HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-18 City Council Summary Minutes
07/18/2011 108-339
Special Meeting July 18, 2011
1. Joint Meeting with the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission ..................... 342
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ............................................... 342
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ........................................................................ 343
3. Appointments for Two Positions on the Utilities Advisory Commission for
Three Year Terms Ending June 30, 2014 .................................................. 343
City Manager Comments ................................................................................ 343
Oral Communications ..................................................................................... 344
CONSENT CALENDAR ..................................................................................... 345
4. Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve Policies and Guidelines for a
Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff. ............................................................ 346
5. Approval of the 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan Recommended by the Finance
Committee and the Utilities Advisory Commission. ..................................... 346
6. Parks And Recreation Commission Recommendation that Council Direct Staff
To Consider Improvement of Recreational Opportunities For Dog Owners Among Other Community Recreational Interests During the Planning and
Design Phase of Park Renovation Projects and the Design Of Any New, Or
Renovation Of Existing, Neighborhood Or Regional Parks. ........................... 346
7. Approval of an On-Call Contract to Cal-West Signal & Lighting in an Amount
Not to Exceed $150,000 for Traffic Signal Support Services. ........................ 346
8. Approval of a Letter Of Intent with the Friends Of The Magical Bridge LLC for
the Design, Construction and Installation of Playground Equipment,
Pathways, Park Amenities and Other Improvements for a Universally Accessible Children's Play Area at Mitchell Park - Capital Improvement Project
(PE-12000). ........................................................................................ 346
07/18/2011 108-340
9. Approval of an Agreement with SolFocus, Inc. for a Solar-Electric Research Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. ................................... 346
10. Approval of a Contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. in
the Amount of $418,000 Per Year for Household Hazardous Waste Management and Emergency Response Services. ...................................... 346
11. Resolution 9190 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Authorizing City Participation in the Beacon Award Recognition Program:
Local Leadership toward Solving Climate Change.” ..................................... 347
12. Resolution 9183 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Establishing Fiscal Year 2011-12 Secured and Unsecured Property Tax Levy
for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure
N).” .................................................................................................... 347
ACTION ITEMS .............................................................................................. 347
13. Resolution 9187 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Approving Indenture of Trust, Official Notice of Sale, Notice of Intention to
Sell and Official Statement, and Authorizing Official Actions Related There
to.” .................................................................................................... 347
14. Resolution 9188 Approving, Authorizing and Directing the Refinancing of the
outstanding 1998 Golf Course Lease and Certificates of Participation in the Amount of $3,690,000 and Approval of Related Documents. ........................ 350
15. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Request and Record of Land Use Action for
On-site Use of 4,940 Square Feet of a 5,000 Square-Foot “Double Bonus” From a Proposed Historic Rehabilitation and Seismic Retrofit, to Increase the
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 668 Ramona Street (Palo Alto Art League), Listed
as a Category II Structure on the Palo Alto Historic and Seismic Inventories. . 352
16. Update of SB 375/Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) and Direction on City’s Preliminary Response to Regional
Agencies, and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Process (Continued from July 11, 2011). .................................................. 354
17. Recommendation from Policy & Services Committee Regarding Adoption of Two Resolutions Calling a Special Election for November 8, 2011 Submitting
to the Electorate; (1) Resolution 9189 A Measure To Eliminate Binding
Interest Arbitration Requirements for Disputes with Public Safety Employees by Repealing Article V of the City Charter, and (2) A Measure To Substantially
Modify Binding Interest Arbitration Requirements for Disputes with Public
Safety Employees by Amending Article V of the City Charter; and Adoption of
07/18/2011 108-341
an Ordinance Adding Section 2.36.040 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Impartial Mediation for Impasses in Labor Contract Negotiations. ...... 361
18. Colleagues’ Memo from Council Members Burt and Klein to Request for the
City Council to Direct the City Clerk to Reopen the Recruitment for the Planning & Transportation Commission and Contact the Remaining Two
Applicants to be Interviewed at the Conclusion of the Recruitment. .............. 372
18b. (Former No. 10) Approval of a Contract with Clean Harbors Environmental
Services, Inc. in the Amount of $418,000 Per Year for Household Hazardous
Waste Management and Emergency Response Services. ............................. 373
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................... 374
CLOSED SESSION ......................................................................................... 374
18b. (Former No. 2)CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ............................ 374
ADJOURNMENT ............................................................................................. 375
07/18/2011 108-342
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 6:05 p.m.
Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price arrived @ 6:07 P.M., Scharff
arrived @ 7:05 P.M., Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh
Absent:
STUDY SESSION
1. Joint Meeting with the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
The City Council and the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) held a Study Session where a number of issues, questions, and concerns were
raised and covered. At the forefront of the IBRC presentation to Council
were updates on the progress of the Commission and brief explanations of
where the IBRC had been focusing its attention and how the group
transitioned from organizing around surface projects, above ground projects, and finance to operating using a series of working groups covering
infrastructure management systems, public services, public safety, the
future, and finance. A number of questions were raised including potential
financing methodology, proposed site uses, and land use policy implications.
Several Council Members expressed interest in hearing suggestions from the
IBRC on how the City would handle the infrastructure impacts of population
growth that is expected to occur over the next 25 years (the time horizon
the IBRC is using for its recommendations). The meeting concluded with
Mayor Espinosa congratulating the IBRC on its high level of work, dedication,
and efforts thus far in the process and reemphasized the importance of this
undertaking for the City and how much all of the Council Members look
forward to the presentation of the final report in December.
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Espinosa advised that Agenda Item No. 2 would be heard at the end
of the meeting, to become Agenda Item 18a.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch,
Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association
(PAPMA)
07/18/2011 108-343
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. Appointments for Two Positions on the Utilities Advisory Commission
for Three Year Terms Ending June 30, 2014
First Round of voting for two positions on the Utilities Advisory Commission
for three year terms ending June 30, 2014:
Voting For Stuart Bernstein:
Voting For Garth Hall:
Voting For Jason Matlof: Price, Shepherd
Voting For John Melton: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Scharff,
Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh
Voting For Asher Woldfogel: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price,
Scharff, Schmid, Yeh
City Clerk, Donna Grider, announced that John Melton with 8 votes and
Asher Woldfogel with 8 votes were each appointed to serve on the Utilities
Advisory Commission for three year terms ending June 30, 2014.
City Manager Comments
City Manager, James Keene announced that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
would be conducting a Hydrostatic Pressure Test on one of their main gas
transmission lines, Line 132, that ran through portions of Palo Alto. Line 132
was involved in the San Bruno incident on September 9, 2010. The Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) mandated that Line 132 be pressure tested for
gas leaks by November 20, 2011. Gas service will not be interrupted in Palo
Alto. Testing will begin after City permits are issued and will run from late
July to late September. PG&E will conduct a valve automation project in
Mountain View, July 20-22, which will suspend the City’s Compressed
Natural Gas (CNG). The Library Advisory Commission was recruiting for one
term ending on January 31, 2014. Application deadline was August 4th, at
5:00 p.m. Contact the City Clerk’s Office for information. “Cool Beans” won
the Annual Chili Cook-off on July 4, 2011. Ada’s Magical Bridge Chili won
the People’s Choice award. Best Spirit Award was shared by the Palo Alto
07/18/2011 108-344
Family YMCA and Ada’s Magical Bridge Chili. Elmo and the Old Quakers won
the best decorated booth.
Oral Communications
Former Mayor Gary Fazzio, spoke regarding the City changing its election
years from odd to even years. He said with the presidential and
congressional races taking place in 2012, focus would be difficult. Concerns
had been raised about what would happen to the building that housed the
McArthur Park Restaurant when their lease ends. He said it was a historical
building, built in 1919, and should be preserved. He raised concerns
regarding the third signal light installed at the Town and Country Shopping
Center intersection. He said it created one of the most impossible traffic situations in Palo Alto and hoped that two out of the three lights would be
consolidated.
