original Planned PSB Site D B5 13 Park Blvd Law Offices 11 El Camino & Matadero Eliminated due to small size of site and poor economic use of prime El Camino Real frontage. Not for sale. Eliminated due to small size of the site and displacement of current site occupants. Not for sale. Service Commercial Regional / Community Commerical Site previously under option by City. EIR previously completed. Eliminated due to high cost and proposed office development in progress. Not for sale. Light Industrial El Camino Real El Camino Real Alma Street Alma Street Alma St University Avenue University Ave Foothill Expr Foothill Expr Pine Lane Marich Way S. Rengstorff Avenue Independence Avenue West Portola Avenue Clark Avenue California Street Latham Street Del Medio Avenue Showers Drive Los Altos Avenue Fremont Road Santa Monica Avenue Gilbert Avenue Menalto Avenue Woodland Avenue O'Conner Street Clar k A v e n u e Woodland Avenue Pulgas Avenue O'Conner Street Jasmine Way Bay Laurel Drive Bay Laurel Drive Windsor Drive Peter Coutts Circle Lasuen Street Panama Dr Governors Ave Electioneer Ave Fremont Street University Drive Cambridge Avenue Middle Avenue Arbor Road Creek Drive Willow Road Oak Grove Avenue Santa Cruz Avenue Escondido Road Olmstead Road Middlefield Road Middlefield Road Middlefield Rd Bayshore Fwy Bayshore Fwy Page Mill Rd Embarcadero Road Charleston Rd Sand Hill Road Glenwood Avenue Loma Verde Ave Lytton Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Cowper St Emerson St Addison Ave E Meadow Dr W Meadow Dr Maybell Ave Stanford Ave California Ave Chimalus Dr Heather Ln Newell Rd Churchill Ave Park Blvd Raimundo Way Bryant St College Ave Louis Rd Greer RdColorado Ave Ross Rd Arastradero Rd Arastradero Rd Los Robles Ave Georgia Ave La Donna St Laguna Ave Amaranta Ave Barron Ave Matadero Ave Seale Ave South Ct Park Blvd La Para Ave Birch St Lincoln Ave Page Mill Rd El Verano Ave El Dorado Ave Emerson St Amarillo Ave N California Ave Hawthorne Ave Ash St Olive Ave Ventura Ave Alma St Wilkie Way Ferne Ave Alvarado Avenue Alma Street San Mateo Drive San Antonio Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Junip e r o S erra Boulev a r d P a ge Mi l l Road A r a st r ad er o R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l San Antonio Avenue C h a r l e s t on R o a d O re g o n E x pr e s s w a y Middlefield R o ad U niversity A v enue A l m a S tr e et Camino Real Foothill Expre s s w a y H i l l v i e w E a st B a y s h ore W e st B a y s h o re Fa bian C S a n d Hill R o a d E m ba r ca de r o R o a d East Palo Alto StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Mountain View Palo Alto 2 3 10 16 6 5 9 15 4 8 7 1 21 13 14 12 11 19 18 22 20 17 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Boundary High Potential PSB Sites 0'3400' St a f f E v a l u a t e d PS B S i t e s CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto mraschk, 2015-02-02 15:03:23PSB - Staff Evaluated Sites (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\mraschk.mdb) Attachment A 3133 31 33 3125 31 25 3117 31 17 1093 10 3109 31 09 3101 31 01 1064 1064 10661066 106810681070 072 074 1082 1082 3120 3120 1080 City of Palo AltoColorado Substation PG&E Site 3120 W. Bayshore Rd. 3.5 Acres WEST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY Ma t a d e r o C r e e k This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Parcel Outline abc PSB Site for Evaluation 0'100' PG & E S w i t c h i n g S t a t i o n 31 2 0 W . B a y s h o r e R o a d CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto mraschk, 2015-02-02 13:30:50PSB Site - PG&E Site (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\mraschk.mdb) 1000 1000 1007 3803 3801 3801 1032 1032 1015 1015 1023 1023 1010 1020 1020 1029 1029 1121 1121 1135 1135 1129 1129 1137 1137 1052 1052 1054 1054 1056 1056 1058 1058 1047 1047 1049 1049 1131 1131 1133 1133 1113 1113 1261 1261 1221 1221 1151 1151 3905 1237 San Antonio LATP SiteArea A 4.0 Acres LATP SiteArea B6.6 Acres LATP SiteArea C 2.6 Acres well Court io n W ay SAN ANTONIO AVENUE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Parcel Outline abc PSB Site for Evaluation 0'200' Fo r m e r L o s A l t o s T r e a t m e n t Pl a n t ( L A T P ) S i t e CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto mraschk, 2015-02-02 13:10:43PSB Site - LATP (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\mraschk.mdb) 231 321 321 361 361 24152415 399 399 385 385 2451 2443 2445 2447 395 393 381 381- 395 385 345 341 341- 347 347 2500 2516 2514 2512 2510 2508 2506 2504 2502 2502-2518 362 300 3 0 0 - 3 3 0 302 330 332 33 2 - 36 2 2460 299 299 24352435 24392439 249 249 201 201- 217 205209213 2450 2442 2434 2426 217 265 265 270 270 251 251 304 306 308 310 312 314 316 318 320 322 324 326 328 334 336338 340342 344346 348350 352 354 356358 360 261 261 24532453 365 365 369 369 24372437 24312431 250 250 350 350 24412441 2473 2473 24572457 2418 2418-2460 2432 2518 300 300 250 250 208 298 298 324 324 24252425 251 251 2575 2575 370 370 2484 2484Parking Lot C-7 Parking Lot C-6 250 Sherman Avenue 1.5 Acres (hatched area) SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE ASH STREET CALIFORNIA AVENUE PA RK B OULEVARD SH JACARANDA LANE GRANT AVENUE SHERMAN AVENUE BIRCH S TR EE T GRA This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Parcel Outline abc PSB Site for Evaluation 0'100' Ci t y P a r k i n g L o t C - 6 25 0 S h e r m a n A v e CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto