HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-13 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
November 13, 2001
1. Resolution 8101 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bob Gundrum Upon His Retirement ................................ 74
2. Gift of $136,020 from the Friends of the Palo Alto
Public Library for Children’s, Main and Mitchell Park Libraries Building Planning Process and for Additions to the Library Collection .................................. 74
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. ................. 75
1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider Citywide restrictions in commercial districts which will protect existing retail uses by limiting
the conversion of ground floor retail and services uses to offices uses ....................................... 76
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 77
2. Resolution 8102 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance
and Setting a Hearing for Objections to their Proposed Destruction or Removal ..................................... 78
3. Resolution 8103 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Execution of a Cooperative Agreement with the California Department
of Transportation for a Schematic Street Design Plan for El Camino Real (Agreement No. 04A1432) ................. 78
5. Ordinance 4722 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 8.04.050 of Chapter 8.04 and Section 9.56.030 of Chapter 9.56 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Public Nuisances] to Reduce Sight Obstructions and Improve Street and Sidewalk Safety” (1st Reading 10/22/01, Passed 8-0
Fazzino absent) ............................................ 78
11/13/01 93-71
6. Resolution 8104 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ratifying the Execution of the
Base Contract for Short-Term Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas with Sempra Energy Trading Corp. by the City Manager or his Designated Representative, The Director of Utilities ...................................... 78
7. Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C9102718 Between the
City of Palo Alto and Ross/Drulis Architects and Planners in the Amount of $380,000 for Conceptual Design of Civic Center Expansion Alternatives for the
Public Safety Building CIP Project 19820 ................... 78
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Group 4
Architecture, Research and Planning Inc. in the Amount of $90,000 for Professional Services to Conduct a Site Feasibility Study of the Land Occupied by the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center .......................... 79
9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Lone Star
Landscape, Inc. in the Amount of $140,900 for Construction of Werry Park Landscape Improvements .......... 79
10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Salas O'Brien Engineers in the Amount of $75,000 for Resource Efficiency Services to Utility Commercial and
Industrial Customers ....................................... 79
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and TJKM
Transportation Consultants in the Amount of $74,809 for the Citywide Computer Traffic Model .................... 79
12. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the
City Council re Integrated Pest Management Policy, adoption of a policy that would minimize the
application and toxicity of pesticides used at its facilities using integrated pest management strategies.. ............................................... 79
13. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the City Council re Endorsement of Long-Term Goals for the
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP): 1) Meet future capacity needs; 2) Meet or exceed regulatory requirements; 3) Minimize or eliminate toxins in the influent (e.g. dioxin); 4) Minimize energy consumption and maximize energy life
cycle efficiency; 5) Minimize or eliminate potentially hazardous chemical usage; 6) Minimize or eliminate
11/13/01 93-72
total release of toxins to the environment; 7) Minimize impact on ecosystem; 8) Minimize impacts on
community, including neighboring communities; 9) Minimize or justify financial impacts on ratepayer; 10) Involve stakeholder in the decision making process; 11) Immobilize or beneficially reuse persistent toxins; 12) Take leadership role in
promoting beneficial reuse and environmental enhancement; 13) Maximize worker safety; and 14) Maximize recycled water as a supplemental water
source. .................................................... 80
14. Finance Committee recommendation to the City Council
for re approval of primary objectives to guide the long-term electric portfolio development and the purchase of a 25MW power supply contract for up to five years in the period 2005-2010. ........................ 80
15. Finance Committee recommendation to the City Council
for approval of time-of-use electric rates as a rate option available to large commercial and industrial customers who used more than 500 kilowatts a month, effective January 1, 2002. ................................. 80
15A. (Old Item No. 4) Ordinance 1st Reading entitled
“Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.72 to Title 9 [Public Peace, Morals
and Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Mandatory Response to Request for Discussion of Disputes Between Landlords and Tenants ..................... 81
16. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Verizon Communications to
amend Planned Community (PC) Zoning District PC-3020 to allow Telecommunications Facilities at 2425 Embarcadero Way ............................................ 82
17. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the City Council regarding the Alarm Ordinance ................. 86
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 89
18. Conference with Labor Negotiator ........................... 90
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. ........... 91
11/13/01 93-73
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:53 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Ojakian
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 8101 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bob
Gundrum Upon His Retirement” MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the resolution. MOTION PASSED 7-0 Fazzino, Ojakian absent.
