HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-15 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
November 15, 2004
1. Palo Alto Youth Council ...................................................................298
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m ..................................298
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................299
1. Biennial Review of Conflict of Interest Code and Annual Revisions of
Designated Positions .......................................................................299
2. Ordinance 4854 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Modify Section 2.08.210 of Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Restructuring of the Community
Services Department” .....................................................................299
3. Request for Authorization to Contract for Legal Services with the Law
Firm of Davis Wright & Tremaine, LLP in the Amount of $175,000 for
Fiscal Year 2004-05, to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract
with Moses & Singer by an Additional $500,000 and to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract with White & Case by an Additional
$100,000 ......................................................................................300
4. Acceptance of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant in the Amount of
$18,778 for Undercover Decoy Operations Related to Under-Age
Drinking ........................................................................................300
5. Environmental Services Center ........................................................300
6. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Freeman and Ojakian re
Budget Process Modifications ...........................................................312
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................314
12. Conference with Labor Negotiator.....................................................315
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ...............................315
11/15/04 98-297
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
YOUTH COUNCIL
PRESENT: Ahn, Chen, Farzaneh, Freeman, Fukui, Kozhukh, Liu, Mehrotra,
Oza, Revueltas, Rogers, Ryu, Wu, Zhu
STUDY SESSION
1. Palo Alto Youth Council
The Palo Alto Youth Council (PAYC) met with the City Council to report on
the PAYC’s accomplishments for the past two years in relation to the Youth
Master Plan. The PAYC also presented their ideas for 2004-2005, which
included:
• getting more involved in politics;
• volunteering at community events;
• creating a “Pay it Forward” event where teens would perform random
acts of kindness to other teens;
• identifying teen-friendly businesses by working with the Palo Alto
Weekly to do a Best of the Best Teen section in the Weekly’s Best of
the Best edition.
The PAYC asked the City Council how they could both get more involved in
politics and help resolve issues that related to the teen population. The City
Council suggested some key groups and issues to help the PAYC become
more involved in the political process, both on a local and national level.
The PAYC also asked why teen programs would not be receiving funds for
the next eight years from the revenue generated by the lease of the
property, which had housed the former teen center. Council Members
explained due to the downturn in the economy, the building was leased out
for less then what was expected in 2001, and there was no revenue left over
for teen programs.
The Youth Council thanked the City Council for taking the time to discuss
how the teens could get more involved in city government.
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
11/15/04 298
Regular Meeting
November 15, 2004
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Beecham read the names of speakers unable to speak at the previous
week’s meeting.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the Noise Ordinance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
the minutes of October 12, 2004, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in Item No. 3 due
to a conflict of interest because one of the law firms involved had a contract
with her employer, the American Electronics Association.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-9.
LEGISLATIVE
1. Biennial Review of Conflict of Interest Code and Annual Revisions of
Designated Positions
Resolution 8476 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City
Officers and Employees as required by the Political Reform Act and
Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing
Resolution No. 8235.”
2. Ordinance 4854 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Modify Section 2.08.210 of Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Restructuring of the Community
Services Department” (1st Reading, 10/25/04, Passed 8-0, Kleinberg absent)
11/15/04 299
ADMINISTRATIVE
3. Request for Authorization to Contract for Legal Services with the Law
Firm of Davis Wright & Tremaine, LLP in the Amount of $175,000 for
Fiscal Year 2004-05, to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract
with Moses & Singer by an Additional $500,000 and to Increase the
Amount of the Existing Contract with White & Case by an Additional $100,000
4. Acceptance of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant in the Amount of
$18,778 for Undercover Decoy Operations Related to Under-Age
Drinking
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Items Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 3, Kleinberg not participating.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
5. Environmental Services Center
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the proposed Zero
Waste Policy was a natural outgrowth of the Sustainability Policy adopted by
the Council. At the direction of the Council, staff had been meeting with
