PRESENT:

Mayor Otto Lee

Vice Mayor Anthony Spitaleri

Councilmember John Howe

Councilmember Dean J. Chu

Councilmember Ron Swegles

Councilmember Melinda Hamilton

Councilmember Christopher Moylan

ABSENT:

None

STAFF PRESENT:

City Manager Amy Chan

Assistant City Manager Robert Walker

City Attorney David Kahn

Director of Community Development Hanson Hom

Planning Officer Trudi Ryan

Intergovernmental Relations Officer Yvette Agredano

Assistant to the City Manager Coryn Campbell

Director of Finance Mary Bradley

Budget Analyst Drew Corbett

Director of Parks and Recreation David Lewis

City Clerk Katherine Bradshaw Chappelear

1.A.

Approval of Information/Action Items – Council Directions to Staff

1.B.

RTC 07–250

List of Claims and Bills Approved for Payment by the City Manager – List No. 355, 356, & 357

Staff Recommendation: Council reviews the attached list of bills.

1.C.

RTC 07–238

Acceptance of the Satterburg Foundation Invitational Grant for a Crime Prevention Program and Budget Modification No. 1

Staff Recommendation: Council allows the Department of Public Safety to accept the Satterburg Foundation grant monies and purchase mobile surveillance equipment that will be used to assist Neighborhood Watch groups and approve Budget Modification No. 1.

1.D.

RTC 07–249

Acceptance of California Office of Traffic Safety Hand Held Technology Grant and Budget Modification No. 2

Staff Recommendation: Council allows the Department of Public Safety to accept the Office of Traffic Safety grant funds to purchase six hand-held ticket writers and software and approve Budget Modification No. 2.

1.E.

RTC 07–239

Appropriation of Traffic Safe Communities Network of Santa Clara County Funds and Budget Modification No. 3

Staff Recommendation: Council allows the Department of Public Safety to accept the Traffic Safe Communities Network monies for the 2007 Stop on Red Campaign to finance 13.68 hours of overtime and approve Budget Modification No. 3.

1.F.

RTC 07–247

Award of Contract for the Maintenance of the City’s Radio Communication Systems (F0707-04)

Staff Recommendation: Council awards a one-year contract, in substantially the same form as the attached draft and in an amount not to exceed $180,862, to Motorola, Inc., for the maintenance of the City’s radio communication systems.

1.G.

RTC 07–252

Renewal of Outside Council Agreement for Pending Litigation

Staff Recommendation: Council approves the renewal of the Outside Counsel Services Agreement with Rankin, Landsness, Lahde, Serverian & Stock for legal services not to exceed the amount of $50,000 for a total contract amount of $100,000.

1.H.

RTC 07–230

Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury’s Final Report, “Disaster Preparedness in the County: Improvements Needed”

Councilmember Moylan stated he pulled this item (the City’s response to a Grand Jury report) for the benefit of the public. In this case, the Grand Jury decided to investigate how jurisdictions within this county might be prepared to summon their emergency personnel in the event of a disaster. Councilmember Moylan stated the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury obtained data from the county itself and from five of the cities in the county, including Sunnyvale. The Grand Jury asked many questions and did some audits and then produced this report, which the City is obliged to respond to.

Councilmember Moylan stated while the City’s report is all very formal and nice and says the City agrees with each of the Grand Jury’s findings, he wanted to make sure everyone was able to read between the lines. Councilmember Moylan highlighted that Sunnyvale got top marks across the board because the City knows where all of its personnel live and has an automated way of calling staff in during a disaster. Councilmember Moylan stated not having this capability was exactly what the Grand Jury was worrying about. Councilmember Moylan stated this turns out to be a really good piece of news and he did not want it just to slide by on the Consent Calendar without people noticing, and without giving some congratulations to City staff.

Councilmember Swegles stated he wished to piggyback on Councilmember Moylan’s comments. Councilmember Swegles stated his mobile home community has an emergency taskforce and one of their concerns is that if a true emergency happened, it could take two days before they can get out. Councilmember Swegles stated he corrected the taskforce’s assumption and explained that the City is equipped to respond in very timely manner in an emergency. Councilmember Swegles informed the taskforce that he will make sure they receive a copy of the staff report so that they better understand the resources in place for an emergency.

MOTION: Councilmember Moylan moved and Councilmember Swegles seconded to approve Alternative 1: Council authorizes the Mayor to sign the letter in response to the Grand Jury’s Findings and Recommendations.

VOTE: 7-0

1.I.

ORDINANCE

No. 2842-07

Adoption of Ordinance No. 2842-07 Adding Chapter 18.40 (Covenant of Easement) to Title 18 (Subdivisions) of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code

Staff Recommendation: Council approves the second reading of Ordinance No. 2842-07.

1.J.

RESOLUTION

RTC 07–246

Application to Apply for Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Grant Funding to Replace Two Diesel Refuse Vehicles with Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

Staff Recommendation:

·      Council approves a resolution authorizing the grant application for TFCA funding for the incremental cost of converting two refuse trucks to compressed natural gas; and

·      Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a funding agreement if the grant is awarded.

1.K.

RTC 07–245

Ratification of Agency Appointment to Child Care Advisory Board (CCAB)

Staff Recommendation: Council ratifies the appointment of Carrie Bosco to the Child Care Advisory Board effective July 17, 2007 for a term ending June 30, 2011.

2.

ORDINANCE

RTC 07–251

2005-0105 – Akbar Abdollahi [Applicant/Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 13,802 square foot site located at 963 South Wolfe Road (near Maria Ln.) in an R-3 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. (Negative Declaration). Continued from July 10, 2007.

·      Rezone from R-3 (Medium Density Residential) to R-3/PD (Medium Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District,

·      Special Development Permit to allow the construction of six townhomes,

·      Tentative Map to subdivide one lot into six lots and one common lot,

·      Variance to allow for use of individual solid waste and recycling carts instead of centralized waste enclosure.

Planning Officer Trudi Ryan presented the staff report. Planning Officer Ryan stated this item has several related applications, but essentially it is for a six-townhouse unit development on Wolfe Road. Planning Officer Ryan stated staff has worked with the applicant on the design of the project, and the applicant has responded with a number of items to redesign the project, including some redesign that occurred after they held a study session at the Planning Commission and received feedback from the Planning Commission on their application.

Councilmember Swegles stated there is a new state law regarding individual meters. Councilmember Swegles confirmed with Planning Officer Ryan that this project will have individual meters for the townhomes.

Public hearing opened 7:32 p.m.

Cherine Bassal, designer of the project, stated he responded to the Planning Commission’s concerns with a drawing showing the detailing, colors and garage doors. Bassal stated at this point he covered all the recommendation and the requirements for this project.

Councilmember Howe stated the two spaces that are covered for parking in the garage are identified as being maintained and available for parking. In that area, the City has had a lot of controversy over parking on the street. Councilmember Howe inquired how that provision will be enforced.

Planning Officer Ryan stated that staff will require that to be reflected in the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R) and that the homeowners’ association needs to self-police their residents and property owners to assure that provision is being met. In addition, if there is an issue and the homeowners’ association is not being proactive in that effort, then the City’s Neighborhood Preservation Code Enforcement staff can follow up to assure that they are meeting this provision.

Councilmember Howe inquired as to how enforcement occurs. Planning Officer Ryan stated she does not know the exact protocols they use. Typically, they will contact an owner, indicate that there has been a complaint, and ask for some kind of voluntary showing of the property. Code enforcement does not have the right just to enter the property, but in most situations, residents/property owners are agreeable to work with staff. Should a resident not allow the property to be shown, then depending upon the severity of the problem, staff would need to take other legal resources to obtain that information to determine whether or not there is a violation.

Councilmember Howe stated the reason he mentioned this is because one of the projects Council recently approved on Mary Avenue has now come bubbling up to the front, and the mayor received a letter this week concerning that project. One of the problems has to do with people putting too many items in the garages and not having available parking. Councilmember Howe stated this is an area that the City has had nothing but trouble with parking out on Wolfe Avenue or Wolfe Road. Councilmember Howe stated the City has turned around and spent tons of money on traffic resources trying to address the concerns, and now the City is putting in another project right in the middle of this area. Councilmember Howe stated the area has a low parking requirement today, but if this project is approved it will have relatively high parking needs and relying on only two places to be covered and available for parking. Councilmember Howe stated he also questions the enforcement mechanism.

Councilmember Howe confirmed the project is six units and for six units, there will be a homeowners’ association and a board and the rest of it, which if they have a five-member board, five out of six are on it.

Councilmember Howe asked Bassal if he had any comments on the items discussed. Bassal stated they are providing two-car garages and there is extra parking at the side.

Councilmember Howe asked if Bassal had any comment on the enforcement issue and Bassal stated he did not.

Councilmember Swegles asked Bassal if it would be possible to make sure that the potential owners are fully aware of the restriction of the garages in the contract that they sign, and asked that the developer assist the homeowners in putting together an owners’ group.

Akbar Abdollahi, applicant, stated this was discussed with the Planning Commission and it was mentioned that the homeowners cannot park their cars on the private street in the CC&Rs. Abdollahi stated he would ask his agent to mention or write on the contract to every individual buyer that they have to park their car inside the garage.

Councilmember Swegles confirmed that Abdollahi will require the owners (not ask) to park in their garage.

Public hearing closed 7:39 p.m.

MOTION: Councilmember Howe moved and Councilmember Swegles seconded to approve Alternative 1: Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and introduces an Ordinance to rezone property located at 963 W. Wolfe Road from R-3 to R-3/PD and approve the Special Development Permit, Tentative Map for six units on a common lot, and Variance for individual solid waste and recycling carts with conditions (as attached in staff report)

with

Council directs Director of Community Development Hom and City Attorney Kahn to work together to determine how to best enforce the one provision which keeps the two enclosed parking spots as parking spots.

Councilmember Swegles asked City Attorney Kahn if as a part of this motion, Council would be able to require that language be put into the sales contract, to make sure that buyers are fully aware of the parking provision. The applicant said that he would possibly write it in, but could Council ask him to make it a formal part of his sales contract so that the potential buyer is fully aware of the restriction of keeping the garage as a parking area.

City Attorney Kahn stated that it would probably be more appropriate for the CC&Rs as a condition of disclosure, rather than in the sales contract; however, it certainly could be a condition of the CC&Rs.

Councilmember Swegles offered a friendly amendment to place language into the sales contract, to make sure that buyers are fully aware of the parking provision.

Councilmember Howe stated that the proposed requirement will place a process at the point of sale and he is reluctant to put things at the point of sale as a requirement for disclosure. Councilmember Howe stated the intent of the motion was to make sure that the Director of Community Development and the City Attorney put that requirement into the CC&Rs in such a way that it is blatant. One way of doing it is to make sure that each one of the CC&Rs is signed off at the time of the close of escrow. The applicant could inform the buyers that the City has redress, both against the individuals as well as the homeowners’ association, for noncompliance with the CC&Rs once the homeowners’ association has been notified that they are not in compliance. Councilmember Howe stated that is the type of wording that he would like to see in what staff develops for the CC&R’s. Councilmember Howe stated once code enforcement is involved the City can deal with an individual homeowner or a homeowner’s association.

Councilmember Moylan stated he would like to comment on the trash enclosure issue that now requires a variance. Councilmember Moylan stated for a little development of six townhouses, to obey the City requirement for a big dumpster at the project (that everyone has to haul all their trash out to) is deemed, in this particular case, inconvenient for not only the homeowners, but also for the City’s trash hauling company. Councilmember Moylan stated everyone is in favor of what used to be a deviation and is now called a variance. Councilmember Moylan suggested the City’s current code, which mandates dumpsters, is what really needs to be revised, so that people do not need to obtain a variance every single time they want to have individual trash. Individual containers is always more convenient for the homeowner. Councilmember Moylan continued stating that the City’s code is written to force these things to be designed for the convenience of the trash hauler, even if it is less convenient for the owner. Councilmember Moylan stated that is a piece of the code that needs to be revised so the variance process is not required just to allow people to have their own garbage can.

Councilmember Moylan stated he would support the motion.

Councilmember Hamilton stated when she read the staff report and saw this project had a four-foot narrower driveway than is required by code, the very first thing she thought of was the Safeway parking lot two doors down that is impossible to get in and out of because the aisles are so narrow. Councilmember Hamilton stated she is not comfortable with that situation. Councilmember Hamilton stated that Council reviews a lot of variances, and this situation is one that actually fits the case where the lot is too narrow to do much of anything else. Councilmember Hamilton stated she was looking at the map and is not able to imagine taking another four feet out of the backyards, and yet there is not any space to take from the front yards either. Councilmember Hamilton stated she will support this motion, but is not in favor of approving situations such as this in the future. Councilmember Hamilton stated she is troubled by the fact that a justification in the staff report was that the previous Council had approved this for another project and she does not want to see this become some sort of precedent elsewhere in the City.

