Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-02 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting July 2, 2001 1. Report from Neighbors Abroad President Montel Menting.......247 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m...................247 Regular Meeting.248 1. Appointment of City Auditor.................................248 2. Conceptual Approval to Proceed with Preliminary Design for Expansion/Modernization of the Current Police Building......248 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................253 APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................253 3. Resolution 8073 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 8000, and Amended by Resolution Nos. 8027 and 8060 to Amend the Salaries and Benefits of Certain Council Appointed Officers..............253 4. Employment Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and City Attorney Ariel Calonne......................................254 5. Employment Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and City Clerk Donna Rogers..........................................254 6. Request for Authority to Join in Appeal of NFPA 1710 to the National Fire Protection Association's Standards Council....254 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Co., Inc. in the Amount of $97,500 for the Sedimentation Tank Sludge Transfer System for the Water Quality Control Plant (Wastewater Treatment Capital Improvement Program Project 9805)...........................254 8. Request of Tract 1371 (Elsinore Drive) Property Owners for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning in a Portion of the Garland Neighborhood.................................254 07/02/01 92-245 9. Auditor Payroll Report......................................264 COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................267 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to a Closed Session.....................................................267 10. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation.........267 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. in memory of Terry Merz, a neighbor of Mayor Eakins and long time resident of Palo Alto, who passed away the previous day...................24 07/02/01 92-246 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:50 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg SPECIAL MEETING 1. Report from Neighbors Abroad President Montel Menting No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. 07/02/01 92-247 Regular Meeting July 2, 2001 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, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 9:17 p.m.) Kleinberg arrived at 7:05 p.m., Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment of City Auditor MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to appoint Sharon Erickson as City Auditor and approve the employment agreement. Employment Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Sharon Erickson Accepting Appointment and Employment as City Auditor MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent. City Auditor Sharon Erickson said she was pleased to accept the position of City Auditor for Palo Alto. The mission of the Office of the City Auditor was to promote an honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City government, which was accomplished by independently assessing and reporting on City services. Independence, objectivity, and technical accuracy were the corner stones of audit professionalism, which added up to credibility. The result meant the Council, City staff, and Palo Alto taxpayers could rely on the City Auditor to be honest and could have confidence in the accuracy of the information produced, even when there was disagreement about how to use the information. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 2. Conceptual Approval to Proceed with Preliminary Design for Expansion/Modernization of the Current Police Building City Manager Frank Benest said with the adoption of the 2001-02 Budget, the City was given a plan to maintain and rehabilitate its existing infrastructure. The foundation of the plan was to use existing resources to fund maintenance of existing facilities and infrastructure through a gradual accumulation of money before fixing the existing infrastructure. The time was 07/02/01 92-248 right to focus on new or expanded facilities, such as libraries and the police building. The Council was being asked to provide conceptual direction in terms of moving forward with the Police Building project, which was expanded infrastructure. A variety of outside sites and the current Downtown Library site were considered as possibilities. However, all were deemed undesirable either because of the cost or the need to use eminent domain. In some cases, significant neighborhood or merchant opposition existed. The conclusion of both staff and the consultant was to use the existing Civic Center site because the City already controlled the site, did not anticipate neighborhood opposition, there were less environmental problems, there were more efficiencies by keeping the Police Department adjacent to other departments and close to support services, and the alternatives were less costly. Michael Ross, Ross-Drulis Architects & Planners, made a brief presentation of the work accomplished by the consultants, Ross-Drulis Architects & Planners (RDA&P), and some of the opportunities presented by modernizing and expanding the existing Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) building. As part of the work, RDA&P identified the existing building deficiencies. The current building was undersized, lacked critical law enforcement facility requirements, required seismic and code upgrades, and the City required a modernized dedicated Emergency Operation Center (EOC). The planning activities included identification of the PAPD workload, staffing space, and functional requirements through the year 2020, review of 10 sites, completion of a detailed study of four sites that were short-listed by the Council, and in addition to a study of two supplemental