stakeholders in the community during the subsequent six months.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said zero waste took a systematic
approach to managing the flow of resources through society. Rather than
deal with all refuse generated in the community and then try to recycle as
much as possible, zero waste attempted to reduce and limit the amount
generated by controlling the amount on the demand side. The current
system of dealing with society’s waste had been a linear one. Waste was
generated through different industrial processes, such as manufacturing and
packaging, then on to the consumer who discarded it. Zero waste attempted
to integrate a system on a cyclic basis throughout society by shifting
subsidies from manufacturing away from certain types of processes and
packaging, designing for the environment, working towards clean production
and distribution, empowering the consumer, creating responsibility for the
producer, creating resource recovery centers similar to an Environmental
Services Center (ESC), and creating an integrated cycle. Staff developed a
number of strategies: 1) learn the City waste stream and design to be rid of
it; 2) adopt a zero waste goal; 3) encourage producer responsibility; 4)
discourage subsidies for wasting; 5) promote infrastructure beyond recycling
to reuse of the products; and 6) create jobs in sustainable communities
around that philosophy. Staff recommended to Council an expressed interest
in the Zero Waste Program with direction to return with a concept for a
11/15/04 98-300
proposed policy and implementation plan for spring 2005.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson said the purpose and scope of the City Auditor’s
review of the ESC was to analyze and help clarify the proposal. Staff
reviewed the cost comparisons, acreages, tonnages, and proposal, and
worked collaboratively with the Public Works and Administrative
departments to update the 1999 Feasibility Study Estimates (FSE). Staff also
worked closely with the Planning Division to understand possible impacts of
land use issues. Under the present program, Palo Alto Sanitation Company
(PASCO) crews picked up and delivered refuse to the Sunnyvale SMaRT
Station. Recyclables were also picked up by PASCO, but were taken to the
Palo Alto landfill. The “pilot” single-stream recyclables were driven directly to
Oakland for processing. Similarly with yard waste, it was picked up and
taken to the landfill for processing. Beginning in July 2005, PASCO would
begin the Citywide Single-Stream Recycling Program and those recyclables
would be delivered directly to Oakland. In the proposed program, a new ESC
would open at the landfill site, the City would continue to use the services of
a refuse hauler, continue to use the services of the Sunnyvale SMaRT
Station, and continue to haul refuse to the San Jose Kirby Canyon landfill
until 2021. After 2021, facilities would be potentially expanded at the ESC to
full refuse handling capability, thereby replacing the SMaRT Station. The cost
comparisons were based on the methodology in the 1999 Brown, Venice &
Associates (BVA) Study, and were in 2004 dollars. The cost comparison
numbers were a tool for decision-making and, therefore, not designed to
predict future costs. The pre-2021 19-acre facility operating in tandem with the SMaRT Station would cost approximately $8.5 million, which was more
expensive than the SMaRT Station alone ($6.9 million). In post-2021, the
facility was marginally less expensive than using the SMaRT Station ($6.8
million). The 6.2-acre facility in pre-2021 would operate in tandem with the
SMaRT Station at a cost of $7.3 million versus the SMaRT Station alone at
$6.9 million. However, in post-2021, the cost was significantly less at $5.6
million versus $6.9 million. Another alternative studied was to reserve land
for a smaller post-2021 facility. It would include pre-2021 data fully utilizing
the SMaRT Station with minimal recycling and yard waste facilities in Palo
Alto. The price was estimated to cost $6.5 million. Staff considered a 6.2-
acre facility, estimated at a cost of $5.6 million for post-2021. The latter
option deferred the decision to build, but did require a decision now to
reserve the land. The potential benefits of locating a facility in Palo Alto
included: 1) the impact of landfill closure on the Palo Alto’s self-haul
disposal; 2) the ability to process within the City limits; and 3) the
importance of landfill revenue to the General Fund. Rent on the landfill
presently generated approximately $4.3 million per year, which paid for a
variety of General Fund services. During the course of staff’s review of rents
paid by the Refuse Fund, alternative sites became competitive if they were
priced at $1 million per acre. In working with the Planning Division, staff
11/15/04 98-301
reviewed potential land use and cost impact issues. The potential location
raised issues about the use of dedicated parkland. The use would require
voter approval, and the site was outside the urban service area, which would
require a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. There was also a
need to resolve whether there were outstanding agreements or
commitments to convert the landfill site to a “pastoral park” based on the
City’s history of filling wetlands. In summary, the pending closure of the
landfill presented the City with opportunities and policy choices. Staff’s
analysis indicated the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station continued to be an
important regional resource. The estimated cost for the proposed ESC was
more than the SMaRT Station prior to 2021, but lower than the SMaRT
Station after 2021 depending on the size of the facility. The proposed ESC
could be made more economical by reducing the acreage, scope and
services provided by the ESC. Ultimately, the project was a policy choice.