Vickie Boone, spoke of the homeless situation in Palo Alto and asked the
Council to resolve the problem and to not criminalize the situation.
Rick Toker, asked the Council to delay the vote on the proposed Ordinance
to Prohibit Human Habitation in Vehicles.
Pastor Greg Schaefer, asked the Council to delay the vote on the proposed
Ordinance to Prohibit Human Habitation in Vehicles until viable alternatives
were in place.
Marie Baylon, spoke regarding the proposed Ordinance to Prohibit Human
Habitation in Vehicles. She said people would be receptive of supporting
alternatives. She urged the Council to delay voting on the Ordinance until
an alternative was found.
Kenneth Roman, urged the Council to delay the vote on the proposed
Ordinance to Prohibit Human Habitation in Vehicles until an alternative was
found.
Bruce Kenyon, spoke regarding the cost to enforce the proposed Ordinance
to Prohibit Human Habitation in Vehicles. He asked the Council to delay
voting on the proposed Ordinance until alternative solutions were presented
to the Council.
I Live In My Vehicle, spoke regarding the proposed Ordinance to Prohibit
Human Habitation in Vehicles. He said current economic times were hard
07/18/2011 108-345
and urged the Council to come up with a solution rather than the proposed
Ordinance and to not criminalize the situation.
Anthony Lima, spoke regarding the medical community’s concept of doing no
harm. He said the homeless were suffering and in need of help.
Virtual Prisoner, spoke regarding the proposed Ordinance to Prohibit Human
Habitation in Vehicles. He said focus should be on job creation and asked
the Council to find a better solution prior to voting on the Ordinance.
Dave Gilroy, asked the Council to come up with a compassionate solution in
handling the problem of people living in their vehicles. He asked to
postpone voting on the proposed Ordinance to Prohibit Human Habitation in Vehicles until a solution was found.
Aram James, spoke regarding the proposed Ordinance to Prohibit Human
Habitation in Vehicles. He said the Ordinance was a misdemeanor and
triggered a right to a jury trial.
Amparna Ananthasobramanian, said the proposed Ordinance to Prohibit
Human Habitation in Vehicles did not address the underlying cause of why
people were sleeping in their vehicles. It addressed the housed and not the
unhoused in the community. She felt the language in the Ordinance was
unclear and left room to target the enforcement of the Ordinance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Espinosa announced that Staff requested to pull Agenda Item No. 4,
to be brought back to the City Council in September 2011.
City Manager, James Keene said Agenda Item No. 4 had several Council
questions associated to the item and given the Agenda was full and the item
was not time sensitive, Staff asked the item be pulled.
Jean Wilcox, spoke regarding Agenda Item No. 8. She said the Magical
Bridge Development came under the Parkland and Open Space Ordinance.
She raised concerns regarding vehicle parking space placed on dedicated
parkland. She asked the City Attorney to look into the legality of placing
permanent structures on dedicated parkland and if it was necessary to
undedicate the parkland. She said if the Magical Bridge supporters do not
want to go through the process of undedicating the parkland she suggested
downsizing the $1.3 million project by removing the café and theater and to
07/18/2011 108-346
make the play equipment less permanent in order to comply with the Park
Improvement Ordinance.
Council Member Holman asked if Staff could respond to points in Item No.
10.
Mayor Espinosa said Staff was not prepared to discuss the item at this point.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to
pull Agenda Item No. 10 to become Agenda Item No. 18b.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Mayor Espinosa to approve
Agenda Item Nos. 5-9, 11-12.
4. Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve Policies and
Guidelines for a Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff.
5. Approval of the 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan Recommended by the Finance Committee and the Utilities Advisory Commission.