Police Chief Dwyer stated that, within the last month, District Attorney George Kennedy came to the Police Department and presented an award to Sergeant Mike Denson
for his outstanding work as a homicide investigator in the Kaye homicide case and the Fitzhugh case. District
Attorney Kennedy presented Sgt. Denson with a plaque and elaborated on his fine investigation work and professional expertise. Mr. Kennedy also recognized agent Con Maloney and Agent Sandra Brown for the important role they played in the investigation.
Council Member Burch added that Mr. Kennedy referred to the Palo Alto Police Department as a “World Class Department”.
Chief Dwyer said it was an honor for the department and
Sergeant Denson to have Mr. Kennedy present the award. Mr. Kennedy was accompanied by Assistant District Attorney Dave
Davis, the two prosecutors from the Kaye homicide trial, and the Fitzhugh trial, Mike Gaffy and Mike Fletcher.
2. Gift of $136,020 from the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library for Children’s, Main and Mitchell Park
Libraries Building Planning Process and for Additions to the Library Collection Shelby Valentine, Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library (Friends) Board President, presented the first increment of
the $192,508 contribution to the Libraries that the Friends
11/13/01 93-74
would make during the current fiscal year. Incorporated into their check for $61,020 was a donation of $11,020 from
Mr. Lee Cronbach, recently deceased. On behalf of Friends Board of Directors, Ms. Valentine publicly thanked the Cronbach family for the generous gift that fulfilled Mr. Krombach’s wishes to support current library materials. No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
11/13/01 93-75
Regular Meeting
November 13, 2001 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Wheeler
ABSENT: Fazzino, Ojakian
PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider Citywide restrictions in commercial districts which will protect existing retail uses by limiting
the conversion of ground floor retail and services uses to offices uses
City Attorney Ariel Calonne stated that the item needed to be continued if too many Council Members were conflicted
from participation.
Council Member Mossar stated the ordinance broadly included Stanford properties, so she would not be able to participate due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University.
Council Member Beecham stated he would not participate due to a conflict of interest because his client owned two parcels in commercial zones.
Council Member Kleinberg stated the ordinance covered
Stanford land, so she could not participate due to a conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm
represented Stanford in land use matters. Mayor Eakins announced that due to there not being a quorum
present, the item could not be discussed.
Mr. Calonne suggested that the item be continued to November 19, 2001.
11/13/01 93-76
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, to continue the item to the November 19, 2001,
Regular City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent. Mayor Eakins announced that in anticipation of the
following week, the speaker cards would be retained and kept in the order in which they were received.
Council Member Beecham interjects and wants to comment on Item No. 1. Mayor Eakins continues and suggests that
people leave who need to leave at this point. Council Member Beecham apologized and said that since Item No. 1 could not be discussed that evening, the people should return a second time, which was necessary so the
item could also be heard by the Council Members who would be in attendance the following week. Mayor Eakins announced that additional people could also sign up the following week to discuss the item.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham,
to approve the Minutes of September 24, 2001 October 1,
2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Eakins announced that Item No. 4 would be removed and
heard at the end of the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 15A.
Council Member Lytle stated that Item No. 11 did not have a change in the scope as directed in the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee meeting.
Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Les White confirmed that the scope of contract, if substantive,
would be brought back to the Council.
11/13/01 93-77
Council Member Mossar asked Council Member Lytle to state for the record what was missing.
Council Member Lytle stated that the scope was to be amended to include a provision that the pedestrian traveled demand sub-module proceed as part of the multi-module demand for casting.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar,
to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2, 3, and 5-15.