Mr. Glenn Roberts said the issue stemmed around a goal for the future of
how Palo Alto would manage its waste stream, and whether to keep local
control over it or allow it to go elsewhere. The proposed project would keep
a comprehensive facility in Palo Alto using 19 acres of closed landfill for all of
the City’s solid waste programs. Alternatively, the 6.2-acre site would
accommodate most of the programs except for the composting and inert
solids, which would have to be sent elsewhere. The 3 to 3.5 acre site could
incorporate the Recycling Center and Household Hazardous Waste facility,
but would not have either a composting or transferring station capability.
Staff would continue to explore further options to include the Los Altos Treatment Plant site, as well as other options not located on the Baylands or
dedicated parkland. Another project alternative would send all refuse to the
Sunnyvale SMaRT Station and develop the parkland in accordance with the
current Baylands Master Plan (BMP), which would leave the self-haul
customers on their own. Appendix 10 of the City Auditor’s Report outlined
the staff recommended alternative was the most cost effective and efficient
program. Comparatively, the SMaRT Station cost $30 dollars more per ton
than the proposed facility.
Assistant Director of Public Works Mike Sartor presented to Council the
Scope of Services and recommended a consultant team should Council
approve staff’s recommendation to proceed with the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the ESC. The EIR study would evaluate both project impacts
using existing conditions, as well as future parkland conditions identified in
the BMP. A series of public meetings and scoping meetings would be held as
part of the EIR process, which included interested stakeholder groups, and
members of the general public. Staff submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP)
and, subsequently, received proposals from four qualified firms. The
proposal evaluation team was comprised of staff from the City Attorney,
Public Works, and Planning Departments. The team reviewed the proposals
11/15/04 98-302
and conducted interviews. EIP Associates was the firm recommended to
prepare the EIR. Their qualifications, experience, and impartial approach
were superior to the other three firms. In addition, they understood the
sensitivity of the project and the need to address the concerns of all the
stakeholders.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said staff
had an update to the BMP Policies on its work program. He emphasized it
was not a change in policy but a working framework of the existing Comp
Plan and Baylands Land Use Policies as adopted by the City. In order for the
ESC to proceed; however, the Comp Plan would need to be amended. The
1998 Comp Plan was the current land use policy for the City and the guiding
document used to make decisions on land use issues and changes in the
environment. The Comp Plan was clear that City policy had been established,
which limited future urban development to the current developed lands
within the Urban Service Area (USA). The USA would need to be amended to
include the ESC. The BMP was adopted in the mid 1980’s, updated
approximately 10 years later, and was the Council’s adopted planning
document for the areas east of Highway 101. The BMP had been amended as
follows: 1) no further urban intrusion; however, it would allow for the
retention of existing development along Embarcadero and East Bayshore
Roads; 2) the conversion of the Yacht Harbor and the ITT site to marsh
lands; 3) the conversion of the landfill to a “pastoral park”, namely Byxbee
Park, which would be connected with the aquatic activities in the former
harbor area; and 4) the Byxbee Park plan identified a smaller area where the recycling center could be retained after the closure of the landfill. Staff
believed the aforementioned policies would require Council direction in order
to change and move forward with the ESC.
Walter Hays, 355 Parkside Drive, expressed support for the concept of zero
waste. He believed the “no project” alternative supported by some would
virtually end the City’s Recycling policy. It was unthinkable and contrary to
the concept of sustainability. He believed there was a statement in the Comp
Plan to maintain and extend the Recycling Center instead of its automatic
conversion to a “pastoral park”. Because the policies were in conflict with the
EIR, it was a method by which the issue could be resolved.
Clark Akatiff, 105 Rinconada, expressed concern the residents were
polarized on the issue. It was all or nothing for many people. After having
read the City Auditor’s Report and thinking about the difficulty of changing
plans or going to an election, he recommended the Council look primarily at
the 6.2-acre alternative.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, was opposed to proceeding with the
Draft EIR (DEIR) for any ESC project under the present circumstances. Any
11/15/04 98-303
DEIR needed to better address the noise issues.