6. Parks And Recreation Commission Recommendation that Council Direct
Staff To Consider Improvement of Recreational Opportunities For Dog
Owners Among Other Community Recreational Interests During the
Planning and Design Phase of Park Renovation Projects and the Design
Of Any New, Or Renovation Of Existing, Neighborhood Or Regional
Parks.
7. Approval of an On-Call Contract to Cal-West Signal & Lighting in an
Amount Not to Exceed $150,000 for Traffic Signal Support Services.
8. Approval of a Letter Of Intent with the Friends Of The Magical Bridge
LLC for the Design, Construction and Installation of Playground
Equipment, Pathways, Park Amenities and Other Improvements for a
Universally Accessible Children's Play Area at Mitchell Park - Capital
Improvement Project (PE-12000).
9. Approval of an Agreement with SolFocus, Inc. for a Solar-Electric
Research Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
10. Approval of a Contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services,
Inc. in the Amount of $418,000 Per Year for Household Hazardous
Waste Management and Emergency Response Services.
07/18/2011 108-347
11. Resolution 9190 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing City Participation in the Beacon Award Recognition
Program: Local Leadership toward Solving Climate Change.”
12. Resolution 9183 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Establishing Fiscal Year 2011-12 Secured and Unsecured Property
Tax Levy for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond
Indebtedness (Measure N).”
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Items 5-9, 11-12: 9-0
ACTION ITEMS
13. Resolution 9187 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Utility Revenue Refunding
Bonds, Approving Indenture of Trust, Official Notice of Sale, Notice of
Intention to Sell and Official Statement, and Authorizing Official
Actions Related There to.”
Assistant Director of Administrative Services, Joe Saccio said Senior
Financial Analyst, Tarun Narayan would give a brief presentation on the
refinancing portion of the item and that he would be giving a presentation on
the Certificate of Participation (COP) in Agenda Item No. 14. He introduced
Bob Gamble, Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM), who assisted with the
refinancing process, and Bill Madison, Bond Counsel, Jones Hall Law Firm.
Senior Financial Analyst, Tarun Narayan said in 2002 the City issued Water
and Gas Utility Revenue Bonds in the amount of $26.1 million. Staff was
requesting the Council’s approval to refinance the remaining amount of
$18,050,000. The bonds’ original true interest cost was 4.7 percent. The
estimated net present value (NPV) savings on refinancing was $1.56 million
or $147,000 annually over the next 15 years. The estimated savings on the
Water Fund was 45 percent and 55 percent on the Gas Fund. This
represented a savings of 8.64 percent that exceeded the 3 percent threshold
for refinancing. Final savings would be known during the week of
September 5, 2011, on the day the bonds were sold. Staff will deliver a
ratings presentation to Standard & Poors and Moody's, during the first week
in August, to minimize the interest expense. Results will be brought back to
the Council. The City promised bondholders that each bond would have
sufficient or net revenue to annual debt service ratio of 1.25 percent, and
the available Gas, Water, and Electric Fund Reserves would be maintained at
five times the maximum annual debt service. The reserves were about 25
07/18/2011 108-348
times the annual debt service level in Fiscal Year 2011. All requirements
were met by the City.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if the City had a policy in place for the NPV savings
threshold.
Mr. Saccio said other jurisdictions had a five percent threshold but three
percent was the rule of thumb used for NPV savings.
Bob Gamble, Financial Advisor, Public Financial Management, Incorporated
(PFM) confirmed that three percent was the universal threshold used across
the country for refunding. He said other cities may have formal debt policies
that established different levels but three percent was typically used.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked Mr. Gamble if the City could obtain debt policies from
other jurisdictions to give Staff a broader sense of the different policies in
place. He asked if one could be established for the City.
Mr. Gamble said a debt policy had not been discussed and he would be
willing to prepare one for the City.