VOTE: 7-0

3.

RTC 07–215

International Friendly Exchange Relations (Council Policy Issue) -Continued from July 10, 2007.

Intergovernmental Relations Officer Yvette Agredano presented the staff report.

Councilmember Moylan inquired if it is the case that neither Council nor staff has actually gone to any one of the City’s three friendly cities. Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated Mayor Lee did travel to Suzhou, China.

Councilmember Moylan stated that would presumably represent some benefit to the City from that particular relationship, but is there any demonstrable benefit that has accrued to the City from the other two relationships.

Assistant to the City Manager Coryn Campbell stated staff has not evaluated the benefit of each of these relationships. In the past, how it has been approached is if Councilmembers perceive a benefit, then they are the ones that make that determination. Staff has not done that kind of analysis.

City Manager Chan stated no staff member has made any trips to any of the friendship cities and there has been limited communications with these friendship cities. City Manager Chan stated the City may have gotten an email or two asking about City programs and staff directed them to look at the City website. There have been several delegations from friendship cities that have come to Sunnyvale and the City in most cases hosted meetings, as well as, perhaps lunch or dinner. City Manager Chan stated that many of the lunch and dinners were sponsored by different community members and those were obtained by either the sitting mayor or sitting councilmembers.

City Manager Chan stated she wanted to inform Council of her response to Councilmember Moylan’s questions. City Manager Chan stated that a previous councilmember took a trip to one of the friendship cities; but there were not any City expenses involved because the councilmember paid for the trip himself. Mayor Lee’s visit was also not on City expenses as he was visiting other cities and then made a trip also to visit one of the friendship cities.

Councilmember Moylan stated the impression that he received from City Manager Chan’s email was that the overall cost of these programs has been so minimal there has not really been a need for a special budget item. However, the staff report indicates that based on the resources that have been devoted, it is now staff’s recommendation that the City have a maximum of three of these cities, which happens to coincide exactly with the number of cities that we already have.

Councilmember Moylan stated that additionally, staff is recommending that there be a sunset clause, which sounds very appealing, although the existing friendship cities do not have a sunset clause. Councilmember Moylan stated that it seems the staff recommendation is that City of Sunnyvale will never again enter into another one of these relationships unless staff calls up one of the three existing cities and tells them that they are fired. Councilmember Moylan asked if that was staff’s thinking.

Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated that would be a correct assumption and that it was staff’s oversight in establishing and recommending the sunset clause. Staff would be willing to consider establishing a staggering expiration date for the three current contracts or the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that is in place. Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated the staff recommendation also states that staff would come back to Council upon the expiration of any of the existing MOU’s to determine if Council wants to reestablish that MOU or look elsewhere.

Councilmember Moylan stated that right now the contracts are not set to expire and Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated that was correct. Councilmember Moylan stated that he understands staff’s recommendation to be that the City should not enter into any more of these relationships. Based on that understanding, Councilmember Moylan asked for a better understanding of why staff is recommending (based on resources), that staff can only afford to have three friendship cities at a time, if the expense is so minimal.

City Manager Chan responded that one of the cities has sent several delegations to Sunnyvale over the years, but one of other cities has not had any contact with the City since the agreement was signed. City Manager Chan stated she thinks it would be appropriate to have the mayor let them know about this City policy and suggest to them that the City can communicate with them in the future on a different level than a “friendly city” umbrella. City Manager Chan stated that might be something Council may want to consider.

Councilmember Moylan stated that staff’s recommendation is to freeze the City’s existing three relationships where they are and not have any more. Councilmember Moylan questioned if there is any concern on staff’s part that 100 percent of the City’s relationships are with one particular country, and that the City has no relationships with any cities from any of the other countries around the globe. Councilmember Moylan asked if this is of a concern at all.

Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated that is an issue for Council dialogue. Currently, all of those relationships with the friendship cities have been mainly at Council level, not at staff level.

Councilmember Hamilton asked about the length of the sunset clause and why three years was chosen. Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated the three years was just a measure of time that staff decided would be a good amount of time for the City to try to have some communications with the foreign city. Should nothing come of it, then three years would be about the time that Council may consider a different relationship.

Councilmember Chu stated he agreed with Councilmember Moylan about three friendship cities being from one country as it did not make a whole lot of sense that the City would be that restrictive.

Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated that, as the city manager explained, the relationships have really been at the Council level. Staff did not go into the criteria of what cities would be appropriate. The value of the relationship has historically been set by Council and additionally, it was not staff’s intent that the City would not have relationships with other countries. When staff developed the three-city, three-year recommendation it was to allow for a way to evaluate the relationships after three years, so that a situation did not develop where there is not any activity or any benefit received by the City.

Councilmember Swegles inquired if one of the three cities was looking to develop some type of a shopping mart in Sunnyvale. City Manager Chan stated it was not one of the three friendship cities, rather another city.

Councilmember Swegles stated he was glad that his fellow Councilmembers opened the door in regards to other countries. Councilmember Swegles explained that the ambassador from Lithuania visited the City and the ambassador felt that he was so well received; he went back and told the president of Estonia that Sunnyvale was a place for him to visit while he was touring the United States. The City has had some other countries that have shown interest in visiting Sunnyvale and Councilmember Swegles stated he would enjoy seeing the City expand its horizons in regards to this.

Mayor Lee asked if Council were to approve the proposed council policy, due to the sunset period, and the fact that two of the three cities were established more than three years ago without any amendment or changes, would the two cities sunset immediately. Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated that was not staff’s intention. The only way that the three existing MOUs would be terminated is if Council decided to enter into another MOU with another city, Council would then have to determine which of the three existing to terminate, unless Council decides to stagger a three-year sunset on the existing MOU’s.

Public hearing opened 8:01 p.m.

Arthur Schwartz stated he questioned the purpose in having sister city relationships compared to two other foreign visitor groups that the City has entertained. One was a delegation from the Georgian Prime Minister’s office, and the second one was a delegation from all over Southeast Asia. Schwartz stated these groups were interested in the City’s emergency preparation and solid waste handling systems. Schwartz stated he believed a better use of staff time and whatever funds that are available would be to increase the number of delegations that visit the City rather than just have a fixed sister city relationship which doesn’t involve any particular information exchange.

Mayor Lee explained to Schwartz that Sunnyvale has an ongoing policy to not have a sister city relationship as it generally involves more funding, responsibility and commitment between the cities; with a friendship city the sense is that you can have more than one friend per country. A friendship city generally is a little bit looser, and depends on the need and wants, and what each party can supply to the relationship.

Schwartz stated he understands that but he has not seen much come out of this sister cities program; whereas, in two one-day visits by the delegations, a lot came out of those visits.

Schwartz inquired as to the budgeted resources that the City is using for this relationship. Intergovernmental Relations Officer Agredano stated there are not any budget items within the Intergovernmental Relations Program; however, there is a small budget within the Council’s budget for gifts and small documents such as recognition awards for visitors.

Schwartz confirmed with staff that if a Councilmember engages a country as a friendly city and that city comes to visit, then it is up to the Councilmember to find ways to entertain them and cover the expense.

Public hearing closed 8:03 p.m.

Assistant City Manager Robert Walker stated that part of the resource allocated by staff is for the scheduling and the convening of the meetings. It is correct that of the three cities, two of them have not been very active at all. However, the one city that has been active has required a great deal of time on the part of the executive assistant to Council and the intergovernmental relations staff, in terms of coordinating those meetings. A great deal of correspondence goes back and forth between the two countries and one of the reasons for limiting the number of agreements was in case all three became active, that would become a resource issue for staff.

Councilmember Chu inquired if Council could instruct the mayor to send letters to the existing cities that have not corresponded with the City. Councilmember Chu also inquired if Council could make a motion directing or suggesting to the mayor that the cities be evaluated as to whether or not the City should terminate relations with those friendship cities.

City Manager Chan stated that direction would be

very helpful.

Councilmember Swegles asked if it would be possible to look at broadening the City’s horizons, in regards to possibly looking at countries like Estonia and Lithuania, which have been over here, and maybe allow another or larger number of cities.

City Manager Chan stated the three cities were all initiated by Councilmembers, not from staff and this is a Council decision. Previously, staff’s role had been to help Council look at whether it is appropriate for City of Sunnyvale to have a sister city program or just a friendship city program. Staff had completed a study issue in terms of which cities and how many cities. City Manager Chan stated this decision is well within Council’s prerogative and discussion this evening.

Mayor Lee confirmed with staff that regardless of what Council votes on this evening, the current policy, if adopted, any new friendship city will still require Council’s approval. Mayor Lee stated that there were some questions before whether the mayor is the one who is supposed to have that power, and there have been times where a mayor has gone elsewhere, come back, had something signed, and then ultimately still needed the Council’s full approval before a city is officially adopted. Mayor Lee stated that he wants to make the point very clear as to what the Council really needs to do in terms of forming these friendship cities.

Councilmember Moylan stated he would like to make a slight modification to the staff recommendation. The modification includes the three-year renewable sunset clause. It includes that all of the City’s existing friendship cities shall be informed of the change in policy and are told that if they would like to renew, they are entitled to ask to renew, that the maximum number of these friendship cities increases to five, and that no more than three of those can be from any one country.

MOTION: Councilmember Moylan moved and Councilmember Swegles seconded to approve Alternative 1: Council approves the proposed Council Policy – International Friendly Exchange Relations (Attachment A).

includes:

a three-year renewable sunset clause;

all of the City’s existing friendship cities are notified of change in Council policy and are told if they would like to renew, they are entitled to request to renew the relationship;

friendship cities are limited to a maximum of five, and

no more than three friendship cities from any one country.

Councilmember Hamilton offered a friendly amendment to have the mayor prepare a letter to the other cities that the City of Sunnyvale has not had contact with the cities and informing them in a diplomatic way that the City is respectfully deciding to terminate the relationship.

Councilmember Moylan stated he did not want to start World War III, rather he was hoping to inform the cities of the new policy, expect that the City would hear nothing back, and then it would sort of automatically sunset. Councilmember Moylan stated he was hoping that would be a more diplomatic way of dealing with this rather than saying, “You’re fired.” Councilmember Moylan stated he was a little nervous about doing that and is hopeful that his approach would achieve the same result as what Councilmember Hamilton is trying to achieve, but 
he is hoping it could be done in a more diplomatic way.

Councilmember Moylan stated he will not accept the friendly amendment.

Councilmember Hamilton stated she would withdraw her friendly amendment.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri offered a friendly amendment. Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated that he did not see a need for a restriction on numbers, since it comes back to the Council for approval as to who will be approved as a friendly city. Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated that it is hard to know how many requests the City will receive, but Council can control the amount of friendly cities.

Councilmember Moylan stated that if the City has a limit, it basically gives Council a nice diplomatic excuse not to overload staff. Councilmember Moylan stated that Council has already heard from staff that three real active cities would be the limit for staff. Councilmember Moylan stated that if Council were to have a policy that would not allow more than a certain amount, it would be easier to decline a request. Councilmember Moylan stated he is basing his motion on what staff said were their limits. Councilmember Moylan stated his motion also provides another shield for the City to be able to say no in a way that will hopefully not offend someone.

Councilmember Moylan stated when considering whether to spend any resources or time on an item, Council needs to consider what would be the benefit to the City. Councilmember Moylan stated that many of these relationships involve a delegation from the other country coming to our City, they learn a bunch of stuff about the City, and then they go home but what did Sunnyvale get out of that relationship other than generating some goodwill. Councilmember Moylan stated he would like to see that future cities are asked explicitly if they are going to host a member of our City such so there is some sort of reciprocity. Councilmember Moylan stated that would allow for the City to actually bring back some knowledge and would be a much more legitimate benefit out of one of these relationships. Councilmember Moylan stated in any case, the sunset clause is a great idea. Councilmember Moylan stated there may be some gradual turnover.

Mayor Lee stated he will not support the motion. Mayor Lee stated the friendship agreement, in many ways, is like dating as the benefits are hard to assess in the beginning. Mayor Lee stated it is good to have more friends around the world and certainly more friendship relations are better than less. Mayor Lee stated the friendship cities still need full Council approval; therefore, he does not really see the need of having three or five as a number, because Council will be able to assess the need.

Councilmember Swegles stated he supports the motion because two other countries that visited Sunnyvale offered an open invitation while they were here to return the visit. The City had to set up special security for the president because he was a president of a country, but aside from that, the City did not have to do a lot of extensive work. Councilmember Swegles stated the bottom line is that those two countries invited us back. Councilmember Swegles explained that the cities that the mayor brought over and the delegation that came to Sunnyvale offered an open invitation to the Vice Mayor (at the time) and Councilmember Swegles to visit their countries at no cost to the City or Councilmember.