Edie Keating, 3553 Alma Street, #5, said she favored BVA Option No. 3,
which utilized 6.2-acres and cost $43.76 per tonnage of waste. She believed
the City would do a better service regionally if they contributed to the
parkland rather than put a waste disposal-processing center next to it.
Paul Losch, 890 Lincoln Avenue, said the BMP was a good document;
however, it was outdated and the thought now was how would the resources
of the Baylands best meet the needs of a community that had changed
significantly since 1978. At best, the ESC should only be considered in light
of a renewed BMP, but on a parallel or independent track.
Michael Clossen expressed endorsement of the staff recommendation. Zero
Waste strategies were being implemented in various communities
throughout the country, and Palo Alto had an opportunity to sustain itself as
an innovator in the environmental arena, as well as to maintain their
consistency with the adopted sustainability strategy.
Toni Stein, 800 Magnolia, Menlo Park, encouraged the Council to vote in
favor of setting a zero waste goal, move ahead on a Zero Waste plan, and
incorporate it into any EIR process.
Angelica Volterra urged the Council to abandon the idea of building the
proposed 19-acre ESC at Byxbee Park. Such a project would conflict with longstanding policies included in the BMP and the Comp Plan. It would also
conflict with the City’s commitment to environmental protection of the
Baylands. She did not believe it was appropriate at the present time to
pursue preparation of an EIR given the number of issues, which remained to
be clarified. The proposed EIR involved the expenditure of a large sum of
money that was not justifiable. She urged the Council to direct staff to
develop a proposed policy for zero waste that included an implementation
plan.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, said he did not believe the Council had
been given enough time to make an informed decision that evening. He
suggested staff should utilize the services of BVA, an expert in solid waste,
to custom draft a report. He also felt the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain
View should be consulted on their long-range plans for refuse operations.
Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, indicated a City Manager’s Report from 1984
regarding the lease/purchase summary of the Los Altos Treatment Plant
(LATP) site was distributed to Council Members. The staff report noted there
was enough space for a refuse operation that served Palo Alto, Los Altos,
and Stanford University utilizing a little more than nine acres. He understood
11/15/04 98-304
the terms of the agreement on the LATP site after the City’s purchase of half
interest offered the opportunity over a 15-year period to control, manage,
and have a project for a waste storage transfer facility. He did not believe
having a transfer station in Sunnyvale or one in Palo Alto represented zero
waste.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said she was opposed to using parkland
for an industrial garbage recycling plant, as it was contrary to the BMP and
the Comp Plan. She believed it broke the trust of several generations of Palo
Altans, who had waited for almost four decades for the park they were
promised.
Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, expressed support for the City
Auditor’s recommendations. The report provided facts to support a delay in
funding environmental review of the proposed ESC. A reduced scale facility
of 6.2 acres made economic sense after the SMaRT Station contract ended in
2021 or 2031, if the ten-year extension option was exercised. Funding an
EIR now for a facility planned far into the future would be premature.
Environmental laws might change and costs would certainly change. She
urged the Council to reconsider its May 10, 2004 decision to adopt single
stream for a Citywide trial, as it would increase the City’s net cost, bring
more contamination to recyclable materials, and reduce the amount of
refuse being recycled.
Douglas B. Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue, said he did not believe it was appropriate to conduct an EIR at the present time. It did not seem to be the
right process or the right focus.
Betsy Allyn, Wilmar Drive, said she favored continuation of the City’s dual
stream recycling, and wondered why there was a rush to move forward with
the ESC project since Palo Alto’s partnership with the Sunnyvale SMaRT
Station ran until 2021. Staying the course would give the City more time to
make benefit analyses and environmental land use decisions.
Enid Pearson, 1019 Forest Avenue, expressed opposition to the proposed
ESC project.
Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, understood PASCO was a subsidiary of
Waste Management, Incorporated (WMI). WMI had been sued by its Chief
Executive Officer (CEO), was involved in a securities fraud case, and fined by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She said the aforementioned
practices suggested an unseemly effort by WMI to manipulate local
government for its own business ends. She asked why Palo Alto was dealing
with such a company, and suggested the City Attorney’s office look into the
criminal history of WMI before contracting with them.