LEGISLATIVE
2. Resolution 8102 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to their Proposed Destruction or Removal”
3. Resolution 8103 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Execution of a Cooperative Agreement with the California Department of Transportation for a Schematic Street Design Plan
for El Camino Real (Agreement No. 04A1432)”
5. Ordinance 4722 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 8.04.050 of Chapter 8.04 and Section 9.56.030 of Chapter 9.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Public Nuisances] to Reduce Sight Obstructions and Improve Street and
Sidewalk Safety” (1st Reading 10/22/01, Passed 8-0 Fazzino
absent) 6. Resolution 8104 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Ratifying the Execution of the Base Contract for Short-Term Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas with Sempra Energy Trading Corp. by the
City Manager or his Designated Representative, The Director of Utilities”
ADMINISTRATIVE
7. Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C9102718 Between the City of Palo Alto and Ross/Drulis Architects and
Planners in the Amount of $380,000 for Conceptual Design of Civic Center Expansion Alternatives for the Public Safety Building CIP Project 19820
11/13/01 93-78
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Group 4 Architecture, Research and Planning Inc. in the Amount
of $90,000 for Professional Services to Conduct a Site Feasibility Study of the Land Occupied by the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center 9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Lone Star
Landscape, Inc. in the Amount of $140,900 for Construction of Werry Park Landscape Improvements
10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Salas O'Brien Engineers in the Amount of $75,000 for
Resource Efficiency Services to Utility Commercial and Industrial Customers Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Brown, Vence and Associates in the Amount of $75,000 for
Resource Efficiency Services to Utility Commercial and Industrial Customers Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Encon Energy Conservation Company in the Amount of $50,000
for Resource Efficiency Services to Utility Commercial and Industrial Customers
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and TJKM Transportation Consultants in the Amount of $74,809
for the Citywide Computer Traffic Model
COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
12. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the
City Council re Integrated Pest Management Policy, adoption of a policy that would minimize the
application and toxicity of pesticides used at its facilities using integrated pest management
strategies. IPM encouraged techniques that prevented pest infestations using pest barriers, improved hygiene suitable landscaping, and structural repair,
with pesticide use only as a last option. The impetus to develop and expand City IPM strategies was in
response to environmental and health impacts stemming from high pesticide level in local creeks and the San Francisco Bay, and a Santa Clara County storm water
permit requirement to implement municipal pesticide reduction strategies by September 1, 2001.
11/13/01 93-79
13. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the City Council re Endorsement of Long-Term Goals for the
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP): 1) Meet future capacity needs; 2) Meet or exceed regulatory requirements; 3) Minimize or eliminate toxins in the influent (e.g. dioxin); 4) Minimize energy consumption and maximize energy life
cycle efficiency; 5) Minimize or eliminate potentially hazardous chemical usage; 6) Minimize or eliminate total release of toxins to the environment; 7)
Minimize impact on ecosystem; 8) Minimize impacts on community, including neighboring communities; 9)
Minimize or justify financial impacts on ratepayer; 10) Involve stakeholder in the decision making process; 11) Immobilize or beneficially reuse persistent toxins; 12) Take leadership role in promoting beneficial reuse and environmental
enhancement; 13) Maximize worker safety; and 14) Maximize recycled water as a supplemental water source. 14. Finance Committee recommendation to the City Council
for re approval of primary objectives to guide the long-term electric portfolio development and the
purchase of a 25MW power supply contract for up to five years in the period 2005-2010.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City
Manager to Purchase a Portion of the City’s Energy Requirements During the 2005 - 2010 Period under Specified Terms and Conditions”
15. Finance Committee recommendation to the City Council
for approval of time-of-use electric rates as a rate option available to large commercial and industrial customers who used more than 500 kilowatts a month, effective January 1, 2002.
Resolution 8105 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Utility Rate Schedules E-4-Tou and E-7-Tou of the City of Palo Alto Utilities
Rates and Charges Pertaining to Medium Commercial Electric Time of Use Service and Large Commercial
Electric Time of Use Service”
11/13/01 93-80
MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 2,3, and 5-15, Fazzino,
Ojakian absent.
15A. (Old Item No. 4) Ordinance 1st Reading entitled
“Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.72 to Title 9 [Public Peace, Morals and Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating
to Mandatory Response to Request for Discussion of Disputes Between Landlords and Tenants”
Natalie Cardenas, Tri County Apartment Association, 792 Meridian Way, Suite A, presented a letter from Cathy Teaubedeau asking the Council that Tri-County Apartment Association be included in the process and development of
the ordinance in the next 12 to 14 months. Mickey Suen, 2482 Louis Road, said that the Palo Alto Mediation Program could not implement the ordinance. Mediation training stated that mediation programs were not
judges. The ordinance favored one side and mediators/ mediation programs were to remain impartial. He asked that the word “mediation” or “mediator” be removed and the ordinance be implemented separate from the Mediation Program.