Vice Mayor Yeh said Fiber Optics was recently included in the City’s
Enterprise Fund and asked if revenues from Fiber Optics could serve as
security for the revenue bonds.
Bill Madison, Bond Counsel, Jones Hall Law Firm, said none of the City’s
fiscal tangible property was part of the bond issue. Revenues from the
Water and Gas Funds were the only security for the bonds.
Vice Mayor Yeh said the Preliminary Official Statement (POS) indicated the
City’s Utility Revenue Bonds, 1995 Series A, or 1995 Bonds were
outstanding in the principal amount of $4,595,000, as of June 1, 2011, and
secured by a lien on net revenues of the City’s Enterprise Fund. He asked if
that would be going forward as the 2011 Bonds and if Fiber Optics revenues
would be incorporated.
Mr. Madison said the 1995 Bonds were issued under pre-Proposition 218.
He said whatever was included in the Enterprise Fund at that time would be
part of the overall revenues that secured the 1995 Bonds but not the 2011
Bonds.
07/18/2011 108-349
Vice Mayor Yeh said a debt service reserve was proposed and no guaranteed
revenues were set aside from the General Fund for the COP. He asked what
was the rational for not having a debt service reserve fund.
Mr. Madison said the COP refinancing was done through bids that specified
there would be no reserves. The bonds were for an overall program of the
City’s utility revenues. There were outstanding indentures required for
parity bonds to have a reserve for covenants from prior indentures.
Vice Mayor Yeh said he had not seen Enterprise Bonds with AAA ratings and
needed verification that the bonds did have AAA ratings tied in to them.
Mr. Madison said AAA ratings were unusual and the reason was that the City’s multiple utility reserves were high and were backstopping the bonds;
however, they were not used for that purpose.
Mr. Saccio said the City received an AAA rating a year ago and would keep
that rating until the next debt rating process.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to
approve Staff recommendation that the City Council:
1) Authorize Staff to refinance the outstanding 2002 Utility (Water and
Gas) Revenue Bonds through the issuance of Utility Revenue
(Refunding) Bonds in the not to exceed amount of $18,050,000.
2) Approve the Indenture of Trust, Official Notice of Sale, Notice of
Intention, and Preliminary Official Statement; and authorize official
actions related thereto.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff
to direct Staff to bring back a debt policy to Finance Committee for review.
Council Member Schmid asked why Staff had opted for the lower annual
payment versus the shorter payment term.
Mr. Saccio said the amortization period was not shortened and the best
answer he could give was that the savings option was selected.
Council Member Burt asked if the intent of the Amendment was to refer the
Agenda item or a debt policy back to the Finance Committee for review.
07/18/2011 108-350
Vice Mayor Yeh said it was a debt policy. He said the City did not have debt
issues often but felt having a debt policy in place would be advantageous.
He said he would be comfortable making the Amendment a separate Motion.
City Attorney, Molly Stump, said the debt policy was not agendized for this
evening’s Agenda and suggested that the Council give Staff general direction
regarding the debt policy in getting the process started.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
14. Resolution 9188 Approving, Authorizing and Directing the Refinancing of the outstanding 1998 Golf Course Lease and Certificates of
Participation in the Amount of $3,690,000 and Approval of Related
Documents.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services, Joe Saccio said Staff had reviewed the City’s outstanding debts and found a net present value (NPV)
of $239,000 savings over the existing amortized period of eight years. The
$239,000 was a 6.47 percent NPV savings against the refunded bonds. He
addressed two issues: 1) the consequence of a lower interest rate and a
lower debt service payment, and 2) the consequence of freeing up the
reserve through a private placement. The annual debt service was reduced
by $134,000 a year but Staff did not look into shortening the duration of the
debt. The City goes out for competitive bids for refinancing. In the interest
of transparency this was the first time it had been done through a private
placement. There were strong motivations to go through a private
placement with an underwriter or a bank and had to do with the size of the
issue, various savings, and had no fees. The City received nine proposals
from underwriters and banks and the proposal was awarded to JPMorgan
Chase with an interest rate of 2.49 percent with no associated fees.