11/15/04 98-305
Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, said although the City Auditor’s Report did not make
explicit recommendations for single stream versus dual stream recycling, it
was clear to her Council needed to revisit the issue of single stream recycling
because it would cost more to process, limit the City’s options, and prevent
the use of the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station for recycling. She felt spending
money on an EIR was premature in light of a number of unanswered
questions.
Bob Wenzlau, 1409 Dana Avenue, said the Council had a challenge regarding
the selection of a waste management strategy for the community. His
principal concern was that the environmental impact process intimidated
some stakeholders like himself, who would like to participate.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said he found it odd the Council was being
asked to spend approximately $400,000 for an EIR for the proposed 19-acre
project, which would be located on dedicated parkland. It required a vote of
the community to reverse it. He concurred with Toni Stein that it was
possible to reach the goal of zero waste, and favored dual stream recycling.
Ellie Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, said the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PARC) unanimously recommended the proposed site remain
dedicated parkland. She favored dual stream recycling.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, expressed opposition to single stream
recycling.
Annette Glanckopf, 2747 Bryant Street, said more regional cooperation
efforts were needed as available land and resources became scarce. The
Sunnyvale SMaRT Station was a solid contract the City already in place, and
would provide local control. She supported moving ahead on the Zero Waste
Program, eliminating the 19-acre site, resolving outstanding questions the
City Auditor’s Report suggested before moving forward with an EIR, and not
sacrificing parkland.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed.
RECESS: 9:02 p.m. to 9:10 p.m.
Mayor Beecham said Item No. 5d did not require Council action.
a) Request for Council Direction to Staff to Develop a Proposed Zero
Waste Policy and Implementation Plan
11/15/04 98-306
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Morton, to approve
the Zero Waste Policy and for staff to return to the Council with an
implementation plan.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
b) City Auditor’s Review of Environmental Services Center Proposal
Mayor Beecham suggested Council Members ask questions of staff that
evening, direct staff to bring back the item on November 22, 2004, for a
study session, and return the item on a date uncertain.
Ms. Harrison suggested an option to have an extended study session to
allow the Council to discuss the issue, and then bring the item back under
‘Unfinished Business.’
Mayor Beecham said the issue was an important one for the community and
the Council, and suggested setting the matter for an extended study
session, followed by bringing the item back again at a later date.
Ms. Harrison said the item as ‘Unfinished Business’ would most likely come
back in January 2005.
Council Member Morton said ordinarily a study session did not allow the
Council to take action. He asked whether the item would be listed as an
agenda item and study session.
Ms. Harrison said staff would advertise an extended study session. The
Council would thereafter adjourn the study session, and come back into
session with the ‘Unfinished Business’ item in front of them.
Council Member Mossar clarified it was not Council’s intent to take action following the extended study session.
Ms. Harrison said the Council would have the option to take action because
the item would be on the agenda under ‘Unfinished Business’. If the Council
were not ready, they would continue to a date in January 2005.
Mayor Beecham said the Council needed to vote on whether they wanted to
agendize the item for a study session only or to include the item for
potential action.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the public hearing would be
reopened for potential speakers.
11/15/04 98-307
Mayor Beecham said no additional public comments would be heard at the
study session; however, if the item were carried over to January 2005, the
public testimony would be reopened.
Council Member Kishimoto said new light had been shed regarding single
stream recycling. She asked whether single stream could be included as part
of the discussion.
Mr. Roberts said if the discussion and timeframe were about the ESC and
EIR, it could be included. On the other hand, if the question was about
reconsideration of the single stream project approved by Council in May
2004, and reaffirmed in June 2004, during the budget deliberations, that
would be difficult. Implementation of the program was scheduled for July 1,
2005, with an award of contract being brought to Council in December 2004
for the purchase of new toters. He urged the Council to keep the decision of
single stream intact, or reaffirm it as soon as possible.
Mayor Beecham said the Council could ask staff for the study session to
provide more information.
Council Member Kleinberg expressed support for putting the matter over to
another date.
Council Member Cordell said she based her support for single stream
recycling on inaccurate information and data. She no longer expressed her
support and hoped there would be an opportunity for the Council to revisit
the issue.
Council Member Kishimoto asked instead of waiting until spring for staff to
bring back a fully-developed project, would it be possible for staff to bring
back, at mid-point, some policy criteria or trade-offs.