Councilmember Swegles stated he agreed with Councilmember Moylan’s analogy of what Assistant City Manager Walker said regarding that the City only has so much funding available and if cities are increased too much, the City will not be able offer adequate service to all of the members of the friendly cities. Councilmember Swegles stated it would therefore, be better for the City to have a limit so that if the City is operating the rotation system of the three years, then the City will be able to actually open more, especially if we move it up to five instead of three. Councilmember Swegles stated he will be fully supporting the motion.

Restated MOTION: Councilmember Moylan moved and Councilmember Swegles seconded to approve staff recommendation: Council approves the proposed Council Policy – International Friendly Exchange Relations (Attachment A).

includes:

• a three-year renewable sunset clause;
• all of the City’s existing friendship cities are notified of change in Council policy and are told if they would like to renew, they are entitled to request to renew the relationship;
• friendship cities are limited to a maximum of five, and
• no more than three friendship cities from any one country.

VOTE: 6-1 (Mayor Lee dissented)

Mayor Lee stated that before moving onto the next item he would like to actually move back to Item #2, as the ordinance was not read into the record.

City Clerk Katherine Bradshaw Chappelear read the title of the ordinance into the record.

4.

RTC 07–229

2007-0407 - Metro PCS [Applicant] Sunnyvale Office Park LP [Owner]: Application located at 1184 N Mathilda Avenue (near Bordeaux Dr.) in an MP-TOD (Moffett Park Transit Oriented Development) Zoning District. Appeal of the Conditions of Approval imposed by the Planning Commission in approving a Special Development Permit to add six panel antennas to an existing 81 foot tall telecommunications monopole resulting in a total height of 90 feet. The project includes ancillary equipment to be installed in an existing fenced area.

Planning Officer Ryan presented the staff report and explained that the application is for a telecommunication facility. Planning Officer Ryan stated this is an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission considered this item, they took their action subject to the existing facility being replaced with a monopine, which is an artificial tree meant to accommodate the now four carriers that would be proposed for the pole. Approval of this action would result in a taller facility – probably 95 or 100 feet – as indicated by the appellant/applicant.

Planning Officer Ryan stated the decision of the Planning Commission was made after the public hearing was closed. However, during the public hearing, there had not been any discussion on the potential for the item to be conditioned on being the artificial tree. The applicant felt that perhaps there should have been an opportunity during the public hearing for them to address what this would mean. Planning Officer Ryan stated that certainly it is within the purview of the Planning Commission or City Council to impose conditions after the public hearing to address concerns of the application. It is typical to have some discussion about major redesign elements, and the applicant felt that that was an issue.

Planning Officer Ryan stated staff is a little concerned in this case because the establishment of the monopine in this particular context may not have the desired aesthetic benefit the Planning Commission was hoping for. Planning Officer Ryan explained that there is a tendency, when these monopines are established in isolation, to sort of look more fake than when they are in the context of other landscaping where they are a little bit better shielded and blend in better. Planning Officer Ryan stated that to some eyes, it might be aesthetically more pleasing to have an ornamented tower look more like a tree, than to see the bare tower with the panels on there. There certainly can be differences of opinion in the aesthetics. Given the fact that there are already three carriers on this and it is a major modification of the facility, staff concurs with the appellant that in this instance it may be appropriate to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. Planning Officer Ryan explained that perhaps that information was not fully discussed at the Planning Commission for consideration in their deliberations.

Councilmember Swegles asked Planning Officer Ryan if she felt that if the Planning Commission had received the additional input just mentioned, would there be a possibility that they might have changed their minds. Planning Officer Ryan stated she was reluctant to say what might have happened, because it is usually misinterpreted. Different information could have revealed different information, but might not have. Planning Officer Ryan stated it would be difficult to speculate without redoing the public hearing. Planning Officer Ryan stated it was a split vote of the Planning Commission, so that factored a little bit into staff’s recommendation in this case.

Councilmember Swegles stated in looking at the diagrams and the pictures, it does look like the tree tower is definitely out of place due to its height, compared to what is already there.

Planning Officer Ryan stated she neglected to mention that Council did receive an e-mail yesterday, and that was not part of the staff report, so that should have been part of the correspondence that Council received prior to this evening’s public hearing.

Councilmember Hamilton confirmed that Planning Officer Ryan was not at the Planning Commission meeting where this item was heard.

Councilmember Howe inquired if the existing pole can be seen from any residential property, and Planning Officer Ryan stated she did not believe it could be seen as it is located at the back part of this property.

Councilmember Chu stated in reading the Planning Commission May 30, 2007 minutes it appears that there was no discussion about imposing the monopine until after the public hearing was mentioned. The Planning Commission’s previous Vice Chair Sulser thought there was a requirement that if a new pole were to go up, it would have to be camouflaged. Planning Officer Ryan stated there was a potential study issue on whether or not to have requirements for upgrading facilities when additional providers collocate but that study did not rank high enough to be considered by the Council. Councilmember Chu stated the minutes sort of imply that any future improvements would require aesthetic camouflaging. Planning Officer Ryan stated that was correct as there was a discussion on this particular site.

Patrick Cruzen, representing the applicant Metro PCS, thanked the mayor and Councilmembers for their time in allowing this appeal and thanked staff for their diligent work and their accessibility during the process. Cruzen stated that Metro PCS feels there is merit to this appeal and grounds for removal of the tree pole condition fixed to the Planning approval for the Crown Castle/Lockheed facility. Cruzen stated there was a lack of due process as the tree pole condition was discussed and approved after the public hearing was closed. Metro PCS had no chance to address or argue the condition by means of introducing compelling reasons against the condition which may have stopped consideration of the motion condition.

Cruzen stated the tower modification was never discussed during the planning process, nor was there public dialogue to suggest a tree pole alternative. Metro PCS did not have a chance to establish their position on this condition, and if questioned, Metro PCS would certainly have argued against imposition of the condition, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination, and its nexus. Planning staff is part of the CEQA review of this project and determined that the proposed facility would not create any potentially significant environmental effects and that the facility met the definition to be considered a categorical exemption which suggests that mitigation measures are not required to cure any substantial impact. Cruzen continued stating Sunnyvale CEQA findings state that the proposed project would not create any potentially significant visual impacts. Therefore, the Planning Commission condition requiring that the monopole be changed out to a tree pole cannot be traced to any identifiable environmental effect (visual or otherwise).

Cruzen stated that Metro PCS submits that the imposition of the tree pole condition lacks the appropriate nexus between the condition and Sunnyvale’s own CEQA determination. The proposed site is a collocation that is expressly promoted under the Sunnyvale ordinance, Section 19.54.140(a): “Wherever technically feasible, wireless telecommunication service providers are encouraged to collocate.” Cruzen stated there is nothing in the Sunnyvale ordinance with regard to collocation that specifies modification to a tree pole under the collocation provision. Metro PCS’s collocation is proposed as a slim line design with color match and intends to further minimize visual impact. The precedent of forcing Metro PCS to modify the site to a tree pole would unduly punish a single carrier (Metro PCS) and provide additional inconvenience to others who would be impacted during a change-out process.

Cruzen stated that the existing Crown Castle monopole tower is structurally adequate to support Metro PCS’s antennas and coaxial cables. There is no structural reason to prompt the change-out of the existing monopole. The height of Metro PCS seeks to add in minimal functional height and width required to support the proposed antenna’s installation as per the guidelines of Sunnyvale Ordinance Section 19.54.040(j).

Cruzen stated that Metro PCS submits that a tree pole in the proposed location would not add any appreciable element of visual component to the site. Tree poles must be peaked and tapered, to appear natural, which means that the site would require a plus 97-foot tall artificial tree tower. The monopole is in a stand alone compound, within a parking lot at the Juniper Network campus, along North Mathilda Avenue. The foliage associated with the plus 97-foot tree pole would stand substantially above the area’s tree line so as to greatly compromise the intended buffering effect of a tree pole design. Cruzen stated that additionally, the faux foliage of a tree pole increases structural loading, such that a plus 97-foot tree pole would have an appreciably increased profile relative to the existing monopole. Between the height and bulk of the tree pole, the site would appear more obtrusive, not less. Tree pole towers, while useful in some settings, are not an aesthetic panacea.

Cruzen stated that modifying the existing monopole tower into a tree pole would cause undue financial hardship to Metro PCS. A plus 97-foot tree pole, capable of handling four collocates, would add roughly $200,000 to Metro PCS cost for the site. Cruzen stated that there was discussion of these costs being shared by other carriers, but unfortunately it does not work like that. The other carriers’ approvals are not similarly conditioned, and Metro PCS holds no authority or mechanism to compel them to cooperate with a tree pole modification. Cruzen stated he doubts that Sunnyvale possesses a mechanism to prompt these contributions, though again it was discussed. Crown Castle’s collocation terms require Metro PCS to be responsible for all associated costs of their zoning approval. Cruzen stated that enforcement of the tree pole condition would unfairly burden one carrier, Metro PCS, to modify a multi-tenant site. Cruzen stated he would be glad to give the Council a thumbnail of the costs of this desired change‑out.

Cruzen stated there are severe construction issues associated with the proposed modification such as space limitations within the compound that is already complicated by an existing tower and three carriers’ equipment. Cruzen stated as a result, there is simply not adequate room to install a tree pole without first removing the existing tower and its case on foundation. Cruzen stated because of the additional structural loading capacity the tree pole required for the associated full foliage means a bulkier profile for the tree pole tower. Cruzen stated this would involve an intrusive excavation construction project and the associated noise and dust that accompany such an endeavor. Cruzen stated there is not adequate room in the compound for the tree pole tower without removing the existing tower; and there is not adequate room in the compound for a COW (which is a cell on wheels) or a crane and sundry equipment to support the existing antennas while the relocation would be taking place. The existing carriers have established coverage in the area, and are not amenable to a service outage of any length, as it would greatly compromise their network performance.

Cruzen stated that Metro PCS would need to make other arrangements for the cows or cranes to support the existing carriers that would spill into the Juniper Network campus parking lot while the tree pole construction process is completed. The busy and crowded Juniper parking lot would temporarily lose capacity during the complicated construction process that would inevitably complicate affairs and cause no small amount of confusion.

Cruzen stated that Metro PCS has no authority with Juniper Networks to prompt these accommodations, nor is Metro PCS aware if the property owner has such authority over the parking area in their agreement with Juniper Networks.

Cruzen stated that the Crown Castle monopole site is marked to the right, on the right side of Mathilda Avenue and there are various other marks there with numbers next to them. The site is located in telecommunication compound that exists in the back southeast corner of a parking lot at the Juniper Networks campus. The area is light industrial in nature. There is no residential remotely in the vicinity of the existing monopole. Cruzen continued stating that there are a multitude of other telecommunication sites and apparatus in the near vicinity, a few of which Metro suggests exceed the impact of the proposed Metro PCS collocation. Cruzen gave several examples such as the SBC lattice tower with two microwave dishes appears directly along Mathilda Avenue at Innovation Way. The fire station tower directly along Mathilda Avenue at the southwest corner of Mathilda and Innovation Way is 900 feet away. There is a microwave dish directly along Mathilda Avenue at the southwest corner of Mathilda and Innovation Way, also 900 feet away. Cruzen continued explaining that there are multiple rooftop microwave dishes on the Lockheed campus, 1,000 feet away and many other items that are on the Lockheed campus within a 1,600 feet radius.

Cruzen stated the existing monopole is certainly compatible in this setting, and there is no overriding reason, given the existing surroundings, for modification to a tree pole design. The site meets all applicable zoning code requirements and is sufficiently set back from Mathilda Avenue so as not to be overly intrusive to the industrial setting for a host and a multitude of other telecommunication sites exist.

Councilmember Howe questioned if Planning Officer Ryan could give a report on the status of CEQA for this specific project. Planning Officer Ryan stated that staff determined that the site meets a CEQA exemption but that does not mean that the community might not find that there is some sort of aesthetic difference, and that aesthetic impact from a community standpoint may be different than from a CEQA standpoint. CEQA’s usually look at designated scenic corridors and landmarks for environmental review purposes, and certainly it is within the purview of the City to otherwise control the aesthetics of the community.

Matthew Yergovich, on behalf of Crown Castle, stated Crown Castle owns the infrastructure itself, the pole and they sublease space to the carriers. Yergovich spoke in support of
Metro PCS and the collocation. Yergovich thanked staff for their support and recommendation.