Laura MacDougall, 2875 Ramona Street, supported mandatory
mediation and the renters of Palo Alto. She felt that the ordinance was slightly weakened due to the changes in the language. She felt that in the future Palo Alto would be a
tenant community. Council Member Kleinberg wanted to clarify a couple of things. First, in the beginning, the work group referred to the ordinance as “Mandatory Mediation”. Then it was
labeled as “Mandatory Mediation,” which was a misrepresentation of what was actually in the ordinance.
It was not mandatory mediation, which was why the title was changed. The thrust of the ordinance was to have people come to a facilitated meeting where it was explained what
mediation could do for them and that it was voluntary to participate in the mediation. There was no requirement to
participate in the program that the City helped to create. A private mediator could be chosen. If the feeling was that there was partiality or lack of neutrality, there were other options. Second, there were two other mediation programs that were involved in creating the program: one
was the Project Sentinel, and the other was the Palo Alto
11/13/01 93-81
Mediation Program (PAMP). Ms. Kleinberg read a message from Judith Moss, co-chairperson of Palo Alto Mediation
Program, which stated that PAMP had not generated a group point of view concerning the ordinance. There were different mediation models; everything from court order mediation, where the mediator made the early neutral evaluation and participation was required, all the way to a
completely voluntary system. The ordinance was not going to be amended currently, but in practice it might be helpful to call the person who did the early neutralization
evaluation a “Facilitation Administrator”. MOTION: Council Member Beecham, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve the first reading of the ordinance. Council Member Lytle reinforced the same recommendation Council Member Kleinberg had mentioned; that in practice,
to start using the term “Facilitation Administrator” and formally change the term when the item was returned to the Council. Council Member Burch said he also had talked to several
mediators and to Council Member Kleinberg and thought that what had been suggested had resolved some of the questions
from mediators and Tri-County. He was hopeful that the item could go forward on an experimental basis, see how it worked, get feedback, and modify it as it went forward. He
supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS
16. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider an application by Verizon Communications to amend Planned Community (PC) Zoning District PC-3020 to allow Telecommunications Facilities at 2425 Embarcadero Way
Council Member Mossar stated she could not participate in the item because her husband managed a trust for her mother-in-law that held stock in Verizon.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote the item was an
application for an amendment to an existing planning community (PC) zone that would allow telecommunications facilities to use part of that zoned district. Currently,
11/13/01 93-82
it was for warehousing and a live-in attendant only. The application added eight antennas to a parapet on the roof
and allowed the use as part of the zone. Any future applications would go through an architectural review for design and aesthetic impact. The applicant was present, as well as Carolyn Bisset, project planner, in reference to the public benefit. The Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) did
name “telecommunications facilities” public benefits in and of themselves, which were included in the ordinance attached to the staff report (CMR:413:01). Staff and the
Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) were recommending approval of the application.
Bonnie Medina-Jawad, applicant for Verizon Communications, said the presentation that dealt with the frequency of the site allowed them to see how the site was improved with the infrastructure for the telecommunications facility.
Russ Benson, Verizon RF Engineer, representing San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, presented the areas currently covered along Highway 101. Many complaints that had been received were that the airport, industrial area, and golf
range were not covered. Therefore, they were requesting a variance to the ordinance and permission to install new
facilities so those areas could be covered. Council Member Burch asked what site was the furthest down
as shown on the presentation.
Mr. Benson replied it was San Antonio Road and 101 on the East Side of an industrial building and also another site close, which was still under construction.
Council Member Burch assumed that presently all of Palo
Alto was not being covered. Mr. Benson explained that all of Palo Alto was not covered because Stanford University was reluctant to have sites placed on their property.
Ms. Medina-Jawad was proposing to put eight, four-foot antennas on a parapet on the roof of a storage facility.
It met all of the City’s general plan and zone changes that had been done in that area.
Mayor Eakins declared the public hearing opened at 7:45 p.m.
11/13/01 93-83
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632 requested the item be continued until Council got the Planning Commission meetings minutes.