mraschk, 2015-02-02 13:22:29 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\mraschk.mdb) CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 4, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation Regarding Changes to City Council and Standing Committee Minutes Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council discuss and affirm Policy and Service Committee recommendation to move to Action minutes to record the proceedings of the Council and Standing Committee meetings, to include retaining DVD’s of the meetings as a source of minutes. Staff is looking for guidance whether to also produce Verbatim minutes, or Verbatim minutes for specific agenda items when needed. Executive Summary On December 16, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee voted 3-1, Schmid no, to immediately move to Action minutes and to retain the video as the formal record of the City Council and Standing Committee meetings, and that the City Council was to determine whether verbatim minutes were necessary. Currently, the City Clerk’s Office produces Sense Minutes of City Council and Council Standing Committee meetings, as directed by Municipal Code Section 2.04.160 (Attachment A). Sense Minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of the remarks by Council Members, Staff and members of the public as they speak regarding a particular matter under discussion. Council and some Standing Committee meeting minutes are typed by a contracted transcription service; the remainder are typed by Clerk Staff. In the event Council affirms the change to Action minutes, Staff will have to bring back an Ordinance, on Consent, changing the Municipal Code. Background During a Council meeting, City Clerk Staff begins the Action Minutes (Attachment B) by typing the names of all speakers and the motions. The second Staff member types the motions (Attachment C) so they appear on the screen for Council and the public to view. Within one week, Staff produces the final Action Minutes, which consists of just the motions. The Action minutes are then sent off to the transcriptionist to type the Sense Minutes. Depending on the length of the meeting and how many other sets of minutes they are working on, the minutes could take two or more weeks to return to us. A final review of the completed minutes is done by the City Clerk, and the minutes are placed on the agenda for Council’s approval. This whole process may take up to a month to complete. Last year a question was submitted to the City Clerks ListServe inquiring what types of Page 2 minutes were completed by cities. Of the 72 agencies that responded, 35 use Action Minutes and relied on the meeting video as the official record of the meeting. Thirty cities use Sense/Summary minutes and the remaining seven used detailed summary minutes. No agency used verbatim minutes. The Midpeninsula Media Center records all of our meetings and places them, via YouTube on their website. We are in the process of putting the link to these videos in a table that will include links to the agendas and minutes for each meeting. We are working to make it easier for the public to have all information regarding a meeting in one location. Resource Impact In the event Council chooses to affirm the use of Action minutes and the video to be the official record of their meetings, the City Clerk’s Office will save approximately $20,000 in contract transciription fees. In the event that Sense or Verbatim minutes are needed for a specific agenda item, these can be completed by either Clerk Staff or the outstide transcription service. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Municipal Code Section (DOCX)  Attachment B: 03-16-15 CCM Draft Action (DOC)  Attachment C: 04-06-15 CCM Motions (DOC)  Attachment D: 12-16-14 P&S EXCERPT 2 (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 ATTACHMENT A 2.04.160 City council minutes. (a) The minutes of the council shall be kept by the city clerk. The minutes shall be neatly typewritten or printed in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each particular type of business transacted set off in paragraphs, with proper subheadings. (b) The minutes shall include a record of all business discussed at regular or special meetings of the council. The minutes shall be sense minutes and need not be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Sense minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as speak upon a particular matter under discussion. A record shall be made of the names and addresses of persons addressing the council, together with a brief summary of their remarks indicating whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter. Nothing in this section shall be construed to compel registration as a condition to attendance at a meeting. (c) As soon as possible after each council meeting the city clerk shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each council member, the city manager, other officers and department heads of the city, all newspapers of general circulation within the city, and be made available to the public at the front counter in the city clerk's office, the table and bulletin board in the council chambers, and all city libraries, except the Children's Library. (d) At the meeting following publication, council minutes shall be agendized by the city clerk for the council's approval. Corrections to the minutes shall be made at the meeting. Council members may submit their