Yergovich stated Crown Castle approved the collocation, the affixing of Metro PCS’s antennas onto the pole. However, to completely swap out the pole itself for a giant tree is a big deal and it exceeds the scope of the application itself. Yergovich stated he also wanted to draw attention to the letter that was written by John Dome from Crown Castle because it mentions that this is truly cost-prohibitive. Yergovich stated it is not easy to swap out a cell site like this and it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yergovich stated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a federal act that basically says that cities shall not effectively prohibit sites. Yergovich stated that Crown Castle believes that swapping this site out for a giant tree would be so cost-prohibitive that it would prohibit this collocation.

Yergovich stated he also wanted to mention California Government Code 65850.6, which is a state statute that says the state has an interest in collocation.

Yergovich stated that collocation is a positive thing and he is hopeful that Council will agree and will support keeping this pole as a pole, not a giant tree and grant approval of this appeal.

Public hearing closed 8:44 p.m.

MOTION: Councilmember Swegles moved and Councilmember Hamilton seconded to approve Alternative 1: Council grants the appeal and approves the Special Development Permit with recommended conditions of approval (as attached to the staff report) allowing extension of the existing monopole without conversion to a tree pole.

Councilmember Swegles stated Council heard about everything they need to hear. Staff did a good job in looking at the overall perspective of putting this thing in place. Councilmember Swegles stated he can’t see the pole and he lives across the street, so he doesn’t have a problem with continuing it the way it is. It is set far enough back that it’s not a problem.

Councilmember Hamilton stated the biggest problem is trying to hold two companies responsible for what frankly should be the responsibility of all the parties; but there is not a mechanism to hold the other parties responsible. Councilmember Hamilton stated she does not think, in this case, it is appropriate to send this back to the Planning Commission, because the case has been sufficiently made that it is cost-prohibitive. Councilmember Hamilton stated as much as she appreciates the work of the Planning Commission, she believes that Council needs to override their decision.

Councilmember Moylan stated he wanted to briefly address the point about camouflage. After spending five years on the Planning Commission fighting for camouflage, camouflage does not equal tree. Camouflage equals looking like what is nearby. So in this particular location, a 90-foot industrial-looking pole is better camouflage than a 100-foot looking tree. Councilmember Moylan stated on the basis of camouflage alone, the original design is actually better. Councilmember Moylan stated in a residential neighborhood a fake tree is absolutely right; however, in this case, from an aesthetic point of view, the pole is best.

Councilmember Moylan stated that Council needs to make sure that questions should be emailed to staff ahead of time. In a complicated situation where there’s four or five companies involved (with two of whom might be on the hook and others might not) in order for questions to be addressed in the staff report and dealt with in a public hearing, staff needs to receive the questions ahead of time and not for the first time at a Council meeting.

Councilmember Moylan concluded stating that he believes the appellant made an open and shut case, so he will support this motion.

Mayor Lee stated that he does not believe that the change of cost is the consideration, rather it is aesthetics. Mayor Lee stated that normally he would support the planning commissioners’ advice; but in this case, they were a little bit overreaching. Mayor Lee stated that the 100-foot pine is going to stick out like a sore thumb in this area. It really does not seem to match. Mayor Lee stated some type of a tree camouflage will eventually show up in Sunnyvale, but this is not the right location for it. Mayor Lee stated for this very reason, he will support this motion.

VOTE: 7-0

5.

RTC 07-253

New Budget Funding Request for Landscaping at the New Historical Society Museum

City Manager Chan clarified the title on agenda Items 5 and 6, as the title talks about reconsideration of budget funding. City Manager Chan stated she wanted to make sure Council and the public understand that these are not reconsiderations, rather both items are new. City Manager Chan stated the Mayor had previously approved the addition of these two new items on the agenda for Council’s consideration. Staff has no recommendation, as both items were part of the original budget recommendation.

Mayor Lee explained to the city clerk that the proper title for Item 5 is New Budget Funding Request for Landscaping at the New Historical Society Museum.

Councilmember Chu stated he was the quasi-staff person on this item. Councilmember Chu stated he looked at the heading listed it as “Reconsideration of Budget,” colon (:) “Funding Request,” because it is a modification to the existing budget. Councilmember Chu stated he had this on a list of items to be taken the night of the budget and in Council’s quest to finish, he forgot to bring up the issue. This budget item is an unfunded project that was listed to be completed in 2012, but there were no funds identified to cover this project. Therefore, it is listed as unfunded.

Councilmember Chu stated the new Sunnyvale Historical Museum is being constructed at the Sunnyvale Community Center and in that process; the Historical Museum has received a bid to do the landscaping and hardscapes surrounding the museum. The bid is valid while the museum itself is being constructed and, in order to save money, the museum has requested that funding for this item be accelerated and be inserted now.

Councilmember Chu stated that he notes that it is an unfunded project, and so funds have to be identified from somewhere. Councilmember Chu stated he suggested in his letter to Mayor Lee that the funds might come from reductions partially offset by facility rentals. Councilmember Chu stated he would also recommend that funds come from the Park Dedication Fund, which is normally used for facility rentals at the City’s park facilities.

City Manager Chan stated that if Council were to use Park Dedication fees, 100 percent of those fees have been allocated. Therefore, Council would also need to identify a bridge project to be displaced. City Manager Chan stated that it would be helpful if Council could also identify what estimated rental Council thinks will be coming in and when, because the request for funding for this project is this year. City Manager Chan stated the revenue that Council is anticipating will not likely come into play until at least a year from now. City Manager Chan stated that if Council could address how they will deal with that would also be helpful.

Councilmember Chu stated he does not have a budget in front of him, so he could not identify what the average facility usage is for in that area and questioned if the staff would let him know the usage. Director of Parks and Recreation David Lewis stated he does not know the history of what the rental use has been; however, the upgrade or the project, as planned, may be a draw for more than has been in the past such as wedding receptions and picnics. Councilmember Chu stated because of the setting, there should be incremental income over what is happening now; because right now, there is very little usage for that area.

Councilmember Chu stated regarding what project to offset, he would reduce the cost of the Plaza del Sol renovations, since that project has not been scoped yet.

Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with Director of Parks and Recreation David Lewis that park dedication funds are used typically for playgrounds, other infrastructure, water features, athletic field enhancements, golf courses, and anything really to do with the park infrastructure.

Councilmember Chu stated that he is aware that $6 to $7 million has been set aside in the park dedication fund and that $140,000 should be able to be accommodated within that.

Councilmember Moylan confirmed with staff that if the landscaping was put in, the City would be maintaining it and that it is already budgeted. Councilmember Moylan confirmed with Councilmember Chu that he is suggesting that the $140,000 gets pulled out of the current Plaza del Sol project, which is a much higher-budgeted thing, and any additional rentals that accrue because the landscaping went in could go to help defray the cost of the landscaping.

Councilmember Chu explained that phase one of Plaza del Sol has been completed, but phase two is on hold or is about to start to be scoped. The allocation, at least within the budget, was between $5 and $6 million. Director of Parks and Recreation David Lewis stated the allocation is $2 million in fiscal year 2007/08 and $4 million in the next year.

Councilmember Moylan reiterated that this is a fraction of that and Councilmember Chu is hoping that it can be scoped for less than that fraction.

Councilmember Hamilton stated that the comment people made most when Plaza del Sol was opened were that there are no public restrooms available. Councilmember Hamilton stated the public restrooms are part of phase two, so before any sort of concrete decision one way or another is made tonight, she would like to have a more solid idea of exactly what part of that scope is going to be changed. Councilmember Hamilton stated that it has been way too long since she looked at the details of this project and she is not prepared to make a funding decision of that magnitude tonight.

Councilmember Chu stated the project is close to $6 million and embedded within that are the bathrooms. Councilmember Chu stated he does not expect the bathrooms would be altered out of the equation. Councilmember Chu stated Councilmember Hamilton is one of the seven who will make the decision to make sure that it is funded, and he is hopeful that he will also be one of the seven to be able to vote for that as well.

Councilmember Hamilton inquired that if Council takes $140,000 out of it now, does Council have to come up with $140,000 out of something else later.

City Manager Chan explained to Councilmember Hamilton that the reason she does not remember the details for Plaza del Sol is that staff has not come back to the Council with that program. City Manager Chan stated staff is going out with a request for proposal (RFP) asking for consultants to help staff to scope an estimate of the project. Council will have an opportunity to come back and say what component they want to eliminate. City Manager Chan stated if this motion should pass and the money be used, then there is no new money. Council is really deferring their decision to some later project in which if Council is confronted with a funding challenge, then a hard choice would have to be made at that time. City Manager Chan stated that once again, if the motion should pass, then the funding decision will be at that time.

City Manager Chan explained that in regard to Councilmember Chu’s question about revenue, the revenue has already been anticipated as part of the 20-year budget. City Manager Chan stated that if Council passes this item, then Council will be removing that portion of the resource and reallocating it to offset the landscaping project. City Manager Chan stated that there will be some other budgetary impact on other programs as a result of such a motion. City Manager Chan stated she wanted Council to understand that the reason Councilmembers do not remember the details is because it will be coming back to Council. The current budget doesn’t have sufficient resources to support the scope that staff is thinking.

Councilmember Hamilton questioned when this will be coming back to Council. City Manager Chan stated she believe is it will be in about three or four months. City Manager Chan stated she will get back to Council to confirm the date.

Public hearing opened 9:06 p.m.

Pat Castillo, representing the Chair of the Museum Association Laura Babcock, read comments into the record on her behalf, and supplied the City Clerk with a letter. Castillo stated she understands and appreciates very well the questions that Council has regarding where to pull funding from, but know what things can also happen.

Castillo stated the construction of the long-awaited museum is underway which brings a decision regarding the City portion of the landscaping to an urgent need. Castillo stated per the comprehensive agreement with the City, the Society is not responsible for the exterior landscaping associated with the museum. Castillo stated according to the contract, the historical society will have no responsibility relative to exterior landscaping associated with the museum. Castillo stated if and when the City redesigns the landscaping immediately adjacent to the museum, the City shall provide the society an opportunity for input on the redesign, prior to the actual renovation. Castillo explained that relative to maintenance of the exterior landscaping the society’s responsibility shall be reevaluated by both parties.

Castillo stated the historical society, at their expense, has a full landscaping plan prepared, which has been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Director and the site Manager. Castillo stated the site has been divided into phase one and phase two, with phase two being the City’s responsibility. Castillo stated the society asked the contractor to give a quote for phase two services, since it would be much less expensive if completed while he is onsite doing the building and phase one. Castillo stated the quote received for phase two was $140,559.50. Castillo stated the society’s portion is well in excess of $2.5 million and the society is paying for the ADA-compliant entrance to the building, as well as all the decorative brick, tiles and the famous Murphy palm trees.

Castillo stated the historical society portion is the surrounding hardscape. Castillo stated the result of not doing the City portion now is dedicating a $3 million project on a site that is completely non-usable. The community would have a very narrow sidewalk to get into the museum, but the surrounding area would be graded mud and dirt or have unsightly fencing, to keep visitors off the mud and dirt. Castillo stated that the historical society respectfully requests a budget authorization from the City to complete the City’s portion of the landscaping, while the contractor is onsite, so it is completed the same time the museum is. The society has provided hard copies of the phase two bid and copies of the total landscaping plan for Council’s review. The bid for phase two went out to competitive bid processing for all City and state rules

Councilmember Swegles confirmed with Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis that staff received a copy of the bid (in regards to the cost of the construction) in June 2007. Councilmember Swegles inquired if staff had a chance to look at it and discuss the possibility of doing all these things in-house, and what the cost would be for the City to do it in-house. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated staff’s scope has a far different scope than what is in the bid. The City’s project encompasses a larger area, and also building facades for the existing buildings. Staff has not looked at this on a breakdown basis to analyze the cost for the work of what they are calling phase two, because the City’s project includes the phase two area plus quite a bit more. Councilmember Swegles confirmed that there are other areas that the City is looking at to improve when the City does its part of the improvements.

Councilmember Chu inquired as to the additional area that staff spoke of and asked if in area and scope, is it about 50 percent of the area. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated it is about 50 percent of the area, not including the facelifts or the building facades or the existing building, but again, staff does not have that broken out.

Castillo stated what has happened, (not to speak on behalf of staff) is that this project has been in the works for over 40 years. Citizens have been asking for a museum in Sunnyvale, and when this challenge was accepted, no one really thought it would be able to be funded and constructed in a timely manner. Castillo stated a yeoman’s task has been really completed and the building is well underway. Many of the citizens within the City have donated in addition to the City granting the land and the additional dollars that were there, along with the state’s $600,000, which did really change the mechanism in which they could do some of the funding. The society still has additional funding needs that they are working on, but unfortunately, there is no way that the society can pick up the cost of this additional $140,000.