Mayor Beecham said the Council had already taken action on that item and
given direction to staff.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified any meeting noticed regarding the ESC
should include single stream recycling.
City Manager Frank Benest said it was disconcerting to recommend changes
when the Council had taken policy action, and staff was in the midst of
bidding and returning to Council with a contract. Reconsideration of the
policy decision was a major issue.
Mr. Roberts said three factors were involved: 1) the purchase of the trucks; 2) purchase of the toters; and 3) the negotiation with PASCO over their
11/15/04 98-308
contract and scope of services for the upcoming fiscal year. Those issues
could perhaps be changed, but it would be extremely difficult and a
disadvantageous negotiating position to be in.
Mayor Beecham said if there was sufficient concern amongst the Council that
single stream recycling was not the right way to go, it needed to be decided.
The Council also needed to understand the ramifications behind their
decision.
MOTION: Council Member Cordell moved, seconded by Beecham, to
reconsider the issue regarding single stream recycling in the study session
next week due to new information, and to direct staff to have an action at
the end of the item on single stream recycling.
City Attorney Gary Baum asked whether the Council wanted an action item
to go along with it.
Mayor Beecham said the motion was whether or not to include the item in
the study session for discussion, which would not include any action item.
Council Member Morton clarified the Council would include discussion of
single stream recycling in the study session, but would not give itself the
option to direct staff on it. If the item prevailed, Council should be able to
make a decision to reaffirm or advise staff to put everything on hold. He
believed an action item should be included.
Vice Mayor Burch agreed the Council should come to some decision on the
issue. He recommended the updated report on single stream to include: 1)
the willingness of the SMaRT Station to go to single stream; 2) the City of
San Francisco’s single stream program; 3) the claim that single stream
pollutes the product thereby making it less desirable; and 4) the cost
comparison with dual stream recycling.
Council Member Freeman concurred with Vice Mayor Burch. She would also
like to see the source separation benefits and to understand whether there
were trucks available that could do everything in one trip.
Council Member Morton asked whether her intent was to question the
decision about single stream.
Ms. Erickson said in her report she was commenting on the additional cost
incurred by single stream. The bulk of the information in the City Auditor’s
Report came from the May 2004 staff report (CMR:205:04).
MOTION PASSED 8-1, Morton no.
11/15/04 98-309
Council Member Ojakian said he would like to see more information
regarding the LATP. At one point, there was discussion of paying Los Altos
approximately $3.3 million. He asked whether there was a placeholder for
the money and/or where would the funding come. He asked about the debt
service on the capital costs for building out the structure, and whether it was
being covered. He asked staff to look into whether the facility would be
obsolete before it opened.
Council Member Kleinberg said she would submit her questions to staff via e-
mail. She expressed support for the Zero Waste Policy. It behooved the
Council to take as comprehensive a view as possible of what would come out
of the upcoming study session. In order for the community’s legacy to
continue, it was important to put all the pieces of the puzzle on the table,
see how they interrelate and what were the ramifications. She endorsed Mr.
Wenzlau’s approach of developing a Waste Management Policy for Palo Alto.
Mayor Beecham urged his colleagues to submit any additional questions to
staff by tomorrow.
Council Member Morton said there was a crucial ambiguity in the City Auditor’s Report, which led to serious misconclusions. Although Appendix 10,
Column One, excluded rent, when the expenses were presented, the rent
would be included as a payment to the City. It was somewhat misleading to
compare a cost where approximately $2 million went to the General Fund
against an alternative where nothing went to the General Fund. He asked
whether a fairer comparison was Column Five, and put rent as a below the
line item so the $8.5 million actually read $6.6 million, and then show the
rent to the City as a separate line item. The report actually showed the
alternative of going to the SMaRT Station was more expensive when taken
into consideration the General Fund was enriched by $2 million. He asked for
information regarding disputes on the labor factor at the Sunnyvale SMaRT
Station, and how one quantified the number of trips to the landfill versus trips to Sunnyvale, as it related to composting.
Council Member Mossar concurred with Council Member Ojakian on
clarification of the LATP site. She asked staff to look into expanding the
public notice to the public on the options for the landfill. She asked staff
where within the boundaries of Palo Alto would the Comp Plan allow for a
facility like the ESC. She would like some sense of the feasibility of relying
upon other cities to provide refuse services to Palo Alto for the next 20–40
years. What were the benefits of operating our own composting program.