corrections in writing or orally to the city clerk's office before the time of the meeting. The city clerk shall distribute a written copy of all corrections received during regular business hours to all council members at the meeting. (Ord. 4692 § 1 (part), 2001) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES 1 March 16, 2015 Regular Meeting March 16, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:07 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Kniss, Schmid, Wolbach arrived @ 6:21 P.M. Absent: Holman, Scharff Special Orders of the Day 1. Presentation of Proclamation to Exchange Students from Tsuchiura, Japan and Presentation of Matt Schlegel, Marathon Runner. Vice Mayor Schmid Diana Nemet, Vice Mayor Schmid Ms. Nemet Matt Schlegel Jennifer Buenrostro Etsuo Sato Council Member Kniss Vice Mayor Schmid read the Proclamation. 2 March 16, 2015 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Vice Mayor Schmid announced that Agenda Item Number 9 will be postponed James Keene, City Manager Vice Mayor Schmid MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to continue Agenda Item 9- CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 to a date unknown. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent City Manager Comments Jim Keene, City Manager Vice Mayor Schmid Council Member Kniss read the Proclamation for Ray Bacchetti. Vice Mayor Schmid Council Member Berman Council Member Burt Dennis Burns, Police Chief Oral Communications William Conlon Eamonn Gormley Jeff Hoel Stephanie Munoz 3 March 16, 2015 Catherine Marteneau Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-14. 2. Approval of a Contract with SCS Field Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $139,060 for the First Year to Provide Landfill Gas and Leachate Control Systems Maintenance, Monitoring, and Reporting Services and to Exercise the Option of a Second and Third Year of the Contract. 3. Approval of a Site and Design Application by Peck Desing on Behalf of Walnut Holding, LLC for a new 13,118 sf Single Family Home, detached garage, and pool; and Associated Site Improvements on a 10.39 Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zone District located at 820 Los Trancos Road. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration has Been Prepared. 4. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Amendment One to Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Increase Palo Alto’s Total Cost Obligation by $500,000 Through FY 2016 for a Total Cost Obligation of $1,235,915 to Fund Water Conservation Rebate and Incentive Programs and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 5313 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Council for the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $400,000.” MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent Action Items 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Status and Discussion of Existing Comprehensive Plan Themes and Structure. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director Vice Mayor Schmid Mila Zelkhas 4 March 16, 2015 Stephanie Munoz Bob Moss Vice Mayor Schmid Council Member Burt Ms. Gitelman Council Member Burt Mark Michael, Planning and Transportation Commissioner Council Member Burt Mr. Michael Council Member Burt Ms. Gitelman Council Member Burt concept plans James Keene, City Manager Council Member Burt Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman 5 March 16, 2015 Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman Council Member DuBois Council Member Kniss Ms. Gitelman Council Member Kniss Ms. Gitelman Council Member Kniss Council Member Filseth not in comp plan quantitative element Council Member Berman Ms. Gitelman Council Member Berman Council Member Wolbach Ms. Gitelman Mr. Keene Council Member Wolbach Vice Mayor Schmid land use 6 March 16, 2015 MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XX that the Summit sessions will explore the impacts of replacing Theme Number 6- Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs, with following: 1. the number of residents and the number of employees will grow at the same rate over time; 2. the rate of growth of jobs and residents will remain at or below the Council Member DuBois Vice Mayor Schmid Mr. Keene Vice Mayor Schmid MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member DuBois Council Member Filseth Council Member Burt Vice Mayor Schmid Ms. Gitelman great line of discussion how council would like to be involved involve council at these major issue points schedule sessions to go further into the words Vice Mayor Schmid Council Member Wolbach Ms. Gitelman Council Member Wolbach direction or redirection on themes, calendar Mr. Keene 7 March 16, 2015 Council member Dubois MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to have a deeper discussion on the Comprehensive Plan on the overarching goals and vision statement of each element before the Summit and the Comprehensive Plan process. Ms. Gitelman Council Member Burt Council Member Filseth Ms. Gitelman Council Member Filseth Council Member Wolbach Council Member DuBois Council Member Burt Council Member Wolbach Ms. Gitelman Council Member Wolbach MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent Council took a break from 8:45-8:51 P.M. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 7 Regular Meeting April 6, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:06 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, Filseth, Holman, Kniss arrived at 7:14 P.M., Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: DuBois Study Session 1. Cost of Services Update and Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Discussion. Special Orders of the Day 2. Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 15, 2015 for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to interview all candidates for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisor Commission. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Scharff no, DuBois, Kniss absent Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 3. January 20, 2015, February 9 and February 17, 2015. ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve the minutes of January 20, February 9 and 17, 2015. MOTION PASSED: 7-0-1 Scharff abstaining, DuBois absent Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid, third by Council Member Filseth to pull Agenda Item Number 15- Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 s.f., Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels Requested by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on Behalf of Kipling Post LP to Replace Two One-story Commercial/Retail Buildings on an 11,000 s.f. Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District Located at 429 University Avenue, to be heard on May 4, 2015. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-14 & 16. 4. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Cal Electro Inc. in the Amount of $514,000 for the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase III Along and Near (A) San Antonio Road Between East Charleston and Middlefield Roads and, (B) Middlefield Road Between East Charleston and East Meadow Drive. 5. Approval of a Construction Grant Agreement with The Association of Bay Area Governments and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail in the Amount of $40,000 for Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station Accessibility Improvements and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5315 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the Capital Project Fund in Amount of $40,000.” 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014. 7. Resolution 9502 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Structure of the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council / Palo Alto Emergency Services Council.” ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 8. Approval of Letter of Agreement with the City of Sunnyvale for Emergency Operations Plan. 9. Approval of Contract with Traffic Data Services, Inc. for a Total of $100,000 to Provide On-Call Traffic Data Collection Services and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5316 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and the General Fund.” 10. Approval of Contract Number C15155597 with Biggs Cardosa & Associates, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $149,250 for Consulting Engineering Services for the Citywide Bridge Assessment Project – CIP PE-13012. 11. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action and a Site and Design Application for a New Single-Story, Single-Family Residence and Associated Site Improvements on a 3.5-Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District Located at 805 Los Trancos Road. 12. Adoption of Corrected Resolution 9499 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of the Council Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.” 13. Confirmation of Appointment of Suzanne Mason as Assistant City Manager and Approval of Employment Agreement. 14. Adoption of a Contract Amendment with Val Security and a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $175,000 to Increase the Project Safety Net Fund and Decrease the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund. 15. Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 s.f., Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels Requested by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on Behalf of Kipling Post LP to Replace Two One-story Commercial/Retail Buildings on an 11,000 s.f. Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District Located at 429 University Avenue. 16. Approval of a Contract Amendment with Genuent USA, LLC, Intratek Computer, Inc., Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC, GTC Systems, Inc., Modis, Inc., Bodhtree Solutions, Inc. and Signature Technology Group, ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 Inc. For IT Temporary Staffing Support Services in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $650,000 Per Fiscal Year for All Seven Contracts. MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-14 AND 16 PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent Action Items 17. TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Stevenson House Project, Located at 455 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto, and Adoption of a Resolution 9502, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Multifamily Rental Housing Facility. Public Hearing opened at: 8:06 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:09 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt the Resolution approving the issuance of the bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc. Stevenson House LP (Borrower). MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent 18. City Council Direction Regarding: (1) Parameters of an Interim Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and Services to Other Uses, and (2) Subsequent Steps to Establish Zoning Regulations to Preserve and Promote Active Ground Floor Uses in the City's Commercial Areas. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to direct Staff to prepare and return to Council with an urgency ordinance, including at a minimum the following: 1. A Citywide prohibition on converting existing ground floor retail uses to other uses until existing retail protections can be reviewed and revised as needed. Extend the same protections to eating and drinking uses, personal services, hotels, theatres, and travel agencies (permitted ground floor uses in the Downtown GF combining district); and ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 2. Apply the prohibition to those retail services operating as of March 2, 2015 and for which no discretionary application involving a change of use has been submitted to the City by March 2, 2015; and 3. Include within the ordinance an appeal to the City Council in cases of financial hardship or showing that the facility is unsuited for successful retail use; and 4. Allow existing retail service facilities to be demolished and rebuilt provided that the retail square footage is only reduced by the minimum amount needed to provide access to any new upper floors and/or lower level parking; and 5. Retail services that are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming shall not be protected or required to remain; and 6. The Municipal Code’s definition of retail services and the other uses cited above shall be continued; and 7. The ordinance will be effective for an initial 45 days with an option to extend if the urgency continues. Staff is also directed to prepare a traditional ordinance for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council as a “backstop” to extend the interim measures until existing retail protections can be reviewed and revised as needed; and 8. Nothing in the ordinance shall alter requirements of site-specific Planned Community zoning ordinances or adopted conditions of approval. Also, nothing in the ordinance shall affect the need for a conditional use permit for certain allowed uses where such requirements currently exist, although use permit requirements and affected uses could be adjusted in the permanent ordinance that follows. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that conditional uses for ground floor retail areas are not permitted in retail districts while the interim ordinance is in effect. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete Number 5- Retail services that are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming shall not be protected or required to remain in the Motion. ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER modify first sentence of Municipal Code Section 18.04.030 (125) to begin “Retail service” means a use predominantly engaged in providing… Council Member Kniss left the meeting at 10:00 PM MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Kniss absent MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to direct Staff that once the interim Ordinance is in place: 1. To bring forward the interim Ordinance as a regular Ordinance for Council adoption; and 2. Subsequently, to prioritize consideration of permanent retail protections starting with retail uses allowed on California Avenue and boundaries of the Retail (R) combining district. Also prioritize an analysis of retail trends and desired adjustments to the Ground Floor (GF) combining district in Downtown, followed by consideration of other commercial zones within the City. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to prepare an Ordinance to extend the boundaries of the (R) combining district to Cambridge Avenue. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that projects in the pipeline that do not have applications for planning entitlements on file on March 2, 2015 would be subject to the Ordinance. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that both instances of “interim” in the first sentence of the Motion be changed to “urgency.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Kniss absent Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Scharff inquired if Council Members should keep the Packet Books for Agenda Item Number 18- City Council Direction Regarding: (1) Parameters of an Interim Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and Services to Other Uses, and (2) Subsequent Steps to Establish Zoning Regulations to Preserve and Promote Active Ground Floor Uses in the City's Commercial Areas. Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment responded yes. Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Scharff not participating, DuBois, Kniss absent Council went into Closed Session at 10:49 P.M. 19. CONFERENCE WITH CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kathy Shen, Melissa Tronquet, Dania Torres Wong, Sandra Blanch, David Ramberg, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossmann) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:23 A.M., Mayor Holman reported no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:23 A.M. POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE EXCERPT MINUTES 1 Special Meeting Tuesday, December 16, 2014 Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 6:0 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Klein arrived at 6:13 P.M., Price (Chair), Scharff, Schmid Absent: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None AGENDA ITEMS 2. Discussion of the Cost of Various Forms of City Council and Standing Committee Minutes. Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk, said on September 23, 2014 the Policy & Services Committee (Committee) requested Staff return with the breakdown costs of City Council and Standing Committee minutes in verbatim, sense, and action. At the present time and for the past three years the City Clerk’s department held a transcription contract for typing minutes; the contract was $24,000 annually. She continued, the standard hourly rate of the transcriptionist was $32 and for rush transcription the cost was $36 per hour; a rush request was turned around in three days’ time. The contract called for the service to supply two transcriptionists dedicated to the City Clerk’s minute requests. The current Municipal Code stated the minutes produced were to be sense minutes. She noted if there was a change requested by Council there would need to be a change to the Ordinance. Staff compiled research from other cities within California; 35 out of the 72 responses used action minutes and relied heavily on the video of the meeting as the record of the meeting. The action minutes consisted of the item title and the Motion. There were 30 cities that used sense or summary minutes while none of the 72 agencies used verbatim minutes. Sense minutes provided the general discussion although verbatim minutes included incomplete sentences and the thoughts spoken by the speaker. She noted verbatim minutes were not cleaned or adjusted by Staff. MINUTES 2 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 Herb Borock was opposed to action minutes because there should be a historic memory of why a specific decision was made. He noted in the 1980’s the sense minutes were more intense, closer to verbatim minutes. Council Member Schmid wanted to plea for verbatim minutes. The production cost of the current minutes was $24,000 and the verbatim might be a third higher. He felt it was worth the additional funds. Ms. Minor stated the current contract was for $24,000 per year but the total amount allotted may or may not be used. Council Member Schmid found the verbatim minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) to be valuable. The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) minutes were in a sense type format and there was not enough information to decipher what had happened. If the goal was to provide an accurate account of what happened at a meeting sense minutes were not the way. He agreed the video was available but the ratio of time between watching the meeting and reading a set of verbatim minutes was 6 to 1. He felt verbatim minutes were worth the cost of approximately $32,000 annually. Council Member Klein agreed with Council Member Schmid on the aspect of historical record; there was not sufficient weight given on the video reordered meetings. The sense minutes had become dangerous because the minutes were being typed by an outside person or Staff and the comments made during the meeting could be misinterpreted. As the City Attorney pointed out there could be legal complications. His first choice was action minutes and then verbatim minutes with the video. Council Member Scharff did not believe sense minutes were an option. He felt the action minutes were simple to read and you see the action taken. He thought Staff produced the action minutes during the Council meeting. Ms. Minor stated the body of the action minutes was typed at the meeting and Staff reviewed the video during the following week to verify the accuracy. Council Member Scharff stated there should be action minutes no matter what final decision was made and if there needed to be more information. He was satisfied with verbatim minutes as needed. He asked if there were action and verbatim minutes which would be the official minutes of record. Felicia Gross, Assistant City Attorney, stated as long as both types of minutes were completed, both types could be designated as the official record. MINUTES 3 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 Council Member Scharff said when it was indicated by the City Attorney a set of sense minutes were contradicted by the video he felt the official record should be the video. Chair Price concurred with Council Member Klein that action minutes were appropriate. There was the option for verbatim minutes at a later date if necessary. Ms. Minor acknowledged there had been times when verbatim minutes were necessary for legal matters. Chair Price felt the ability to fall back on the video to produce a set of verbatim minutes was a safe guard. She believed the video and action minutes were a sufficient record. Council Member Scharff sensed the verbatim minutes were a tool for Council and the public to verify what happened at a meeting they may not have been able to attend without spending the time reviewing the video. Council Member Klein asked if the videos could be more searchable for the viewers. Ms. Minor stated the Midpeninsula Media Center had a limited ability of making them searchable. The Clerk’s department used a system for processing agendas which had the ability to view the videos. Staff uploaded the videos. The goal was for the Minute Traq system to be incorporated into the media room once the construction was complete. The video could be essentially book marked while it was being