Councilmember Howe stated that there are two different scopes of landscaping, one that is proposed for roughly $140,000 by the historical society and another project from the City of Sunnyvale for $390,000.

Councilmember Howe asked Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis if he believed the City would go on and do the balance of the $390,000, which is not in the scope of this, or would it be dropped in the future. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that is strictly up to the Council. The project on the books is an unfunded project, and certainly it is clear that the City’s project would require an additional scope to what is listed. Director of Parks and Recreation stated that whether Council wants to do this as an unfunded project (implement that part of the project that’s outside a scope of this) would be up to the future decision of the Council.

Councilmember Howe inquired since there are two different scopes, if Council us going to do a poor project by doing a partial at $140,000. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated in light of this potential, if Council did pursue the balance of the project, then staff would have to take that in to consideration both the design and construction to ensure that it blends with what would have been built at this time. Director of Parks and Recreation stated that is very doable in the future to blend things, whether it is the theme, the plant materials, or the layout. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated staff could do that if needed.

Councilmember Howe stated that he assumed staff has looked at the Museum Society’s plan for $140,000. Councilmember Howe inquired if that plan is compatible with the City’s normal process like underground sprinklers and that type of thing, so that when the City potentially maintains this, it would be efficient as if it was a project that was designed by the City of Sunnyvale. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that staff did that on a cursory level in that they had understood, until just recently, that phase one was what was going to be built and phase two would be what the City would do at a later time. Staff looked at the phase one plans in great detail but staff did not go into that level of detail on phase two, because staff was under the impression that that would be done later.

Councilmember Howe inquired if the museum would be usable if the $140,000 portion of the landscaping was not completed and/or would the building be usable. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that staff reviewed these plans and also talked about the access to the building that may be possible (or would be possible) in that there is some money in the operations budget each year that could be used to blend some pathways from the parking area through the area between what is proposed in phase one and the parking lot. Staff would be able to link the phase one area with the access from the parking lot.

Councilmember Howe inquired if the Director of Parks and Recreation believes that if the $140,000 was spent, that the building and/or outside would offer potential revenue opportunities and that this expense would enhance those revenues. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that it would certainly be a larger and more attractive space, and it would blend visually very well with the museum. Director of Parks and Recreation stated he could not predict what type of events might occur or what the revenue might be. In terms of weddings, the area would have an attraction for those types of events.

Councilmember Hamilton inquired if the pathway from the parking lot to the museum would be landscaped. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that there would be two access points that could come from two different angles from the parking lot to the phase one area. Councilmember Hamilton inquired what the rest of the area would be such as mud or grass. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated this was something that staff had perceived to be different. Staff thought that phase one was what was going to be developed, and in reality, the phase two area was also demolished as well and had become bare dirt. Staff has visited the site, and believes that it could be bordered and could be made substantially better than bare dirt, but obviously nowhere near as attractive and desirable as the phase two project.

Councilmember Hamilton confirmed that staff did not know phase two area was going to be demolished. Councilmember Hamilton inquired as to how that occurred and Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that staff was only looking at the plans, separating out phase one from phase two in terms of Parks and Recreation.

Castillo stated she understands that bark and gravel and all can be put in but questioned how that area would remain handicapped accessible, especially with a narrow sidewalk.

Public hearing closed 9:23 p.m.

Councilmember Hamilton asked the City Manager who is in charge of making sure that staff knows what is demolished. Councilmember Hamilton stated that she is really surprised to hear that it was a surprise to staff that an area was demolished. Councilmember Hamilton stated she is wondering where the communication was or was not.

Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated staff’s review of the project and the plans had to do with the delineation between phases one and two. What was submitted to plan check staff for permitting, may have called for the phase two area to be demolished. However, when staff looked at the plans, they looked at them through the eyes of phase one being built as part of the project, and phase two being built at a later date. The staging area is off to the side and not part of the phase two area. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that staff believed that the project would be kept within the phase one area and assumed that the phase one area would be the only area that would be demolished. It just never came upon staff’s radar screen that phase two was going to be demolished.

Councilmember Hamilton stated that the site map she has identifies a staging area during construction inside the red lines. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that was not what staff saw early on.

City Manager Chan stated in staff’s defense, that all of the City’s discussions with the museum representatives have always been in regard to the phase one project. After the demolition, staff discovered that the phase two would have landscaping. The issue that Council is confronting tonight is whether there would be bare land and dirt if phase two had not been demolished. To staff’s surprise, that when they went out, they saw even the landscaped area was demolished. It is possible there was miscommunication, but as the director stated, staff’s focus was really on phase one and everyone understood that phase two would not happen for several years, even if funding was available. City Manager Chan stated that Council may recall in last year’s budget, the landscaping was also shown as unfunded. City Manager stated the fact that the project had an unfunded status, happened at least couple years ago.

Councilmember Howe inquired if demolition permits were issued for this project and Director of Parks and Recreation stated there were but again, Parks and Recreation staff did not review the area that was going to receive those permits or the plans that were submitted for demolition. Councilmember Howe verified that the Community Development Department would have approved those permits.

Councilmember Howe inquired if there was an approved plan for demolition of the phase two area and Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated since he is not familiar with the project, he would need to research the status or the history of the permits and what was actually issued. Councilmember Howe stated that is a substantial issue as to what was done, what was issued, and what was demolished.

Councilmember Swegles stated the sidewalk is going to be fairly narrow and in some of the City’s parks, staff uses a new surface that actually is accessible by handicapped individuals. Councilmember Swegles inquired if it would be possible to use that type of material to edge the sidewalk in order to widen it a little bit more.

Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that staff would make sure all aspects of phase one and two were ADA-compliant.

MOTION: Councilmember Chu moved and Vice Mayor Spitaleri seconded to approve funding for phase two, in the amount of the construction bid, which is approximately $141,000, and that the offset to that would be a reduction in funding for the next phase of Plaza del Sol with the next step to be reducing the unfunded project identified as “900234 – Sunnyvale Heritage Center Enhancements” by the same amount.

Councilmember Howe offered a friendly amendment that instead of just taking something out of Plaza del Sol, to instead look again at the capital budgets that are in the Park Dedication area. Fund the $140,000 out of the Council set-aside, and then take a look at the Park Dedication fund, decide where it is, and come back down and reimburse it.

Councilmember Howe stated that will give Council the flexibility to look at the projects that are coming up and potentially delaying it by a year without cutting one of the projects, or something similar that makes more sense.

Councilmember Howe offered a friendly amendment to look into whether or not the City issued a permit for demolition for phase two and potentially should not have, or did the Museum Society and their contractor overstep this and go ahead and destroy the landscaping in phase two. If the contractor did that, then there may be a contribution that needs to be made from that.

Councilmember Chu stated he would rather identify Plaza del Sol as the source of the funding, and then deal with Plaza del Sol separately, because that project, at this stage, has some scoping issues in general. Councilmember Howe questioned if Councilmember Chu thought that Plaza del Sol was fluid enough that it could be redesigned and then move into Phase Two and Three. Councilmember Chu stated he did because Plaza del Sol is significantly over the amount that is allocated now, so Plaza del Sol will have to be totally re-scoped, as it is.

Councilmember Howe inquired if the City is going back to the drawing board on Plaza del Sol. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated the Public Works Department has already convened some scoping meetings on a preliminary basis and is looking at all of the comments that have been made, and not just in the previous plan when phase one and phase two were designed. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that staff has had several years of usage of the Plaza del Sol park now in hand, and has learned from what people have said they needed, such as more shade, more grass, and more benches. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated Plaza del Sol phase two will involve not just a re-scoping, but a lot of redesign work that will be very different from phase two of the original overall plaza project on the books obviously with budget constraints in mind.

City Manager Chan stated that if this motion passes, Plaza del Sol will have $141,000 less. Council’s choices are if there is a project that exceeds that amount of money, then Council will have to decide what components Council wants and what components they do not want. City Manager Chan stated if Council moves with all the components then Council will need to see what the total cost would be and identify new money to support that. City Manager Chan explained that if Council delays their funding decision to another project then there will be a funding challenge on that project later. City Manager Chan stated certainly if that is the Council’s desire, then that is what will be done.

Councilmember Chu stated he agreed with Councilmember Howe regarding the demolition of phase two and should the historical museum be at fault, that some contribution would be required. Councilmember Howe stated the only reason he mentioned this is because Council would not have this question before them if this other landscaping had not been removed. Councilmember Howe stated either a demolition permit has been issued that is inconclusive, or the demolition permit has been exceeded.

Councilmember Howe stated if the City winds up dealing with an unfunded $140,000 or an unfunded $390,000, there should be a contribution. Councilmember Howe offered a suggestion that the contribution be ten percent of the $140,000 if they are found at fault.

Councilmember Chu stated he would accept the friendly amendment that there should be some type of penalty and investigation to figure out where errors were made. Councilmember Chu stated the main reason is not necessarily to create a penalty; the main reason is to make sure that it does not happen in the future, so procedures are in place to make sure that on this project, and any other projects, that we do not run into the same problem.

Councilmember Howe stated it is sort of a unique situation; but at the same time, something’s happened here, and the City is winding up bumping something out and dealing with $140,000.

Councilmember Hamilton stated she agreed with everything that Councilmember Howe said but, she is a little uncomfortable with just taking the money from the Plaza del Sol project without looking at other alternatives. Councilmember Hamilton stated she wished that Council had not dealt with the budget at midnight that night, because then Council would have had this discussion in the context of all the other budget items rather than trying to have this discussion on its own. Councilmember Hamilton stated she is very uncomfortable doing spot budgeting.

Councilmember Hamilton stated she will support the motion because she thinks it is a good project. Councilmember Hamilton stated she is a little dismayed at what happened with the demolition, and is anxious to get to the bottom of that.

Councilmember Swegles stated the city manager informed Council through e-mail (and as Councilmember Chu acknowledged) that the revenue from the Historical Museum will not be a part of the City budget. Councilmember Swegles stated in regard to rental of the surrounding area, the City is at the point of looking at the possibility of investing $140,000 around the museum and not investing anything else outside of the red lines. Councilmember Chu stated he is not sure how appealing the rest of the area is going to be without any funding.

Councilmember Swegles stated when Council looked at the budget, they had to cut $90,000 plus out of requests from many non-profits that would have loved to have had money from the budget, set-aside account, or any other funds that Council would have looked at, like Council is discussing tonight. Council always takes pride in balancing the budget every year, and did it again this year.

Councilmember Swegles stated that the Plaza del Sol capital project can be reduced, but Council has already taken away $80,000 from one of the City’s other capital projects, the bicycle fund, to help Cupertino with their bridge.

Councilmember Swegles stated he is a strong supporter of the Historical Museum and congratulated the Historical Museum and the society for doing such a great job of getting the funds on this project as early as they did. Councilmember Swegles stated that however, to suddenly bring forward a request to advance funds is very difficult to do because of the way our budget is set up.

Councilmember Swegles stated that he seems to be the fiscal conservative on the Council and watches how Council spends the City’s money. Councilmember Swegles stated because the City is not able to give to those who need the money, Council should delay the request until the budget of 2008/09 and try and set up the museum to receive the money in July of 2008 when the new budget would go into effect.

Councilmember Howe asked that the motion be restated.

Councilmember Chu stated the motion is to create a new project which consists of the bid for what is called the phase two hardscape in the amount of approximately $141,000, and that the offset for this would come from a reduction in the Park Dedication Funds that have been set aside for Plaza del Sol. In addition, there will be an investigation to figure out where the miscommunication occurred or if there is miscommunication related to the demo permits in the area between the City’s building permit staff, Parks and Recreation and the Historical Museum. Should the museum project be identified as being at fault, then a penalty of 10 percent of the $141,000 would be assessed. Lastly the unfunded project would be reduced by the same amount.

Restated MOTION: Councilmember Chu moved and Vice Mayor Spitaleri seconded to:

·         Council approves the creation of a new capital project (based on the bid received by the Historical Society) in the amount of $141,000;

·         Council approves the cost of the new project to be offset from Park Dedication Funds identified for Plaza Del Sol;

·         Council approves the reduction of phase two of the Historical Museum Project by $141,000; and

·         Council approves investigation of the circumstances related to the Phase II demolition to determine if the Historical Museum Society is responsible and if so levy a 10 percent penalty ($14,000).

VOTE: 6-1 (Councilmember Swegles dissented)

6.

RTC 07-254

New Budget Funding Request for Case/Care Management Program for Seniors.

Mayor Lee stated Item 6 is a request made by Vice Mayor Spitaleri.

Councilmember Chu stated it was past 9:30 p.m. and asked Mayor Lee if he wanted to look at the agenda.