JPMorgan Chase requested that equipment be used for collateral. The City
pledged fire engines and fire equipment and would maintain complete
control over the fire equipment as long as the debt service payment
continued. There was a provision in the agreement to substitute another
piece of equipment should one go out. The Certificate of Participation (COP)
would expire in 2018. Staff recommended Council to give Staff
authorization to move forward on the process.
Herb Borock, asked why Staff was coming to the Council after the
implementation work was completed prior to giving the Council the
opportunity to decide that this was the process to be taken. He said the
07/18/2011 108-351
item should have gone first to the Finance Committee. He raised concerns
regarding the use of fire equipment as collateral for golf course debts. He
said the City’s fire protection agreement with Stanford University had a
provision that fire equipment be returned when the City no longer provided
services to Stanford. He noted that some of the equipment that was used
for collateral belonged to Stanford.
MOTION: Mayor Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to
accept Staff recommendation to approve: 1) the Resolution authorizing Staff
to refinance $3.69 million in outstanding 1998 Golf Course Lease and
Certificates of Participation, and 2) official documents related thereto.
Vice Mayor Yeh addressed the public speaker’s concerns and asked why Staff had come directly to the Council versus going to the Finance Committee
first.
Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez said Staff was thinking
outside the box to try to find savings during tough economic times. He wanted to take advantage of a good opportunity and was afraid it would go
away quickly. He had prior conversations with Finance Committee Chair
Scharff that Staff’s intent was not to by-pass the process but to take
advantage of market conditions that were favorable.
Vice Mayor Yeh said he appreciated the explanation because this was a City
obligation for decades that related to the revenue bonds. He said he was
comfortable with Staff’s explanation and understood the intent.
Mr. Perez said he understood Vice Mayor Yeh’s concerns and would have no
problem coming to the Council prior to taking action provided everyone was
aware of the circumstance. It was a matter of understanding the rules of
engagement in moving forward.
Vice Mayor Yeh said he did not build the debt policy into the Motion because
it had not been agendized but wanted to make sure there was a clear
agreement with the Council regarding the NPV savings threshold issue.
Mr. Perez said he agreed and Staff could commit to doing that without a
Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
15. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Request and Record of Land Use
Action for On-site Use of 4,940 Square Feet of a 5,000 Square-Foot
07/18/2011 108-352
“Double Bonus” From a Proposed Historic Rehabilitation and Seismic
Retrofit, to Increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 668 Ramona Street
(Palo Alto Art League), Listed as a Category II Structure on the Palo
Alto Historic and Seismic Inventories.
Planning Manager, Steven Turner said the Staff, the Historic Resources
Board (HRB) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended that
the Council approve the seismic and rehabilitation of the Pacific Art League
(PAL) building resulting in a 5,000 square feet Floor Area Bonus. PAL was a
regional art organization that promoted visual arts through classes,
instructions, exhibits, galleries and art shows. PAL had occupied the building
in 1965 located at 668 Ramona Street. The building was a Category 2
Historic Inventory Property, retained a high degree of historic integrity and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The building was on the
City’s seismic hazards list. The structure was made of concrete and
reinforced hollow clay tile and susceptible to more earthquake damage than
other recently built structures. The project included rehabilitation of the
building’s façade, seismic upgrades, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades to corridors, restrooms, classrooms, and galleries. The seismic
rehabilitation made the project eligible for a Double Floor Area Bonus and
eligible to receive the floor bonus through the City Council’s approval and
had met the standards for seismic and historic renovation. The applicant
requested that 4,940 square feet be used on the site and the remaining 60
square feet be sold as Transfer and Development Rights (TDR). Staff found
the plans to be consistent with structural standards of the current building
codes and the historic rehabilitation consistent with the Secretary of Interior
Standards. The project was reviewed and approved by the HRB and ARB,
exempted from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) as described
in the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA) attached to the Staff Report, and
met the findings required for approval of a Double Bonus Floor Area.