The Council should also understand the purpose of the Household Hazardous
Waste Program. She would like to see a ballpark figure of vehicle miles
traveled for the various sites, i.e. Baylands, SMaRT Station, Kirby Canyon,
11/15/04 98-310
and Oakland. It was a legacy decision and was very important because there
are interwoven environmental values.
Vice Mayor Burch said there was a misleading concept of permanent
household hazardous waste. The word permanent might imply the waste
was being kept on site. He believed it should be referred to as household
hazardous waste collection, which allowed people to come any time to drop
of their waste. He and Council Member Kishimoto visited the Sunnyvale
SMaRT Station, the Zanker Road facility that took care of construction and
demolition debris and recycled cement, and the Kirby Canyon facility. Having
looked at the SMaRT Station, he knew the City was not planning on building
anything similar to it.
Council Member Freeman said the ESC was a classic environmental
management issue. She visited the SMaRT Station approximately one-year
prior and discussed the issue of single stream with them. At that time, they
had just gone to dual stream and had no future plans to go to single stream.
She would submit her questions to staff via e-mail.
Council Member Kishimoto said she would submit most of her questions to staff via e-mail. Staff needed to evaluate the idea of partnerships in the
context of co-dependent partnerships already in place. The prevailing wages
at the SMaRT Station needed to be reviewed, as well as the 43 Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs), required for the proposed 19 acres at the ESC. She
understood there were some recent studies for side-by-side comparisons of
single stream versus dual stream, and asked staff to bring back summary
responses. She was curious to know more about the PASCO contract and
clauses regarding the land they pay for as well as the main clauses of the
contract. More specifically, how would that apply to single stream versus
dual stream choices. She hoped to get clarification of the cogeneration plant
status and prospects. She expressed concerns about pricing. The City
charged $20 per ton for inert material stream while the SMaRT Station charged almost three times as much. She would also like to see the City
consider some kind of tier system to give people a true incentive for
household composting.
Mayor Beecham said he would like to understand why the City had already
spent more money than others and whether they had gotten the cost benefit
out of it. He questioned how the ESC compared to the SMaRT Station, and
what was the future of it. He wanted to have more information about the
timing of the decision-making, and how it would affect the decision not to
pursue the 19-acre facility, but something smaller. Would an EIR still be
required in that case. He asked what the future schedule was if the Council
proceeded on any of the proposed options, and could it all be done the following week.
11/15/04 98-311
Ms. Harrison said it was unrealistic for Council to think staff would be able to
prepare a report in response to all the questions. Staff would be prepared to
respond orally to as many questions as they could.
Mayor Beecham said he anticipated a staff presentation.
Council Member Morton referred to Column One in Appendix 10 and asked
how many of the financial factors did the City control. There were two ways
of controlling costs. One was to raise revenue and the other was to cut
expenses. It would be helpful for discussion purposes to narrow the
discussion to Column One (19-acre facility) and Column 5 (6.2-acre facility)
on a single sheet.
Council Member Cordell said of the twelve recommendations made by the
City Auditor, eight of them concerned additional data and information. She
questioned if there were at least eight recommendations that recommended
gathering additional data, should that be provided to help Council
understand what they needed to do.
c) Approval of Contract with EIP Associates in the Amount of $358,730 for an Environmental Impact Report and Cost Benefit
Analysis for the Proposed Environmental Services Center Facility
Options
No action required. The item would be discussed at the next week’s
Council meeting.
d) Update of Comprehensive Plan Policies on Baylands
No action required.
COUNCIL MATTERS
6. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Freeman and Ojakian re
Budget Process Modifications
Council Member Ojakian said he met with Council Member Freeman and the
City Manager to discuss budget process modifications that would be helpful
to the public. Council’s recommendation was to direct the City Manager to
formalize and implement the proposed budget practices, after vetting the
recommendations with the appropriate standing committee.
Council Member Morton asked whether the standing committee would be the
Finance Committee.