sites, comparative site evaluations were conducted, the result of which was a recommendation for the optimum site. The PAPD currently occupied approximately 18,000 square feet. When the Fire Administration was part of the program, the building was estimated to need 66,000 square feet. With the removal of Fire Administration and some program reductions on the part of the PAPD, the current estimated size of the building was 49,000 square feet for the year 2020, which translated into a current space short-fall of approximately 30,000 square feet. The 10 sites reviewed were part of a hazardous overlay study. From the 10 sites, four were identified as the Civic Center site: the Burch/Sherman area near California Avenue, the Park Boulevard site at Page Mill, and the El Camino/Page Mill corner. The site evaluation process included public outreach and input to discuss the potential sites. A preliminary environmental analysis was conducted to understand the relative environmental complexity of each of the sites. An economic impact analysis was conducted for the four sites, conceptual designs were completed, along with cost comparisons. A comparative matrix was presented. 07/02/01 92-249 In terms of cost, the sites ranged from $28.7 million to $47.1 million. Of the sites, only two were viable: the Park Boulevard site and the expansion of the existing Civic Center building. Within the existing building modernization program, four options were considered, which explained the vast range in costs from $28 to $47 million. Expanding the Civic Center meant shortfalls in the existing envelope. For example, expansion would need to include building up or out from the existing facilities. A seismic retrofit was necessary, parking policy issues would be needed, the temporary relocation of the PAPD and Dispatch Center would be necessary, modifications would be necessary to the building exterior, and using the split facility option, moving storage and property evidence off site, might incur additional staffing costs. A detailed feasibility study of the expansion and modernization of the Civic Center site revealed the possibility was workable. The requirements involved in selecting the Civic Center site included: 1) the need to use most of Level A including portions of the Mezzanine; 2) partial build out over the existing overhangs; 3) removal of the mushroom columns; 4) a parking in-lieu fee instead of expanded underground parking; 5) moving part or all of the warehouse space off site; 6) a zone change from public facility to planned community; 7) space-use efficiencies to maximize the amount of usable space within the envelope; 8) temporary relocation of PAPD from the facility; 9) seismic disconnection of the Council Chamber roof at the tower; and 10) the potential for additional floors on the PAPD building. The results of the consultant’s work indicated the Civic Center provided the best opportunity for the City to provide an affordable police facility for the next 20 to 30 years. The recommendation was to accept the site and enter into the preliminary design phase based on: 1) the City already owned the property; 2) the site was relatively less environmentally complex; 3) greater community support; and 4) centrally located and adjacent to other City services. The next steps involved preliminary design activities, completion of public outreach sessions, develop two to four options in detail including cost analysis for presentation to the Council, complete schematic design based on selected option, integrate public art and green building opportunities, presentation to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning & Transportation Commission, prepare CEQA documentation, and obtain a detailed cost estimation. Mr. Benest said staff recommended the City move forward conceptually with the Civic Center site and complete the preliminary design by the end of the fiscal year 2001-02. The funding was already budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP); however, the funding for retrofitting and expanding the 07/02/01 92-250 building was not available. Staff would develop a strategy and discuss the possibilities with the Council during the year. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open. Terry Shuchat, 290 California Avenue, representing the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA), opposed using the tree-lined parking lots in the California Avenue area for the Police building. CAADA was in favor of and encouraged the use of the Civic Center for the Police building. George Browning, 2081 Harvard Street, supported the modernization and expansion of the PAPD. The strength of the Police force was its good personnel, good equipment, and up-to-date facilities. In order for Palo Alto to retain top personnel, it must be seen as a first-class operation. Scott Wong, 2658 Royal Ann Drive, Union City, President of Palo Alto Peace Officers Association and 19-year PAPD officer veteran, spoke about the incentives that kept officers working for Palo Alto, which included community support and the officers with whom they worked. The upgraded building would be appreciated and would be an added incentive in keeping personnel in the City. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Lytle asked whether the expansion indicated in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) related to the build out, was taken into consideration with regard to the need for an additional eight to ten officers. Police Chief Pat Dwyer said the initial programming for the building was for a plan that would take the PAPD out 20 to 30 years by projecting growth, high-tech crime, investigations, patrols, etc. Most of the additional space addressed programmatic requirements such as interview rooms and evidence processing, rather than personnel. No set number of officers would be required if the facility was expanded. When a warehouse was moved off site, some additional staffing would be required, but the personnel would be non-sworn personnel. Mr. Benest asked whether staff believed the growth in population or any other need in the future, regardless of the facility, would require a higher level of staffing and whether the new building would accommodate that need. Chief Dwyer replied yes to both questions. 