Mayor Lee stated that was correct and Council needs to review the agenda to see if we could finish everything tonight or we need to push a couple of items forward. Mayor Lee stated that Items 6, 7, 8 and 9 are still on the agenda along with the Redevelopment Agency.

City Manager Chan stated that she would ask Council to consider not continuing Items 8 and 9, as both of them are time-sensitive.

Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with City Attorney Kahn that the Redevelopment Agency item is time-sensitive because it is required by the Regional Water Quality Board so the City can proceed with its Polanko action.

Councilmember Swegles confirmed that Item 7 is not time-sensitive.

MOTION: Councilmember Swegles moved and Councilmember Howe seconded to continue Item 7 to next Council meeting on July 24^, 2007.

VOTE: 6-1 (Councilmember Moylan dissenting)

Mayor Lee called for a five minute break.

Mayor Lee reconvened the Council meeting.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he brought this budget funding request (case management program for seniors) back to the Council because unfortunately, he was not at the meeting when Council dealt with the budget and looked at allocations and the funding requests from nonprofit organizations. Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated at the time when Council was reviewing this issue, Council may not have had all the information.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated one of the things that concerned him was the statement made that if seniors need help, they can go to the Community Center. Not all seniors can go to the Community Center as some are disabled, some suffer from Alzheimer’s, dementia, and other illnesses or are just very frail.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated the part that was not brought up that night was the fact that there is a real possibility of losing funding from the County by the amount of money that is reduced (something like from approximately $50,000 down to $25,000). Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated that if the City loses that funding, then the services that it provides will be extremely low and will reduce case management hours to a few hours per week. Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he would request that the City put funding in that and that it come from the set-aside funds. Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he did not want to lose matching funds from the County that would severely hamper the City’s ability to deal with the seniors in the community.

Councilmember Swegles stated that the staff report states the Council on Aging would directly employ the caseworker and assign them to Sunnyvale Senior Center to provide approximately 600 hours of case management service, equivalent to roughly 1,000 hours of total service. Councilmember Swegles stated he is not sure if that would mean that the City would receive 600 hours of service or would pay for 1,000 hours of service. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated at half-time that is roughly 600 hours.

Councilmember Swegles stated the agency appears to have some degree of discretion, in determining the annual amount. However, there is no guarantee on any ongoing funding in the future, no matter what Council does this evening. Councilmember Swegles stated he looked back over a 20-year forecast and it cost the City approximately $1,495,817. Councilmember Swegles stated Council needs to ask the question as to how they would find the money for this project, and what program would be cut in order to cover the expense. Councilmember Swegles continued that with all the services Council already provides at the Senior Center, Council does not need to fund this at 100 percent.

Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated the funding level that had been requested was for a half-time case manager and the Council on Aging contribution would have been $10,000. There has not been a signed agreement with the Council on Aging since the Council action. However, staff is prepared to go forward with the program based on the funding that Council allocated, somewhere around 13 hours a week. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated staff has talked to the Council on Aging regarding their ability to provide some funding; however they have no obligation to and have made no commitment. The Council on Aging is considering this project but the hours would be substantially less than the half-time and the number of clients that would be able to be served would be decreased.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he was under the impression that the representative from the Council on Aging appeared before Council and made a statement that there would be $20,000 available if Council were to fund this program. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that statement was made at the original time that it was looked into it, and if it were funded at a full-time level, the City would receive $20,000 and $10,000 for half-time, but the City would receive nothing for less than half-time. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated there is a possibility the City may be able to get a few thousand dollars from the Council on Aging as staff is talking with them currently. Vice Mayor Spitaleri confirmed that staff is currently negotiating getting some money to augment the portion that the Council did approve and Council is currently looking at about 13 hours a week.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated that he understands the issue of constraints in the City’s budget, but the most important aspect of Council is to prioritize public safety first and second to take care of those citizens in their later years and help them to make it through the rest of their life. Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he is not able to support the concept that everything at the Community Center is there to help our seniors. The case management work is critical to those folks who do not have that ability to get there and the City should help them out as much as possible.

Councilmember Swegles stated it was not the Community Center; it was actually the Senior Center that he was referring to that has many programs.

Councilmember Swegles stated that the City has many different senior health and wellness groups or events going on at the Senior Center to help the seniors in different ways. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated the City has an Information Referral Program by either telephone or visitation. The case management or care manager does a lot of in-home assessments and deals with a lot of frail and elderly people who are in between needing or wanting to be at home and living in a convalescent or rest home type facility and who want to remain in their own home, but need help arranging medical, food and transportation resources. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated the outreach is done in the client’s homes, which is at times the only contact that the person may have.

Councilmember Swegles inquired if the goal is for the case worker to do 60 people next year. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated at the half-time level, the City was able to serve last year about 45 clients; however, on a 12 hour week basis, it may be possible to serve about 25 clients. Councilmember Swegles stated Council’s goal was 45. Councilmember Swegles stated for a full year the goal should be 60 clients and Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated on a half-time basis, the amount served should stay at 45. Councilmember Swegles noted that the staff report states 60 and Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that 45 would be the number for half-time. Councilmember Swegles stated if the case manager were to have 60 clients, she would be only needed to see 1.6 seniors per week if the position had 50 weeks. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated that 60 is a lot of people that would be seen quite regularly and quite often. It’s not a one-time thing. There’s a lot of checking, a lot of assessment, a lot of going back to develop services and ensure that the services are carried out; so it is not just a one-time visit. Councilmember Swegles stated 45 seniors would be less than 1 person per week. Director of Parks and Recreation Lewis stated a case manager could see up to 10 people a week and because of the trial and the pilot nature of the program, staff did not want to be overwhelmed. The case manager’s work time has filled to more than she’s capable of handling.

Councilmember Swegles confirmed that the City would receive 13 hours as opposed to 20 hours a week benefit and the program would only lose seven hours, yet the savings would be approximately $28,000.

Councilmember Howe confirmed with staff that this position cannot be dealt with by CDBG funds because Council already funded it previously, and you can’t fund something if it was funded previously.

Councilmember Howe confirmed that the expense would $1,495,817.68 over a 20-year forecast yet the set-aside funds are less than half a million dollars. Councilmember Howe asked how $1.45 million fits into $494,000 and Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated the City stated he is looking for help this year. Next year could be a different story depending on what happens with the County, the whole program might go away if the funding is not received from the state and federal agencies. However, reality is that the City’s population is getting older and needing more and more services.

Councilmember Howe stated he is not arguing against the need for case workers

Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated his concern is that 13 hours a week is a disservice to the citizens in Sunnyvale, and he is asking that Council use some of the set-aside money this year to cover this service and deal with the problem next year, if it is a problem.

Councilmember Howe asked Vice Mayor Spitaleri if it was time for a motion, would his motion be that Council approve taking $31,000 from the Council set-aside to restore the position to half-time, which is approximately seven additional hours for one year ending June 30, 2008.

City Manager Chan stated the $31,000 would be permanently reduced as an ongoing expense. Assuming Council is going to fund this program as ongoing, then the set-aside amount will be reduced every year by this 31,000. Council does not need to identify this expense as one year as it is Council’s option to identify it as an ongoing program.

Councilmember Howe stated if the program is identified as an ongoing project, the total will come close to Councilmember Swegles $1.495 million, and that does not fit in the shoe. Council passed a motion that said Council would not exceed $100,000 in expenses coming out of General Funds this past year.

Mayor Lee stated that Council is not dealing with a motion yet; so when a motion is made, Council is going to deal with that.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri confirmed with the city manager that if the set-aside fund is not used this year, then it’ll be added to next year’s set aside fund.

Public hearing opened 10:24 p.m.

No speakers.

Public hearing closed 10:25 p.m.

MOTION: Vice Mayor Spitaleri moved and Councilmember Howe seconded to restore the Case/Care Management Program to the 2006/07 level (not to exceed $31,000) with funding from the service level set-aside funds for fiscal year 2007/08.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he will bring this back next fiscal year 2008/09 and look at it again.

Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he was hopeful that his colleagues will support this motion as this affects people and what can be done in an hour could help someone for many years.

Councilmember Moylan stated the set-aside fund gives Council $25,000 of discretionary money, on average, per year, for something that might suddenly come up, that should be one-time things. Councilmember Moylan stated he cannot support anything that is going to spend more than $25,000 out of the set-aside fund, in any given year, for any reason, particularly for something that is an ongoing need. This is absolutely a valid ongoing need and there is not dispute as to the value of the program. However, when Council was given $100,000 to divide among innumerable, deserving, nonprofit organizations and the request from this one came in at $57,000 that was one of the main reasons it got chopped. Councilmember Moylan stated it was not that this program was not valuable; it is that it was so expensive. Councilmember Moylan stated this program would take half of the nonprofit funding budget for the year, and would allow assistance to 30 people or something like that.

Councilmember Moylan stated Councilmember Swegles’ argument at the time was that the Housing and Human Services Commission felt that Sunnyvale Community Services was very efficient at delivering services to the extremely needy – including seniors – and they received a good chunk of the money available. The whole social services network is shrinking and the City’s Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds are shrinking. The County is really in a hole in their budget and this is why there is a study issue pending. Councilmember Moylan questioned that as all these other pieces of the safety net go away, how much can the City help that problem, and how much should the City help. Councilmember Moylan stated that to burn more than a year’s worth of Council’s set-aside funds for something that will only band-aid the problem this year and yet the same exact problem will come back next year is being irresponsible with the money available. Councilmember Moylan continued that anytime Council spends more than $25,000 in one year out of the set-aside funds, he believes Council is sending a message to “tax and spend” as he once heard an angry citizen shrieking at a town hall meeting. Council is setting themselves up for that kind of a reaction from the public. Councilmember Moylan stated Council has received $500,000 in discretionary funds for 20 years and Council should keep expenses to $25,000 per year for individual things that are one-time things. Councilmember Moylan stated that no matter how deserving something else is, Council cannot afford to do this. Councilmember Moylan stated he is not disputing its value, but will dispute Council’s ability to afford it. Councilmember Moylan stated that Councilmember Swegles’s original breakdown was valid, and that is why he ended up supporting it. Councilmember Moylan stated that Council was previously arguing about $750 dollars going back and forth between these nonprofits, and then to suddenly drop $30,000 out of nowhere after that, would be irresponsible.

Councilmember Swegles stated the bottom line is to give someone an extra $30,000 for seven hours; it just does not balance out. Councilmember Swegles explained that Councilmember Moylan expressed most of what he had wanted to say, but to give a rough idea of some of the great groups that the City has, we have a diabetes support group, coming fully alive, a meditation group, journaling for life, rituals in later life, and relationships. Councilmember Swegles stated it is true that the City does not take these out on the road and take them to the homes, which is what the caseworker is supposed to do. However, the City does have some programs that they can be a part of at the Senior Center. Councilmember Swegles stated that the City does need to take care of the frail, and he believes the City can take care of those frail people in the 13 hours that is presently funded.

Councilmember Chu stated that he will not be able to support the motion either. Councilmember Chu stated that he makes it a policy whenever he votes no to explain why. Councilmember Chu explained that the distinction between this item and the item that he proposed previously is that the funding for the Historical Society Museum was overlooked. Councilmember Chu stated he forgot to bring it up and Council did not have a discussion on it previously. Councilmember Chu stated in this particular case, Council actually did have a discussion on this item the night of the budget. Councilmember Chu stated there was a lot of discussion going back and forth, and a decision was made. Councilmember Chu stated he did not think that there is any new information that we are getting other than it is a program that needs to be funded; however unfortunately, the City does not have the funds necessary. Councilmember Chu stated it is a well-deserved program, but Council did make a decision a month ago, and Council should continue with that decision. Councilmember Chu stated he will not be supporting the motion.

Mayor Lee stated he will be supporting the motion because the purpose of the service-level set-aside is a safety net. Mayor Lee stated the reason Council has this extra money is to figure out the gaps in service. Mayor Lee questioned what else would be more worthwhile to do, than assist seniors who need help.

Mayor Lee stated when this program is dropped down to assisting 25 people, those are real lives. Currently, the program will need to drop 19 clients. Mayor Lee reminded Council that the City will receive $10,000 from the county as well. Mayor Lee stated he cannot think of any reason why Council should not support seniors with this program by using the set-aside funds for one year to support seniors.

Mayor Lee stated that he would also like items such as a restroom for the baseball team in the park, but as far as he is concerned, if the players have to go somewhere else versus some seniors surviving for the next meal because of the lack of visitation rights, that is a life and death situation. Mayor Lee stated that he is really very passionate about this issue and he thinks this group is doing a great job. Mayor Lee stated with all due respect for his colleagues who are looking at it as a budget issue, he sees this as beyond a budget issue, and urged his colleagues to support it as well.