11/15/04 98-312
Council Member Ojakian said yes; however, it was left open in case there
was some matter staff thought would need to go to the Policy and Services
Committee.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Freeman, to direct
the City Manager to formalize and implement the following budgeting
practices, after vetting the recommendations with the appropriate standing
committee:
a. Develop and Monitor the Council’s Top 5 Priorities
b. Performance Measures included in the Budget
c. Identify which Capital Improvement Projects (CIP’s) have policy
direction
d. Provide summary of adds and drops in funding
Council Member Kleinberg applauded the intent of the memo to make the
budget more transparent and give it a more friendly approach. She said over
the past several years, the budget process had become extremely detailed
and laborious, and the outcomes were not necessarily better for the multiple
hours, days, and weeks spent on the process. It was discovered the Council
was spending just as much time reviewing the second year of a two-year
budget, as the first year. If the Council was to look at priorities every year,
they should examine whether or not to implement a two-year budget.
Mayor Beecham suggested modifying the first paragraph under item one that talked about developing the Top 5 Priorities early in each calendar year,
to read “early in each two-year budget year”.
Council Member Ojakian said his intent of including a review of the Top 5
Priorities on an annual basis because of an influx in Council Members over
the next few years.
Council Member Kleinberg said the Colleagues Memo stated the Council
should have a practice of developing Top 5 Priorities and milestones early
each calendar year before the City Manager prepared the budget. She
believed it meant redoing the budget every year.
Council Member Freeman said the memo was developed in collaboration with
the City Manager. The notion of having a meeting every year, even if the
Top 5 Priorities did not change, provided an opportunity to clarify what they
were and for new Council Members to have improved understanding.
City Manager Frank Benest said the intent of the meeting with Council
Members Freeman and Ojakian was to institutionalize the practice of
adopting priorities for the two-year budget. Council reviewed staff progress
11/15/04 98-313
on the Top 5 Priorities for the second calendar year of the two-year budget,
but did not develop new priorities.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the second sentence under No. 1
Developing and Monitoring the Council’s Top 5 Priorities, to read “The
Council should review in the second year of a two-year budget the top
priorities and milestones in conjunction with the City Manager’s update of
the budget,” in place of “The Council should formalize its practice of
developing its “Top 5” Priorities (and milestones) early in each calendar year
before the City Manager prepares the City’s proposed budget.”
Council Member Mossar said item 1 should state the Council set its priorities
for a two-year budget cycle, and reviewed them in the mid-budget year.
Council Member Ojakian said part of his intent was to ensure future Council
Members understood the Top 5 Priorities.
Council Member Kleinberg said she hoped anyone who decided to run for
Council would know what the Top 5 Priorities were or have suggested
alternatives.
Council Member Kishimoto expressed support for the motion. She suggested
the budget was not just the Top 5 Priorities, but also other issues that came
up such as the libraries or sewers.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the word “adequate” to “appropriate” in
the last sentence of the first paragraph under item 1. Developing and
Monitoring the Council’s Top 5 Priorities.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Kishimoto referred to a notice regarding the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors’ Forum on the Valley Transportation Plan
VTP2030 at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 2004, at Supervisors’
Chambers, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose.
Council Member Mossar shared information on the San Francisquito Creek
Joint Powers Authority (JPA) noting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
suggested combining a short-term project process into a long-term project
process. The JPA board has not discussed this in any great detail but
without the funds from the Army Corps there was not a significant amount of
11/15/04 98-314
money available and, therefore, it was important to continue working on a
project.
Council Member Kleinberg reported the Santa Clara County Cities Association
(SCCCA) voted to elect Council Member Mossar as their nominee on the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for the South Bay,
which included Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo counties.
Council Member Mossar noted San Mateo County had yet to put forth a
nominee. A committee of BCDC members would make the choice and the
schedule was also unknown at this time.
Vice Mayor Burch reported he attended a dinner and an all day orientation
for the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital called “Packard 101.” He stated it
was an incredible experience and had been one of the highlights of his
service on the Council. He encouraged Council Members to accept the
invitation, as it was offered twice a year in March and October.
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Beecham announced the Council would not hear Item No. 7 that
evening.
7. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency designated representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Frank Benest,
Leslie Loomis)
Employee Organization: Fire Chiefs Association Management
Personnel, IAFF Local 1319
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6(a)
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
11/15/04 98-315
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting.
The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular
office hours.
11/15/04 98-316