07/02/01 92-251 MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve in concept the current Police Department building site for a facility expansion/modernization project and; 2) direct staff to proceed with the conceptual design for expansion and modernization of the current site. Council Member Beecham asked whether staff required a more definitive answer regarding the design. Mr. Benest explained staff would need to do the work and return to the Council with at least two options, depending on where the different functions would be located, particularly related to efficiencies. Given all the other infrastructure needs, staff would seek the least costly option unless there were some major function programmatic problems. Until the consultant revealed where functions would be located, a decision could not be made. Council Member Beecham said the question before the Council was not one of whether but simply where. The need was clearly detailed and documented over time. Both the Council and the community believed in the need to upgrade the safety facility building. Some earlier discussions included the Downtown Library as an option; however, that option was clearly inappropriate. He was pleased to see staff return with the possibility of using the Civic Center facility. Vice Mayor Ojakian said no service was more essential to a city than its public safety service. It was extremely important to have something done with the building. Many people advocated for a whole series of other services, which seemed more immediate and more positive, such as libraries, and less people advocated for a new Police building. He hoped the City would come across more people like Mr. Browning because the function was critical for the City. The Civic Center building was built in the 1970s and had a 1970’s mentality. Council Member Burch said after visiting the Police Department on numerous occasions, he noticed that several times people were interviewed in the lobby because of the lack of space. The conditions under which the Communications Division had to work were also in need of upgrading. Although Palo Alto had an incredible Police Department, it needed the facilities and tools with which to work. Mayor Eakins said changes in the requirements for handling evidence created the need for increased space. Proper handling of evidence was critical in addressing a crime. Modern methods and expanded standards created the need for enlarged space. 07/02/01 92-252 MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. Chief Dwyer thanked the Council on behalf of all the men and women of the PAPD. The decision was symbolic as the first concrete step in progress, and was a real encouragement to the PAPD staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tony Spitaleri, President Palo Alto Firefighters Union, spoke regarding the City Attorney’s recommendation that the City join in a lawsuit in opposition to NFPA 1710. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government. Trew Newell, 4163 Hubbart Drive, spoke regarding the Jewish Community Center (JCC) issue. Mel E. Pratt, 1136 Waverley Street, spoke regarding the rear wings of the Roth building. Herb Borock, Post Office Box 632, spoke regarding bus shelter advertising. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the Minutes of May 21 and June 4, 2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-7. LEGISLATIVE 3. Resolution 8073 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 8000, and Amended by Resolution Nos. 8027 and 8060 to Amend the Salaries and Benefits of Certain Council Appointed Officers” 07/02/01 92-253 ADMINISTRATIVE 4. Employment Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and City Attorney Ariel Calonne 5. Employment Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and City Clerk Donna Rogers 6. Request for Authority to Join in Appeal of NFPA 1710 to the National Fire Protection Association's Standards Council 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Co., Inc. in the Amount of $97,500 for the Sedimentation Tank Sludge Transfer System for the Water Quality Control Plant (Wastewater Treatment Capital Improvement Program Project 9805) MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 8. Request of Tract 1371 (Elsinore Drive) Property Owners for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning in a Portion of the Garland Neighborhood Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said the issue before the Council was to determine whether to start the review for a single-family overlay zoning in the Garland Neighborhood. In the summer of 2000, proponents submitted a request for a single- story overlay in the neighborhood. The Council was being asked to consider four criteria. One criteria was the need or requirement for a moderate lot size such as a lot that was 7,000 to 8,000 square feet with generally consistent lot patterns. The Garland Neighborhood met that criteria. The second criteria concerned the prevailing single-story character. All of the homes in the Garland Neighborhood were single-story Eichler houses built in the 1950s. The appropriate boundaries criteria addressed defining an identifiable neighborhood. The original boundary was amended to remove a portion of the area, thereby reducing the size. In the reduced area, 68 percent of the residents were in favor of initiation of the single-story overlay. Subsequent to a community meeting, staff received additional correspondence with respect to initiation of the proceedings and additional letters asking that certain property owners be removed from the boundaries. One alternative, as stated in the staff report (CMR:292:01), was to remove 9 of the 12 houses, which would result in an increase in the level of support to 77 percent. The ordinance stated that the vote in favor of the overlay had to be overwhelming but did not provide 07/02/01 92-254 a specific number. It was important for the Council to consider all four criteria prior to recommending initiation of the single-story overlay. The options for the Council were either to initiate the single-story overlay, amend the boundaries either as the alternative, or to deny the request to initiate the single-story overlay. Staff recommended that the Council initiate the single-story overlay and begin the review process, forward it to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and forward the amended boundaries as an alternative for the P&TC to consider and make a recommendation to the Council. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether any of the neighborhoods that already had the single-story overlay also had deed restrictions. Mr. Lusardi said all but two of the neighborhoods had deed restrictions. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the other neighborhoods moved boundaries around in the process in order to obtain the overwhelming vote. Mr. Lusardi said in one case, the Council amended the boundaries in order to obtain the overlay. All of the others were approved through the Consent Calendar for initiation of proceedings, which was the typical process. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether any of the neighbors in the process of bringing an application forward amended the boundaries. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said in previous applications, the initiation process did not involve modification of boundaries. Council Member Mossar said residents expressed satisfaction that Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) were adequate protection in some of the correspondence in opposition to the single-story overlay. She understood that (CC&Rs) were a matter between neighbors in which the City would not intervene. She asked whether staff had been able to make clear when meeting with neighbors and residents what the actual situation would be if CC&Rs were used as a mechanism to enforce a single-story restriction. Mr. Lusardi said Council Member Mossar was correct; the City did have CC&Rs that contained deed restrictions with respect to the Garland Neighborhood. The CC&Rs would not involve the City. For example, the City would not become involved in the enforcement 07/02/01 92-255 of the CC&Rs, which was clearly pointed out to the neighborhood and residents who understood the dynamics. The CC&Rs were adopted in the 1950s without a homeowners association to enforce the CC&Rs. The only possible enforcement was through litigation between neighbors, which was the real concern raised with respect to the CC&Rs. The City would not enter into such litigation. Council Member Wheeler said in some neighborhoods, CC&Rs had a defined life that either expired after so many years or required another vote. She asked whether the Elsinore Drive CC&Rs went on forever. Mr. Lusardi was not aware of any expiration date with respect to the CC&Rs. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the document in the Council’s packet indicated the CC&Rs were for a length of 25 years with successive years of 10 years unless voted down. Council Member Burch said one way to determine whether residents were aware of the CC&Rs was to ask when someone purchased a piece of property, whether the realtor provided the homeowner with a copy of the CC&Rs along with all the other official documents. He queried whether new owners were being shown the CC&Rs. Mr. Lusardi said residents he had spoken with were aware of the CC&Rs. The question was enforcement of the CC&Rs. Only one letter from a resident indicated an unawareness of the CC&Rs when the home was purchased. Mr. Calonne said the title company should disclose the CC&Rs with every title report when a property was purchased. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open. Dan Rausch, 935 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay, which was a grassroots effort in response to a growing concern in the neighborhood. The process by which the applications were issued to the City was explained along with the fact that the neighborhood was a CC&R community. The actual clause in the CC&Rs stated that no buildings would exceed one story in height, which had been respected since the 1950s. The single-story overlay ordinance was passed in 1992, with guidelines established in 1993, to deal with neighborhoods subject to single-story deed restrictions and developed in a manner consistent with these restrictions. If a resident decided to file for a permit for a remodel of a two-story nature without 07/02/01 92-256 variances, the Planning Department would approve the plan. The first time the neighborhood would know about the building was when work began on the property, which left no remedy except a lawsuit. The level of support, because of the deed restrictions, was overwhelming. Most of the changes were made in the Blair Court area, which was why that application was withdrawn. All remodels still complied with the CC&Rs. The nature of the neighborhood was 70 percent in the small category, 20 percent were moderate, and only 10 percent were larger. The Council was urged to forward the request to the PT&C. Dan Harden, 965 Elsinore Drive, opposed the single-story overlay primarily because of the divisiveness it caused in the community. The boundaries were not appropriate. The neighborhood was divided into many pieces in order to increase the number of favorable votes, yet the number still only reached 70 percent. The moderate lot size criteria was not met in 79 percent of the homes, with 68 lots of less than 7,000 square feet and only 14 meeting the criteria. His right as a homeowner should not be taken away. The single-story overlay would only protect single-story homes, not Eichlers. The cohesiveness of the neighborhood with the Eichler style would be lost. Any loss of structure due to floods had to be considered, since the neighborhood was in a flood zone. Rebuilding would mean a loss of architectural freedom, since the house would have to be built six feet above grade and not higher than 17 feet, leaving 11 feet in which to build a house. The CC&Rs were sufficient to protect the neighborhood. Chesley Douglas, 931 