William Bruner, Pacific Art League Director, said the project was a
culmination of a process the Art League started several years ago and came
to fruition with the formation of a Steering Committee. He said construction
was anticipated to begin in February or March of 2012, which was ahead of
the scheduled start date of June 27th.
Pubic hearing opened and closed without public comment at 8:26 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to accept the Staff, the Historic Resources Board, and the
Architectural Review Board recommendation that the City Council approve
07/18/2011 108-353
the on-site use of 4,940 square feet of bonus floor area generated for
historic and seismic upgrades pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section
18.18.070(b)(8), based upon the findings and recommended conditions of
approval in the Record of Land Use Action.
Council Member Holman said the project was one of the nicest projects she
had seen in a long time. The project was different from the existing
building, consistent with the Secretary of Standards, and would complement
the streetscape. She urged the applicant to try to get it listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Council Member Shepherd said this was a significant historic building and
she welcomed the improvement, especially the seismic upgrade, and the added classroom space will better service the art public.
Council Member Schmid raised concerns regarding the parking. He referred
to the chart in Staff Report #1661 and noted the site was part of the parking
district and the parking requirement was “none”. He needed clarification regarding a statement in Staff Report that stated, “the Floor Area Bonus
program allowed a significant savings in parking in lieu fees.”
Mr. Turner said the Floor Area Bonus program was exempted from parking
because the site was part of the Downtown Parking Assessment District that
normally required one parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor
area. There were no parking spaces on the site. The added floor area
normally would be required to pay in lieu fees for the extra parking that
would be required. He said PAL would be using the bonus floor footage and
exempted from the in lieu fees and parking.
Council Member Schmid said there had been parking issues associated with
large projects that resulted in parking overflow in neighborhoods and asked
where PAL users would park.
Mr. Turner said PAL would encourage the facility users to park in the
downtown public parking lots. It was one of the aspects of the bonus
program that in order to encourage the rehabilitation of historic buildings
and promote seismic safety, the incentive was that bonus floor areas would
be exempt from parking. Staff said the bonus program worked well with the
Christian Science Church project and felt it would have the same affect on
the PAL project. Nearby parking at City Hall and surrounding parking areas
would accommodate the PAL users.
07/18/2011 108-354
Council Member Schmid said the bonus floor area program targeted the
downtown area and would impact the parking structures. He raised
concerns that parking at City Hall was minimal.
Mr. Turner said users could purchase parking passes that would allow
greater parking usage in public and other garages and agreed that parking
was an issue in the downtown area.
Council Member Schmid asked how many spaces would be required for the
expanded area.
Mr. Turner said the bonus floor area was 5,000 square feet and would have
required 20 parking spaces.
Council Member Burt said a contract parking specialist was hired to support
the Transportation Department to identify underutilized parking spaces in
the downtown area. He asked how the timing of the PAL project aligned
with the task to analysis underutilized parking spaces.
Mr. Williams said the timing was good since the parking analysis would be
ongoing through the end of calendar year and PAL’s tentative plan to start
construction was in March 2012. He said the analysis had found an entire
floor at the Bryant Street garage to be designated to permit parking and
expected to finding more underutilized space.
Mayor Espinosa thanked the Pacific Art League for their consideration in
planning for the space that was needed and for respecting the historically
aspect of the building. He acknowledged PAL’s work as being an incredible
asset and resource to the community. He supported the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
16. Update of SB 375/Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for a Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) and Direction on City’s Preliminary
Response to Regional Agencies, and Update of Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) Process (Continued from July 11, 2011).