Council Member Beecham asked whether Karen Holman was representing the Planning Commission on the issue and if so, he would like to hear her comments on the recommendation.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Apartment 701, was concerned about the automatic assumption that the antennas were a
public benefit, taking into account that the antennas were built high and Palo Alto was against high buildings. By
giving permission to build the high antennas and that they be considered a public benefit, the Council was being unfair by letting commercial developers build those high structures and not letting other people build higher buildings. Not only were they not allowed to build higher
buildings, but also did not get to make extra money on the antennas Planning and Transportation Commissioner Karen Holman said it was a short review process. It was determined that the
service was needed and was in the Comp Plan. The location was unobtrusive and any subsequent application would go to
the ARB; therefore, they felt comfortable with approving the application.
Mr. White said it was consistent with past practice. Sometimes there would be a summary of the minutes as with
the current report because of quick turn around time. The same procedure would apply on matters that were not complex.
Council Member Lytle recalled a policy on
telecommunications equipment, and a portion of that policy had to do with grouping those facilities so they would not be sprouting up everywhere. She asked what had happened to that policy.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said there was a considerable amount of progress done on the policy, but due to the energy crisis over the past summer; the City
Attorney, who was working on the policy, was consumed with the PG&E bankruptcy issue. The policy would not be
completed until the attorney could continue working on it.
11/13/01 93-84
Council Member Lytle asked whether it was consistent with the direction staff was heading in the draft policy.
Ms. Harrison said she did not think the direction it was headed was inconsistent. Mr. Benson said they had to reserve the height of the
antennas within the existing ordinances of the City. No special grants for extra height was given.
Mayor Eakins declared the public hearing closed at 7:55 p.m.
Council Member Burch asked whether the Council would be getting more applications as more antennas were needed. Ms. Harrison said in the preliminary work to the ordinance,
a consultant had mapped out all the black or dark areas around the City. There were a considerable number of deficient areas, many of them along Highway 101. Because of the infrastructure constraint toward placing antennas along that area, they probably would have to be addressed in the
near future. However, from a planning perspective, those black areas should be mapped out and state what would be
acceptable from the telecommunications providers. Council Member Burch said it might be a good idea to let
telephone users know where the deficient areas were located. They could then look forward to getting more
antenna applications from various companies who were competing and wanted their own antenna systems.
Ms. Harrison said co-location of antennas was one of the things encouraged in the ordinance to eliminate having so
many antennas located all over the City. The City did not want each of the providers to have their own facilities and that was not the provider’s preference. The providers wanted complete control of their own infrastructure. Part of what was put into the ordinance was a strong incentive
for co-locations to eliminate having so many antennas located all over the City. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation
Commission recommendation to introduce the ordinance (Attachment A of CMR:413:01) amending Planned Community
11/13/01 93-85
(PC) Zoning District PC-3020 to allow telecommunication facilities.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to change the classification of Property at 2425
Embarcadero Way, From PC Planned Community 3020 To PC Planned Community”
Council Member Beecham agreed with the staff report (CMR:413:01) in that the P&TC confirmed the site would be
invisible; it was an out-of-the-way location, which was a consideration, and he was satisfied with that. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino,
Ojakian absent.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
17. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the City Council regarding the Alarm Ordinance
Council Member Mossar said that Policy and Services (P&S)
Committee reviewed and unanimously supported the proposal. The item would have been on the Consent Calendar except for the change of the fee structure that was included in the
recommendations. It was now a matter of the Council adopting both pieces of the ordinance.
Council Member Wheeler said the staff report indicated that the number of private alarms in the City was unknown. She
asked how the public or people who had alarms would be notified that new ordinance had gone into effect, and the
currently owed the City $35 to register their alarm. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said staff would do several things: notify all current alarm system users; and go through the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business
Associations, and Neighborhood Associations. Most contacts would be made when an officer responded to an alarm, found out the person did not have a permit, and made sure they
registered.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Police Department was not going to respond after a certain number of false alarms, and would the City be held liable if one of the
11/13/01 93-86
subsequent alarms turned out to be “not false” and the City had not responded.
City Attorney Calonne was not aware of any liabilities. He had not looked at that question specifically, but since the City had a wide range of immunities for emergency response services, he was sure the City could not be held liable for
failing to respond to private alarms. Ms. Johnson said currently there were a couple of locations
that officers were not responding to. In the past when the City Attorney’s office reviewed those cases, the City
Attorney’s office indicated the City would not incur any liability because the police were not mandated to respond to those alarms. Mr. Calonne stated for the record that at times, where they
identified a population with special needs, the City wanted to be careful not to purport to offer services to people with special needs in a way that the City could not always provide.