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-family overlay as a 38-year owner of an Eichler in the Garland Neighborhood. Jack Edelstein on behalf of Connie Cavanaugh, 935 Elsinore Drive, supported initiating the process in order to preserve the quality of life and character of the neighborhood. The consistent one-story structures provided good site lines and needed to be maintained. Chuck Sieloff, 901 Elsinore Drive, supported the proposal while agreeing with a number of points made by Mr. Harden who was in opposition to the proposal. Agreement was voiced with concerns about the divisiveness of the process. If the proposal moved forward through the normal process, he hoped polarization would be reduced. Although the neighborhood was under legal obligation to the CC&Rs, the question was how the legal obligations would be carried out. The goal was to find a way to avoid resorting to divisive lawsuits in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. 07/02/01 92-257 Sally Dudley, 901 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay and opposed having to enforce the CC&Rs through lawsuits. People in the real estate profession often explained that property values were hindered by having an overlay; however, many people purposefully chose neighborhoods with overlays. The Garland neighborhood was very cohesive. Christopher Lierle, 970 Elsinore Court, opposed the single-story overlay. A recent real estate advertisement made the statement “not in a single-story overlay.” CC&Rs were enforceable by the Supreme Court and the filing fee for a lawsuit that was win-able was not overly costly. The Council was urged to respect the neighborhood and owners’ rights. Jeff Marcus, 968 Elsinore Court, opposed the single-story overlay. The issue was whether or not there was overwhelming support, which there was not. Ann Marcus, 968 Elsinore Court, opposed the single-story overlay, particularly in light of the two-story houses adjacent to their house and the flood zone issues. Neighborhoods needed the ability to change. Heather K. Galanis, 986 Elsinore Drive, spoke in support of the single-story overlay to maintain the look and feel of the Eichlers. Kay Gibson, 921 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay to preserve the quaintness and character of the Elsinore/El Cajon neighborhood. Marcia Edelstein, 924 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay. No new restrictions were being sought that were not already in existence, and wondered why the overlay was causing so much controversy in the neighborhood. She suspected the reason was an inaccurate dissemination of information to property owners. The only change was a shift in enforcement from neighborhood lawsuits to enforcement by the City. Property owner rights were not being changed. Deborah Wood, 916 El Cajon Way, supported the single-story overlay for the Elsinore area to maintain the open floor-to- ceiling design and privacy. Individual homeowner litigation was burdensome, divisive, and unnecessarily expensive. Terry Gibson, 921 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay. Since implementation of the R-1 Overlay Ordinance in 1992, none of the eight neighborhoods approved for the zoning had petitioned the Planning Department for reversal of the 07/02/01 92-258 status and no public protest of negative property value impact was reported. Miriam Sedman, 915 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay, which protected the privacy of Eichler homeowners. Al Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, referred to a study conducted with the assistance of the City Surveyor to determine the actual floor height of properties in the Garland Neighborhood because of the regulation for houses to be rebuilt in flood zone areas eight feet above sea level. His own house was currently over eight feet above sea level. Other houses were measured at 9.2, 8.10, and 8.84 above sea level. Therefore, the flood zone problem would not apply to the area. JoAnne Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay in order to maintain the special quality of the neighborhood and avoid neighbors suing neighbors. Albert Hu, 975 El Cajon Way, spoke about the divisiveness resulting from the proposed single-story overlay. The dividing up of the neighborhood was arbitrary and 68 percent was not an overwhelming majority. John Baum, 922 El Cajon Way, supported the single-story overlay, which was not a divisive act on the part of the individuals who brought it before the Council. Susan Jensen, 910 Elsinore Drive, opposed the single-story overlay. Lea Nilsson, 972 Elsinore Court, opposed the single-story overlay as being “unusually controversial,” as stated in the staff report (CMR:292:01). The two neighborhood meetings were divisive and contentious in a neighborhood that had never seen such conflict. The 68 percent was insufficient; the original vote of 87 homes only received 64 percent in favor. Leslie Lamport, 941 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay. Blair Court was a separate neighborhood and most of the people in opposition to the overlay were on the edges of the neighborhood. Su Wen Wang, 911 Elsinore Drive, opposed the single-story overlay. Proponents of the overlay solicited and cajoled votes from the neighbors. The proposal would actually encourage larger houses instead of smaller houses. 