recorded. Chair Price clarified it was feasible with the software programs currently available to do preliminary marking of the recording to some degree. Ms. Minor stated that was correct; although, it was not yet available in the videotaping booth in the Council Chambers. Council Member Schmid asked where Chair Price sat on the sense minutes. Chair Price felt the sense minutes tended to be more problematic and she preferred action minutes. Council Member Schmid stated the Committee seemed to be in agreement; sense minutes were not as effective, action minutes were appropriate, although without verbatim minutes there would be elements of the discussion lost. The cost was so low that from a practical sense until Council MINUTES 4 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 could see the tracking technology on the video to proceed with verbatim minutes was an interim step. Chair Price asked if there was a basis for the demand or interest for verbatim minutes. Ms. Minor said no. Council Member Scharff recommended the Policy & Services Committee drop sense minutes and immediately move to action minutes and recommend Council decide on whether they want to move forward with verbatim as well. Council Member Schmid said the suggested Motion was an interim solution but the goal was for a Code change. He confirmed the Motion was to change the Code to drop sense minutes. Council Member Scharff stated yes, his Motion would be to change the code to complete action minutes. If Council decided to move forward with verbatim minutes he did not feel they should be part of the Code. The action minutes and the video would be the formal record of the City. James Keene, City Manager, asked if the process itself, with the intent of the Motion, was to ask Staff to bring the recommendation from the Committee to the Council with the change to the Code at the time of the Council meeting. Therefore, if the Council chose to accept the Motion they could enact the change at the time. Council Member Scharff suggested Staff draft the Ordinance working with the City Attorney’s office but the formal minutes would be action and the video. He recommended bringing forward the draft Ordinance as an Consent Item during the second Council meeting of 2015 and sometime during the month of January bring forward to Council whether or not they wanted verbatim minutes. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein that the Policy & Services Committee immediately move to action minutes and the video as the formal record of the City and recommend Council determine whether verbatim minutes were necessary. Council Member Schmid noted the current code section 2.04.160 (b) read: “The minutes shall include a record of all business discussed at regular or special meetings of the council. The minutes shall be sense minutes and need not be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Sense minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as speak upon a particular matter MINUTES 5 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 under discussion. A record shall be made of the names and addresses of persons addressing the council, together with a brief summary of their remarks indicating whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter. Nothing in this section shall be construed to compel registration as a condition to attendance at a meeting.” He asked if the Motion was to drop that code section and replace it the “minutes shall be action minutes.” Council Member Scharff stated yes. Council Member Klein concurred. Council Member Scharff was leaving the language to be determined by the City Attorney because he believed most City Clerk’s offices considered the video the formal record. Council Member Schmid was opposed to the Motion because it was a reduction to the amount of materials available to the public. Council Member Scharff did not understand how it was a reduction. Council Member Schmid stated currently there were action minutes, sense minutes and the videotape. The Motion was to eliminate the sense minutes. Council Member Scharff clarified the third item would be the verbatim minutes which was recommended to go before the full Council for them to make a final decision. He believed the verbatim minutes were a tool for Council and they were worth the cost. He asked for a commitment from the City Manager to bring forth the verbatim minutes discussion to the full Council within 45 days. Mr. Keene stated that could be done; although, the unification of the Committee was while sense minutes provided more detail they were potentially less accurate as a historical record. He believed if enough City Council Members felt action minutes alone were not sufficient it would be a natural impulse for verbatim minutes. Three Council Members could pull the item from Consent into Action for a discussion during the meeting. Chair Price acknowledged any recommendation brought forward had the potential to be changed completely by a majority. Mr. Keene suggested producing action minutes for a couple of Council Meetings to give Council an idea of what to expect in order for them to make a final decision. MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Schmid no MINUTES 6 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 Mr. Keene clarified the Motion was to place the Committee recommendation on the Consent Calendar. Council Member Klein stated yes. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 7:37 P.M.