VOTE: Motion failed 3-4 (Councilmembers Swegles, Chu, Hamilton and Moylan dissented)

7.

RTC 07–224

Policy for Soliciting Corporate Sponsorships and Donations (Study Issue)

By earlier motion, this item continued to the Council meeting of July 24, 2007.

8.

RESOLUTION

ORDINANCE

RTC 07–255

Adoption of the Resolution of Necessity and Introduction of an Ordinance to Place a General Obligation Bond Before Qualified Voters on November 6, 2007 for the Purpose of the Design and Construction of a New Sunnyvale Public Library and Approval of Budget Modification No. 4

Director of Finance Mary Bradley, Budget Analyst Drew Corbett, and Bill Madison, Bond Council with the Firm of Jones Hall in San Francisco presented the staff report.

Director of Finance Bradley stated on June 19, 2007, Council authorized the plan for a new Sunnyvale Public Library facility to be financed by the issuance of a General Obligation Bond in the amount of $108 million with a 30-year term. As part of its action, Council directed staff to move forward with a ballot measure to place the General Obligation Bond before voters at the election to be held on November 6, 2007. This is the action before Council this evening.

Director of Finance Bradley explained that a General Obligation Bond is a long-term debt instrument, secured by additional property taxes, collected annually on taxable property within the City. The tax levy itself is commonly quoted as an annual tax rate per $100,000 of assessed value of the property. A General Obligation Bond of $108 million, as staff is proposing, with a term of 30 years, at an estimated interest rate of 5.5 percent, (which is the current conservative estimate), the annual tax levy per $100,000 assessed value would be $37.09 in the first year and an average annual levy of $19.52 per $100,000 assessed value. Director of Finance Bradley gave an example in which a home with an assessed value of $500,000 would, on average, be billed $97.60 per year.

Director of Finance Bradley stated the proceeds of a General Obligation Bond can be used for cost-related design and construction of the new facility, but cannot be used for furniture, fixtures, books, or equipment (such as computers) and also cannot be used to support operations.

Director of Finance Bradley stated the City is authorized to issue General Obligation Bonds pursuant to provisions of the California Government Code, and this bond law has very specific steps that must be taken, to place the General Obligation Bonds on the ballot. Director of Finance Bradley stated that first Council must pass what is called the Resolution of Necessity (Attachment A of the staff report). The Resolution of Necessity determines that the public interest requires the design and construction of the new library facility, and it also takes a number of other actions that are listed in the report. The resolution must be passed by two-thirds of the entire Council, or at least five members.

Following approval of the Resolution of Necessity, Council must next introduce the ordinance calling the election, which is Attachment B. This ordinance calls for the election on November 6, 2007, sets the bond principle amount at $100 million, and defines certain other procedures. Director of Finance Bradley stated the most interesting to Council is that the ordinance also includes the actual proposed wording of the ballot proposition or, as sometimes called, the ballot statement. Director of Finance Bradley stated the ballot statement can contain no more than 75 words, and is intended to provide adequate information to allow the voters to decide if they would like to issue General Obligation Bonds for construction of a new library. Like the resolution, the ordinance must be passed by two-thirds of the entire Council and it is effective immediately upon adoption. The Geo Bond Law also contains requirements for publication of the ordinance after approval.

Director of Finance Bradley stated the voter pamphlet prepared by the County Registrar of Voters (ROV) will contain the actual ballot proposition or the ballot statement, an impartial analysis prepared by the City Attorney, and a tax rate statement prepared by staff. The tax rate statement will disclose to the voters the maximum and average annual tax rate that staff estimates will be needed to support the bond. The voter pamphlet can also contain written arguments for and against the Geo Bond proposition. There is also the possibility for a rebuttal.

Director of Finance Bradley stated staff is recommending that Council approve a budget modification to appropriate the funds needed to pay for the additional county election services related to the Geo Bond measure, identified as Budget Modification No. 4.

Councilmember Moylan inquired as to why the cost to fund putting this on the ballot would come out of the Council set-aside fund. Councilmember Moylan stated the cost of this will be a year and a half’s worth of the Council set-aside funds. Councilmember Moylan stated that it seems like the cost of doing elections is sort of a regular part of the City’s business. Councilmember Moylan questioned whether the City is budgeting enough for running elections in the City. Councilmember Moylan inquired if there is an alternative source for those funds other than to completely wipe out a year and a half’s worth of the set-aside funds.

Director of Finance Bradley stated Council currently has $494,629 in the set-aside fund, as shown in the staff report. Councilmember Moylan stated that amount is for the next 19 years. Director of Finance Bradley stated that should Council approve this item then $37,000 would reduce the fund to $457,000. Councilmember Moylan stated that is correct but if it started at $500,000 for a 20-year span, that averages $25,000 a year before it went to zero. Therefore, every time Council takes money out of it (such as this $37,000), then the fund will reach a zero balance a lot earlier than the 20 year plan.

Director of Finance stated if Council removes ongoing funds out of it, it reduces it permanently. Councilmember Moylan stated even a one-time fund that’s more than $25,000 is like more than one average years’ worth of what it was allocated to provide. Director Bradley stated if is was an expense of $37,000 ongoing, it would permanently reduce it. Director of Finance Bradley stated as the City Manager said, if you spend none of it, it carries over and actually adds to the set-aside fund. It is a total amount at the end of the 20 years. Councilmember Moylan stated he did not think that not spending it is not a danger, because not a month goes by without someone proposing to spend some of the set-aside funds. Councilmember Moylan stated as soon as the fund was created, it became this incredibly attractive thing and it is mentioned every other week. Councilmember Moylan stated that if we use it for its whole 20 years, Council would have an average of $25,000 a year, in one-time shots that we would take out of it. If Council were to remove $37000, that would be removing money from another year down the road.

Director of Finance stated this is actually the City Manager’s program, but the elections, every other year, are basically budgeted at approximately an estimate of how many candidates there will be and how many seats will be open. Director of Finance stated an amount is budgeted, something $400,000 and to the extent that the City has more propositions (and we will, with the charter amendments) the election will cost more. Director of Finance stated staff was trying to be very, very clear about the cost of everything associated with this ballot measure.

Councilmember Moylan inquired if the City budgets for some average number of City measures, in addition to the candidates.

Director of Finance stated she would defer to the City Clerk or the Assistant City Manager but the answer is yes, and there are a certain number of candidates and a certain number of statements.

City Clerk Chappelear stated the current budget for the 2007 election was based on the actual expenditures from the 2005 election. City Clerk Chappelear stated that in 2005 the City had three seats open with seven candidates and five ballot measures and staff used the actual cost for 2005 as the basis for the budget this year. City Clerk Chappelear stated this year, though, there are four seats open and staff does not know how many candidates there will be. Additionally, there are ten ballot measures which was unknown two years ago when the budget was developed.

Councilmember Moylan stated using a three-seat projection for a four-seat election is something the City might want to oscillate in the future in order to obtain a better prediction of election costs.

Councilmember Howe explained to Councilmember Moylan that if he were to ask staff what the budget would be if Council spent $494,000, he would find the answer would be zero.

Director of Finance Bradley stated if you spent it one time, it would bounce back. If you spent it ongoing, it would be zero. Director of Finance Bradley stated it is not a reserve; it is an ongoing set-aside fund. Councilmember Howe stated it is a fund that is $500,000. Director of Finance Bradley stated that it is a fund of $495,629, which, by the way, is increased from last year because as the City Manager said that Council did not spend all of it last year and so it came up and added to the whole 20-year total.

Councilmember Howe inquired if the Director of Finance is saying that Council has a half a million dollars to play with every year and it resets. Director of Finance stated staff prefers not to call it money to play with. It is designed to provide for ongoing expenses and be reduced on an ongoing nature. To the extent Council uses it for one-time things, then it is not being pulled down every year.

Councilmember Howe stated one of the questions he had earlier when this came before the Council was how is the City going to tell people that there truly is going be a second ballot measure which states the operating expenses of the new library are not covered by the bond, and the City anticipates a certain amount will be needed to cover those expenses. Councilmember Howe inquired as to where that information is going to come out in what he considers to be truth in government.

Director of Finance Bradley stated as she alluded to earlier, the 75-word ballot proposition is designed to ask the voters about the General Obligation Bond. The opportunity for the impact of that would most probably be discussed in the City Attorney’s impartial analysis. Director of Finance Bradley stated the resolution authorizes Council to direct the city attorney to prepare the impartial analysis which discusses the effect of the measure.

Councilmember Howe inquired as to what will happen if the City passes a bond issue but does not pass a revenue one to handle the increased costs at the library. Councilmember Howe asked if the library would wind up being built, but left empty. Director of Finance Bradley stated there are a number of alternatives, none of which are desirable. Director of Finance Bradley stated the City could reduce services in the library or elsewhere, the City could raise general taxes for general purposes, or the City could do a revenue measure specifically for the library increased costs.

Councilmember Howe stated he understands that the consultant said not to list both of them at the same time as it might not pass, but there also has to be truth in government. Councilmember Howe stated that in this ballot nothing is mentioned that talks about the necessity of another revenue-producing tax measure, yet staff’s recommendation is not to put it in there. Director of Finance stated that was correct.

Councilmember Howe asked City Attorney Kahn if this information can be included in the ballot. City Attorney Kahn requested consultation with co-counsel.

Bond Attorney Bill Madison stated that the procedure is for this Council to decide tonight whether or not to start this process. The statutes require that this measure be presented to the Registrar of Voters at least 88 days before the election.

          Bond Attorney Madison stated in all campaigns, there is a large flow of information about the consequences of approving the bond measure or not approving the bond measure. Bond Attorney Madison explained that the communication can take the form of oral communication from Council to the citizens, written communications, through a campaign committee that normally is formed, as well as these arguments for and against. There are lots of forums in which this Council and members of the community can talk about what is going to happen if this bond measure passes or fails. As the finance director mentioned, the ballot measure, by statute, is limited to 75 words. The 75 words have been wordsmithed based upon a number of professionals that the City has hired. Bond Attorney Madison continued to explain that there are legal requirements which the ballot measure must state. There is no particular statute that says that you cannot get into expenses; but there are lots of things that could be talked about in this ballot measure. For instance, one of them was mentioned in the finance director’s report which stated that books and equipment cannot be financed because of the amendment to Proposition 13 in 1986 that permits the City to levy a tax over and above the 1 percent to pay bonds approved after 1986. Bond Attorney Madison stated the City of San Francisco approved a bond measure for a library and had to hold a separate campaign to raise the money to buy the books. There is not space in the ballot measure to get into these kinds of complex, operational issues; but there are lots of other forums in terms of truth in government for Council to present to the community the full case.

Councilmember Howe confirmed that City Attorney Kahn agreed with Bond Attorney’s assessment.

Councilmember Moylan stated that Council can pretty much assume that the need to come up with a second revenue measure for the ongoing expenses is going to be included in the voter pamphlet one way or another. Councilmember Moylan stated either Council is going to put the information in there or someone who is opposed to this measure will add it to the pamphlet. Councilmember Moylan questioned whether it seems to make more sense to just put it in there as Council is sort of setting this thing up to get shot down by keeping it out of there, especially when Council knows that it is going to show up in the ballot argument anyway. Councilmember Moylan questioned if other people have done this exact same thing and it worked.

Bond Attorney Madison stated cities are not as frequent issuers of General Obligation Bonds (GEO) as school districts. The City of Millbrae, City of National City, and the City of San Francisco all approved bond measures for libraries; however, none of those ballot measures got into the issue of the expenses of operating the libraries.

Councilmember Moylan inquired if in any situations did someone write an argument against it and then it still passed. Bond Attorney Madison stated that has not happened in the cases he mentioned. Bond Attorney Madison stated he did not know how much discussion there was at the community level; but it was not in the ballot measure.

Director of Finance Bradley stated that everyone agrees that it should be disclosed, certainly, because that is how Sunnyvale operates. Director of Finance Bradley stated that staff does not know exactly what those additional operating costs will be other than some estimates, but the costs will not be refined until the library is designed and built. Director of Finance Bradley stated with a green library, there’s a possibility the City could actually have some energy savings. Director of Finance Bradley agreed with the city manager that the issue is to make sure that staff is really clear in what the numbers are as we go forward and to be accurate.

City Attorney Kahn stated that as a follow up to Mr. Madison’s point regarding the ballot arguments, the clerk receives ballot arguments and transmits them to the Registrar of Voters. Anyone can submit ballot arguments, but there is a priority in terms of how the clerk selects those ballot arguments; and the argument if prepared or directed by the Council would have first priority in terms of the argument that would actually go on the ballot pamphlet. So the Council, either by writing the argument or directing a group to write the argument, can provide what information it wants in addition to the actual ballot statement through the argument in support of the measure.