07/02/01 92-259 Richard Griffiths, 961 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay, which was an important step in maintaining the ambiance and character of the original intent of the CC&Rs. Blair Court was a completely separate neighborhood, built at a separate time from the other neighborhoods. Scott Bortner, 925 Elsinore Drive, opposed the single-story overlay because no compelling reason was found to indicate the CC&Rs would not work. Given the problems and discord associated with the overlay, he asked that a more flexible solution be found. Recess: 9:32 p.m. to 9:45 Charlotte Fu, 911 Elsinore Drive, opposed the single-story overlay. When they purchased the home, they were not made aware of the CC&Rs. The surrounding houses were not subject to any restrictions. Support was not overwhelming. Chris Holt, 955 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay to preserve the neighborhood. The recommendation before the Council came from the Planning Department staff and not from the residents. Neville Holt, 955 Elsinore Drive, supported the single-story overlay to retain the privacy of Eichler housing and avoid forcing neighbors to sue neighbors. Edith Gelles, 992 El Cajon Way, supported the single-story overlay to retain the serene and harmonious feel of the neighborhood. Gary Chan, 991 Blair Court, opposed the single-story overlay, which was unfair for the affected neighbors. The proposal had no clear objective and did not achieve any of the goals stated by other speakers to retain the Eichler homes. Privacy would be retained through adherence to existing codes. The community should be allowed the freedom to evolve. P. Ramakrishnan, 2276 Greer Road, opposed the single-story overlay as being unfair for the neighbors and restrictive. The surrounding neighborhoods were allowed to build two-story homes. Heidi Schwenk, 965 Elsinore Drive, opposed the single-story overlay to avoid any restrictions on their home. Kathy Lierie, 970 Elsinore Court, opposed the single-story overlay because of the possibility that it would affect the value of the property. A majority had not been reached through 07/02/01 92-260 any of the votes. There had not been a problem and CC&Rs had been honored for all the years they were in effect. C.W. Spangler, 471 Carolina Lane, spoke as a resident living in an overlay neighborhood. The overlay helped prospective buyers understand up front of the purchase about the single-story restrictions. The recommendation that the vote be “overwhelming” was not ordinance language, but something staff included. If 51 percent supported the overlay, it should be considered sufficient. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation to initiate and refer to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PT&C) consideration of a single-story overlay for the 68 parcels requested in the R-1 single family area in portions of Tracts 1371, with an alternative to consider reducing the area to 56 parcels. Council Member Beecham thanked the public for being civil to one another in spite of the heart-felt subject matter and having to deal with property values and rights. One of the main issues raised by the public was preservation of property rights; however, based on the existing CC&Rs, no one had the right to build a second story. No one within the area in question should be burdened with a neighbor building a second story. One speaker indicated she had been unaware of the limitation when she purchased the home, which was part of the problem. One purpose of the ordinance put in place by the Council a few years prior was to enable the City to inform residents about their rights and help with enforcement. Being in a flood zone made it more difficult for homeowners, but the flood zone was not the issue under consideration. The last overlay zone was in a flood zone and the City crafted modifications to the requirements to make it easier for homeowners to rebuild their homes. The issue of appropriate boundaries was not one for the Council to decide. Instead, the P&TC would address the issue before returning it to the Council. Whatever boundaries were indicated in the staff report (CMR:292:01) were not final. When the Council set the policy for overlay zones, it had not set any number as an overwhelming majority. If CC&Rs provided restrictions on a single-story overlay, one could not build a second story, which would affect what was an overwhelming majority sufficient to say “yes” or “no” on the issue. He hoped the neighbors would understand that a difference of opinion existed, but having the City responsible for what happened kept neighbors from being pitted against one another. 07/02/01 92-261 Council Member Wheeler agreed with Council Member Beecham. The term “overwhelming” was relative and could be debated. Staff and the Council were very clear, and she was on the Council when the single-story overlay was enacted, that a particular number not be included in the ordinance. Some leeway was given to allow for neighborhoods that were already bound by CC&R restrictions. The area met the criteria of overwhelming majority currently to send the item to the P&TC. Some of the public testimony and correspondence received by the Council recently on the issue seemed to indicate that on the part of at least some residents of the community, CC&Rs were voluntarily complied with or were options that could be negotiated with neighbors for a two-story residence, which was not true. She wanted a full discussion with the P&TC and the public regarding the boundaries prior to returning to the Council. Regarding the flood zone, there appeared to be some confusion. The work conducted by Mr. Russell and his subsequent presentation was quite illustrative; however, staff still needed to pay attention to the flood zone issue, which was an important consideration on the part of some that opposed the overlay. It was also important for someone wanting to remodel or eventually replace their homes. Council Member Lytle supported the motion. People obtained CC&Rs at the time of purchasing the home, but failed to consider them at the time of remodeling. Many plans for remodeling were based on answers received from staff at the Planning Department counter. Staff and the Council were very careful about not defining overwhelming. Former Council Member McCown brought up the 70 percent figure, but the Council all stated the desire not to set a hard-and-fast rule. Boundaries drawn at the rear of lots was in response to direction of the Comprehensive Plan for plotting zone boundaries. Each of the alternatives among the suggestions followed that concept carefully. Drawing zone boundaries at the back of lot lines was the correct way. The integrity of the neighborhood was clearly based on how the homes faced the street. Boundaries needed to be discussed at the P&TC level, but all of the boundaries showed integrity in terms of preserving