Council Member Kleinberg asked in reference to setting a hearing to appeal an infraction, what was the definition of
a “timely letter of appeal.” Mr. Calonne said it was 15 days, which was set forth in
Section A of the ordinance.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether it was only by mail or if email was acceptable
Ms. Johnson replied that email would be honored.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether it was the policy of the Police Department to always respond to a call that someone’s alarm was going off. For example, if someone called the Police Department and reported that a neighbor’s alarm was going off and was not connected to the Police
Department; was the policy to always respond. Police Chief Dwyer said those alarms were not connected
directly to the Police Department. Calls usually came from a third-party alarm company or a neighbor. The Police
Department’s current policy was to respond unless there was a higher priority call. If a high priority call was in progress, alarm calls might not be handled immediately. The
11/13/01 93-87
Police Department would respond as soon as resources were available.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified that most calls were false. Mr. Dwyer says 98 percent were false.
Council Member Kleinberg directed her question to the P&S Committee. She asked since the registration and fees were
required, was it ever considered an option out if an alarm was ringing, and it was basically to scare someone off,
would the police not necessarily respond. She asked whether it was a mandatory requirement that people be registered with the police, and the police would respond to alarms. Ms. Johnson said that unless the police had prior knowledge
that an alarm was only to scare people, it would be difficult, so when police got an alarm request from an alarm company or an audible alarm, the police automatically responded. Not many people would go to the expense of installing an alarm system just to scare people off, most
alarm systems are not audible, they were silent.
Mr. Dwyer said from an enforcement stand point, it would be very difficult, because many times a third party call would report that an alarm was going off but would not have a
specific address. The Police Department would go out and find what address the alarm was coming from.
Council Member Kleinberg agreed that was a good point. She asked what the thinking behind having to renew the
registration annually was.
Ms. Johnson said because there was such a high turnover, it was a way to keep the database updated. Secondly, the charge was to try and capture the cost it took to confirm information and make sure the database was up to date. She added that staff was trying to make it a cost recovery
program as much as possible. Council Member Kleinberg asked after she registered for the
current year and following year, and there was no new information to add to the database; would she just pay the
$35 to do nothing.
11/13/01 93-88
Ms. Johnson said a notice was sent out to confirm that the address was correct and that her statement was accurate.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler,
to recommend to the City Council the following: 1. Adopt the Amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Section 4.39.010 regulating alarms. Major changes include the provision that all alarm system users must obtain an annual permit
for a fee to operate an alarm system. Additionally, administrative sanctions up to and
including placing an abusive alarm user on a non-response status after six false alarms within a 12-month period are included; and 2. Adopt the Amendment to the 2001-02 Adopted
Municipal Fee Schedule, reducing the $50 Alarm Registration Fee to $35. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter
4.39 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Private Intrusion Alarms and Amending the
Municipal Fee Schedule Regarding Alarm Registration and Response Fees”
Further, to approve the staff recommendation to adopt the resolution amending the Administrative Penalty
Schedule to include a $250 penalty for operating an alarm system without a permit.
Resolution 8106 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Amending the
Administrative Penalty Schedule Adopted by Resolution No. 7933 in Order to Amend the Civil Penalties for Violation of Chapter 4.39 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Intrusion Alarms”
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Beecham spoke about the Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA) report regarding Hetch Hetchy. He said
11/13/01 93-89
the members of BAWUA had set up an adhoc committee to work with the legislature in Sacramento.
Council Member Mossar stated that she was appointed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to the ABAG Water Supply Task Force, and over time there would be a number of ways in the region to work on a safe drinking
water supply. Mayor Eakins announced that she had appointed Council
Member Mossar to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the next two years to represent Palo Alto.
Council Member Beecham asked the Council to agendize the procedure on the placement of Oral Communications on the agenda.
Council Member Burch agreed with the movement of Oral Communications forward. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, that the Council direct staff to change the
Council procedures for Oral Communications to the first item after Special Orders of the Day, and that the matter
be placed on the Consent Calendar for approval. MOTION PASSED 7-0 Fazzino, Ojakian absent.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 8:20 p.m. 18. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva)
Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (PAFCA)
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item
No. 18. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 18.
11/13/01 93-90
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Vice 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.
11/13/01 93-91