Councilmember Swegles inquired if Council were to approve this tonight, how soon would the $37,000 be needed.

City Clerk Chappelear stated the City received an estimated cost from the ROV for the election in October and a percentage of that estimated invoice has to be paid at that time. The City writes two checks, a deposit based on the estimate that we receive in October, and then pays the balance of actual expenditures within 60 to 90 days after the election.

Councilmember Swegles confirmed with Director of Finance Bradley that theoretically if someone wanted to support this measure, they would be able to donate funds for that specific account.

Public hearing opened 10:56 p.m.

Arthur Schwarz stated he submitted a letter in writing to Council with an alternative plan for the library. Schwartz stated it is not meant to be taken up tonight and considered, rather it is a plan B should the bond measure fail and the City need to find some other way to provide for library expansion over the next few years. Schwartz explained that the plan is based on his experience with facilities engineering over the years, where a properly designed sequential expansion of buildings can be done, at a lower cost and with less interruption for services, than to build a whole new building. Schwartz explained that he wanted to state for the record that there is an alternative way to get a library, if needed.

Jim Griffith, President of Build the Library, formerly the Sunnyvale Future Library Committee, spoke on behalf of the committee. Griffith stated the committee hopes to be the proponents for the ballot measure. Griffith stated he would like to start by reporting on the status of the campaign to pass the bond that the committee has organized. The committee has filed federal, state, and local paperwork in order to become a campaign. The committee has begun fundraising, developed talking points for speaking to the public and groups, and has been meeting with individuals and civic groups that will be important to the campaign. The committee is also actively talking with campaign consultants in order to form the basis for future planning. Griffith stated that a main concern of the committee is the need to have the ballot wording and the measure letter go forward, because most groups with large amounts of money do not want to have anything to do with us until there is something concrete. The committee strongly encourages the City to present that as quickly as possible so that things can move forward. Another concern about the election is the argument in favor and the rebuttal. Griffith stated the committee understands that Council has the discretion to take control of that. The campaign has already begun developing wording and gathering cosigners and with the assistance of the campaign consultants, the committee believes that the campaign is the best organization to put forth the argument for and a rebuttal if it is necessary. Griffith stated concerns have been expressed that the Friends of the Library and the garden supporters should work closely together and Griffith explained that the library campaign and the gardening community have been working together since April, when the issue was first realized to be a serious issue. Since April, there has been constant contact between the campaign and the gardening community. Garden supporters are actively working on the campaign to keep the message positive and accurate. Griffith stated that in fact, a garden supporter reviewed and approved his actual comments for this evening. Griffith stated that in conclusion, the campaign is determined to run a positive, productive, and ultimately successful campaign.

Councilmember Howe explained to Griffith that there is very likely going to be another ballot measure if the bond is successful. Councilmember Howe inquired as to how that could be incorporated into the library campaign, if at all. Griffith stated that the most appropriate place would be incorporated into the fiscal analysis of the budget or of the ballot measure, as something that would impact the City at a future date. Griffith stated he would suggest that the rebuttal is the appropriate place to put it and is prepared to put it in the rebuttal of the statement agreeing that the statement is true but also including the committee’s view of the measure. Griffith stated that there is not a whole lot of point in approving an increase for operating expenses four years before it is actually needed. There is some value in taking time to determine if budget manipulation, fundraising, or if a bond measure is the right approach. Griffith stated that in the committee’s opinion, statements which identify that things do not need to be decided immediately, but will need a decision eventually are probably the most productive and honest way of explaining to the voters what may be needed without sabotaging the campaign.

Councilmember Swegles stated he made comments regarding the fictitious possibilities and asked Griffith if it were to be approved and the committee had the ability to go to the larger money corporations, would there be some loose change available.

Griffith responded that since he has only received commitments for about 10 percent of the budget he is reluctant to start committing large amounts of money. Griffith stated that the consultants are going to require a large amount of the committee’s budget to start with; however, the committee will certainly keep that in mind and do what they can if they have an opportunity.

Councilmember Swegles stated that is all that Council could ask from the committee and then Councilmember Moylan will be happy, because if we could even reduce it to the $25,000 then it would be able to be spent in one year.

Laurie Hughes stated although she would like to see wording in the ballot measure addressing the garden, she appreciates that there is a very strict limit on he number of words supplied by the City Attorney. Hughes stated that it has been printed in a couple of newspapers that the gardeners are against the library, which even though there is some variation, that is not accurate. Hughes stated that the gardeners are at the same time both concerned that this garden – which is a fabulous City resource – is retained, and excited at the prospect of being part of a cutting-edge, ecologically-minded library of the future. Hughes stated that together, the new library, with its community garden green space, will shine a spotlight on Sunnyvale that is well deserved. Hughes stated she met with Griffith and after they met, they decided that the garden and the library have a linked future. Hughes stated that it should have been made clear to the Council that the library and garden supporters have a collaboration going. Hughes stated that she and her fellow gardeners have met with the Director of the Library Deborah Barrows to talk about the possibility of being integrated into the planning; and together with the library committee are collaborating on group activities.

Councilmember Hamilton thanked Hughes for coming and making that statement. Councilmember Hamilton stated it is reassuring to hear that both groups are working together. Councilmember Hamilton stated both groups are very valuable members of the community.

Eric Fulda stated he is a gardener and has been going to the library at least a couple times a week now and interacting with them. Fulda thanked Council for giving the gardeners the opportunity to have this land, use this land, and make it productive. Fulda explained that he gives tours at the garden and many of the tour participants visit the library after the tour. Fulda stated the garden and library has become a destination. Fulda shared with Council some of the comments and suggestions he has received from the garden tour participants. Fulda shared with Council that one question that has come up is regarding how much it will cost to improve the buildings after the library has been moved, and where will that money come from.

Public hearing closed 11:09 p.m.

MOTION: Councilmember Chu moved and Councilmember Swegles seconded to approve Alternative 1: Council adopts the resolution of necessity, introduces the ordinance calling for the election for a General Obligation Bond measure in the principal amount of $108 million on the November 6, 2007 ballot for design and construction of a new Sunnyvale Public Library and approve Budget Modification No. 4, appropriating 37,000 for election services related to the bond measure

with

the possibility open to have reimbursement from some corporate sponsor.

Councilmember Howe offered a friendly amendment that Council write the argument in favor and within the argument include language that identifies the fact that there could be another revenue requirement or measure coming before the Council. Councilmember Howe stated even though Council does not know what might come forward; he wants the voters to know that there is a possibility that another measure may be needed for additional funding of the library and its expenses.

Councilmember Chu stated that he would rather have the library committee draft that, because they are completely focused on that issue, rather than have the Council. If a member of the Council wants to be involved with that committee, to suggest language, that would be entirely appropriate. Councilmember Chu stated the committee that is going to organize the campaign is the one that should probably write the ballot arguments.

Friendly amendment not accepted.

Councilmember Howe inquired as to how Council can be certain that language of that type be put in there and Councilmember Chu stated he did not know if Council could direct the impartial analysis to have that included. Councilmember Howe stated he asked that earlier, and the answer was no, because it becomes less than impartial. Councilmember Howe stated that attempting to give the committee direction as to what is put there is a little bit on a slippery slope. Councilmember Howe stated he is concerned as somebody could turn around and say Council put another bond issue on there, knowing full well that there would be additional revenue needed down the road. Councilmember Howe stated he believes that this involves a credibility issue and Council needs to address it.

Councilmember Chu stated the committee is hearing that language needs to be in there to include the cost and suggested Councilmember Howe volunteer to be a part of the committee. Councilmember Howe stated that he does not want to volunteer and asked City Attorney Kahn if Council can ask that language come back to Council before it’s submitted to the Registrar of Voters, or can Council request to receive draft language from that committee and then have it wind up being Council recommended. City Attorney Kahn stated Council can write an argument or direct it to the subcommittee, or the proponents can write an argument; however, Council may not direct or edit the argument if submitted separately by the committee. City Attorney Kahn stated that as Councilmember Chu pointed out, if Council directs what is written in the impartial analysis, then it’s no longer impartial. City Attorney Kahn stated when looking at the fiscal impacts if there is an issue, such as an ongoing operational expense, it is practice to include some information about that in the analysis.

Councilmember Howe requested that language be included in the motion that identifies this information is going to be given to the voters and that the motion also identifies that this Council was responsible for informing voters. Councilmember Chu stated he did not know how to obligate that in this measure. Councilmember Howe offered the suggestion to have Council create a subcommittee, and that this group gives the language that they want, and that the subcommittee makes sure that it becomes a Council argument and that portion is in there.

Councilmember Chu stated his concern is that he does not want it to be a Council argument; rather he wants the argument to be coming from the community as it is a stronger message to the voters.

Friendly amendment not accepted.

Councilmember Hamilton stated she does not want to lose sight of this issue. Councilmember Hamilton stated that there is going to be a lot of discussion, mailings, and communication going around in the next few months, on a whole variety of issues. Councilmember Hamilton stated it is up to the seven Councilmembers to be out there in the community talking about these things along with the community members. Councilmember Hamilton stated it is incumbent upon Council to get out and advocate for these things, if they want to do these things, then it is up to Council to go out there and pass that message along as well. Councilmember Hamilton stated there will be plenty of opportunities for Council to do that in various capacities. Councilmember Hamilton stated that she understands Councilmember Howe’s concerns, but there is plenty of opportunity to get the message out to the community.

Councilmember Chu stated if there are no further amendments, this is the next logical step that City staff has been working on for the last couple of years, starting with the visioning process. Councilmember Chu stated he understands Councilmember Howe’s concerns about making sure that the ballot argument is honest and that it includes there will be future operating cost increases. Councilmember Chu stated that does need to be reflected within the ballot argument; however, the best chance in getting it approved is through the community being part of the argument. Councilmember Chu stated that it may be that Councilmembers sign as one of the signers; but the language should be drafted by the community.

Councilmember Howe confirmed that Mayor Lee will volunteer to be on that committee and will work to have some of that language in there saying that there very well could be another ballot measure that comes forward and potentially could be a cost of $2 million
(as mentioned in a few staff reports). Mayor Lee responded that he will help out and lend his name, and do the best he can to support it in a fair and positive way. Mayor Lee stated he is not exactly sure those exact words will be used, but will include fair and honest disclosure.

Restated MOTION: Councilmember Chu moved and Councilmember Swegles moved to approve staff recommendation: Council adopts the Resolution of Necessity, introduces the ordinance calling the election for a general obligation bond measure in the principal amount of $108 million on the November 6, 2007 ballot for design and construction of a new Sunnyvale Public Library, and approves Budget Modification No. 4 appropriating $37,000 for election services related to the bond measure.

with

the possibility open to have reimbursement from some corporate sponsor.

VOTE: 7-0

City Clerk Chappelear read the title of the ordinance into the record.

9.

ORDINANCE

RTC 07–248

Amendment of Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 18.20.250; Final or Parcel Map Improvement Agreements

City Attorney David Kahn presented the staff report. City Attorney Kahn stated the subdivision of land in Sunnyvale is regulated by the Subdivision Map Act and the Sunnyvale Subdivision Ordinance. For subdivisions of four or more lots, there is a requirement to file what is called a final map. One of the requirements of a final map is that there are provisions made for public improvements such as sewers, sidewalks, streets, utilities, and the filing of a security bond to make sure that those public improvements are put in. City Attorney Kahn continued stating that occasionally, the City will enter into a development agreement with a developer for a phase construction project where there is completion of separate stages of the project at different times, and the entire project is not started all at once. City Attorney explained that the Town Center is an example of phase type construction.

City Attorney Kahn stated the current issue is that for those circumstances where there is phase construction, the development agreement (DDOPA) may allow for the posting of security bonds based on the commencement of each one of those phases of construction; however, the City’s subdivision ordinance does not allow that. City Attorney Kahn stated the City’s ordinance requires posting of the full bond at the start of the first phase. City Attorney Kahn explained that the proposed amendment would provide the City with the flexibility when the City enters into a development agreement, allowing phase construction to accept the security bonding for those improvements as each one of the phases is commenced.

Public hearing opened 11: 22 p.m.

Public hearing closed 11:23 p.m.

MOTION: Councilmember Howe moved and Councilmember Swegles seconded to approve Alternative 1: Council introduces and adopts the proposed ordinance amending Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 18.20.250(c).

City Clerk Chappelear read the title of the ordinance into the record. A

VOTE: 7-0

COUNCIL:

Councilmember Hamilton stated twice in the last week she has heard from residents who are having issues with trees that are infested with aphids along with tree sap that is dropping on resident’s cars and sidewalks. Councilmember Hamilton inquired if staff could look into this issue and return to Council with a report on the status of this problem and what type of funding is available.

STAFF:

None