street-facing zoning. Council Member Burch appreciated Council Member Lytle’s point. He had driven down Elsinore Drive and supported the motion. A 68 percent vote was more than two-thirds and was, in his opinion, overwhelming. Council Member Fazzino apologized for arriving late to the meeting, but had listened to the beginning public testimony on the radio as he drove from the airport. The neighborhood was one of the finest Eichler neighborhoods in the community. The issue was, however, a microcosm of difficult property-related and even 07/02/01 92-262 larger socioeconomic-related issues, which came before the Council over the past few years. He could not recall another single-story overlay issue that had been more contentious. There were larger issues at play. He had supported the single-story overlay when it came before the Council in 1992. However, he supported the overlay as it tied directly to CC&Rs and not as an alternative way to address the larger issue of neighborhood residential regulations and concerns about second-story homes. The second-story issue was important and was being addressed in other ways. His support for the concept was tied directly to existing CC&Rs. Clear criterion were established and in most cases it was a clear-cut case which was consistent with those criterion. The one area of concern involved the degree of support. He had not supported Proposition 13 in 1978; he did not like two-thirds majorities. However, when talking about direct impact on people’s property, there needed to be a high standard. Although a formal 70 percent standard was not adopted in 1992, 70 percent had been the de facto standard for support of the zone since that time. He wanted to see slightly stronger evidence of support for the proposal. He hoped the issue could be addressed by the P&TC as well as Planning staff so the situation could be avoided in the future, which had led to more anxiety and concern. He supported the issue of boundaries being addressed by the P&TC. He had some concerns with respect to Areas 1 and 2 and wanted to see the P&TC address the issues as an alternative and seek the possibility of removing them. It was important in such situations to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Whatever decisions were made should respect everyone’s rights in the area. The homes were wonderful and had a natural life. Perhaps a regular review in 10 to 20 years of single-story overlay zones based on the life of the homes could be considered. He supported the motion. Council Member Kleinberg agreed with Council Member Fazzino’s statements. She supported the motion without reluctance because the case had been well made that it was reasonable and would, for the most part, not change anyone’s property rights. Mrs. Edelstein made a clear statement, that all that was being asked was that the City be put in the position of enforcement for the CC&Rs and that no one’s property rights were being changed. More education or information could be made available to property owners in the affected neighborhood and others to help dispel some of the concerns. The issue was one of enforcement. She wanted the P&TC to tackle two issues, whether in relation to the Garland neighborhood application or at some other point. One was the issue of property valuation. The issue should be resolved for people who were concerned about the devaluation of their home because of an overlay. The other issue was the process for a single-story overlay. It was difficult to have neighbors with 07/02/01 92-263 such a level of antagonism and distrust. The P&TC and/or staff were asked to review the process by which an overlay came about. The means to the end, putting it on neighbors to lobby each other and pit neighbors against neighbors was heartbreaking. Council Member Beecham reminded the P&TC that it was their duty to implement the City’s policy as adopted by the Council. Although some Planning Commissioners disagreed with the overlay zone, it was their obligation to implement the policy set by the City Council. Mayor Eakins agreed with Council Member Beecham. The issue was not being referred to the P&TC for a discussion of the merits of a certain type of architecture or neighborhood. The public was thanked for attending the meeting and putting a great deal of thought and effort into the process. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Auditor Payroll Report Vice Mayor Ojakian said the audit of payroll was a lingering item from the former City Auditor. Fortunately, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corp., outside auditor, was able to complete the report. He noticed that some items that were normally part of a payroll audit were not included in the report. He assumed that meant there was no problem, such as pay rates or mispay other than the 56-hour situation or hours having been input incorrectly. Senior Auditor Phillip Bruni said Vice Mayor Ojakian was correct, there were no problems with the items mentioned. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the W-4s or W-2s. Mr. Bruni thought W-4s and W-2s were not included within the scope of the report. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about payroll deductions, including garnishments. Mr. Bruni said payroll deductions were recalculated and agreed with what people wanted. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about benefits. Mr. Bruni said there were no problems with benefits. 07/02/01 92-264 Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified that the heart and soul of the payroll operation was working properly. Mr. Bruni said the audit found that the payroll operation was working properly based on a sampling of the items. The 66 items sampled were of two biweekly payroll checks per person from different periods: recalculated payroll deductions, gross pay, and timecards were checked to make sure the hours used to calculate the gross pay was correct. Federal taxes were not recalculated. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified that the Payroll received a clean bill of health. Mr. Bruni said yes, with the exception of a few minor issues like the 56-hour problem. Vice Mayor Ojakian thought the 56-hour problem was fairly minor. Mr. Bruni agreed. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the time-and-attendance system, which had been discussed for several years. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said staff was demanding the time-and-attendance system be included in the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system the Council approved with the 2001-02 Budget. Staff wanted a system with default time-entry, so payroll could be allocated at the beginning of the budget cycle. It would be a labor saving device not only for staff, but also for Payroll staff. The Payroll staff consisted of three personnel and one staff accountant. Each year, approximately 37,000 time cards were processed, 156,000 entries made into the payroll system to process payroll, and about 180,000 timecard accrual transactions made. Admittedly, mistakes were sometimes made. Fortunately, the mistakes were found, so there were few incidents when the time, benefits, or deductions were incorrect. Given a $320 million organization, that was commendable. Vice Mayor Ojakian said one of the reasons he voted for the ERP was the fact that the City needed to improve its Payroll/Human Resources system. It was important for the Council to be mindful of that key aspect of the system. Mr. Yeats said the payroll system was crucial. The issue was the interface between the vendor’s payroll system, the City’s financial management system, and the time entry system. 07/02/01 92-265 Vice Mayor Ojakian said one of the main points of disagreement in the report was over the removal of terminated employees. Another point of disagreement besides the time-and-attendance system, was purging the database of terminated employees. Payroll Manager/Senior Accountant Meg Ogle said one of the reasons the Human Resources Department decided not to purge terminated employees was because frequently terminated employees returned to service, especially with hourly employees in Community Services. Many times, employees needed to be in the system because frequently requests were made from State, Local, and Federal agencies about payroll information, past and present. There was sufficient room in the system to handle the terminated employees. Vice Mayor Ojakian agreed with staff’s assessment. The number of records was minor and had an insignificant impact on the database storage. The only other area consistently reviewed with regard to payroll was security. Council Member Wheeler agreed with Vice Mayor Ojakian and staff’s position on the issue of terminated employees. She often received inquiries from the Social Security Administration, District Attorney’s offices, and former employees for information about employees that worked for her agency nine or ten years prior. The only way to cope with the questions was to climb into some rafters and go through reams and reams of payroll reports. The requests were becoming more frequent as the methodology for governmental and other agencies tried to keep up with employees who traveled from job to job. The audit was an example of an extremely important function for the City as a corporation and the individuals drawing paychecks. The examination pointed out that in the vast majority of cases, the City was doing an effective and efficient job, even given the fact that the City was using an antiquated payroll system. The report was written in a positive tone with regard to the way the City carried on the function. Mr. Yeats said Mr. Bruni coordinated the audit with the external auditor, resulting in a good external and internal audit relationship. Mayor Eakins explained that no action was required. The Council had received the report. The City Auditor’s Office was thanked for its continued work, and providing continuity for the operation, and working with the outside firm to finish the remaining significant audit. No action required. 07/02/01 92-266 COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Beecham pointed out to staff that the Colleagues memo in the packet clarified the intent of the previous motion from June 25, 2001, regarding the CSI Winter Lodge specific to the wrap-around wall. Council Member Mossar stated on July 18, 2001, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would have a meeting to discuss the 2001 Air Plan required of the area by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The BAAQMD was currently in the process of writing a new set of regulations to regulate diesel generators. Council Member Kleinberg referred to the Colleagues memo regarding Winter Lodge and clarified that her intent on seconding the motion was not to have a full scale third wall but a short wall that would wrap around the corner. Council Member Lytle agreed with the comments of Council Member Kleinberg. Vice Mayor Ojakian reminded everyone that Wednesday, July 4, 2001, was the annual Chili Cookoff. Council Member Burch congratulated City Clerk Donna Rogers on being accepted into the International Institute of Municipal Clerks Master Municipal Clerk Academy. Mayor Eakins stated that the County of Santa Clara was asking for candidates for a Community Resource Group to discuss the implementation of the Stanford General Use Permit. Mayor Eakins asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of her neighbor, Terry Merz. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to a Closed Session. CLOSED SESSION 10. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation Subject: Michelle Antoinette and David Lee v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Superior Court No.: CV792117 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 07/02/01 92-267 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 10. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 10. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. in memory of Terry Merz, a neighbor of Mayor Eakins and long time resident of Palo Alto, who passed away the previous day. 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 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. 07/02/01 92-268