Director of Planning & Community Environment, Curtis Williams said the
item was being revisited to provide an update on the Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) effort that was put forth by the regional
agencies of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). This was in response to
Senate Bill (SB) 375 to develop regional planning principles that would tie
07/18/2011 108-355
into transportation dollars throughout the state. On March 14th, Staff
updated the Council regarding the status of the SCS and the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The agencies released the Initial Vision
Scenario (IVS) that talked about the potential 12,000 units for Palo Alto and
other perimeters through 2035 that were considered as unconstrained
scenarios. On May 4th, Staff met with the Planning and Transportation
Committee (P&TC) and developed a letter to ABAG, dated May 27th, that
reflected comments from P&TC and the Council. The intent was to review
the letter with the Council for revisions. He said in the interim the agencies
were listening to the cities in the area and developed a concept for three
alternatives scenarios to the IVS. The agencies’ intent was to develop
implications for each of the scenarios in terms of housing and employment.
The goal was to have 70 percent of the housing units in the planned development areas (PDA) and growth opportunity areas (GOA) that were
previously defined throughout the Bay Area, and 55 percent of new
employment. There was a parallel effort for the housing allocation process.
He said Council Member Scharff was the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Committee (RHNA) representative and that the Committee would provide recommendations to the ABAG Committee in November. The timeframe to
play out the alternative scenarios and have the information available to the
cities and counties was connected to the housing needs information and
analysis. He said there were many conversations and comments that were
associated to the three alternative scenarios. The scenarios were: 1)
Focused Growth would allow housing and job growth to occur primarily in
PDAs and GOAs along transit corridors in the inner Bay Area, generally
including San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties,
with some exceptions. This option anticipated 70 percent of new housing
growth and 55 percent of new employment in the region to occur in those
corridors. 2) Core Concentration would shift more growth to the regional
and city centers in the Bay Area, particularly San Francisco, Oakland and
San Jose. Density and intensity of development would be higher for those
areas than in the Focused Growth scenario. 3) Outer Bay Area Growth
would assign more growth to the PDAs and small growth centers in the outer
Bay Area and focused on increased employment opportunities and
development to emphasize walkability and access to transit opportunities.
Those elements were more limited than in the other scenarios. He said Staff
could hold meetings with RHNA Representative, Greg Scharff, and ABAG
Representative, Greg Schmid, and return to the Council in September with
specific recommendations on how to proceed.
City Manager, James Keene said the opportunity to have conversations
would help sharpen the report that will be brought back to the Council to
help with decision-making.
07/18/2011 108-356
Council Member Scharff, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Methodology Committee Representative, said RHNA quantified the need for
housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. Unit
allocations were split 70-30. The housing allocation for Palo Alto was
between 2,800 to 6,000 units. He said 70 percent of the units would go into the PDAs and GOAs that included California Avenue, El Camino Real, and the
Downtown area. The remaining 30 percent would be allocated outside of
these areas. Housing was anticipated to enhance the quality of life. Transit,
employment, and schools were the major factors that were considered to
determine the percentage of allocation. Palo Alto’s allocation was high
because it possessed a good transit system, large employment, and good
schools. Social equity groups pushed for more housing to go to areas that
had a good quality of life. Another scenario that was looked at was to mix
the three major factors within the county or regional boundaries. The region
scenario increased Palo Alto’s allocation and was estimated in the 4,000
range. He said it would necessitate lobbying and a plan from the Council to
make a change in Palo Alto’s allocation.
Bob Moss, said most of the growth was not inland but in the Bay Area cities
of San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. He said two approaches that could
reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) were to install broadband communication.
People could work at home and have the capability to communication around the world, and to install more electrical charging stations for electric
vehicles. This was the hotspot for electric vehicles. He said the Staff Report
indicated 5,720 units were in areas zoned for housing. He clarified that
there were single-family units already developed in those areas. The El
Camino area was developed for multi-use with housing units on top and
commercial on the bottom floor.
Irvin Dawid, said SB375 was a complicated issue and applied to 18
metropolitan regions in California. He said the RHNA requirements and SCS
were two separate issues. His understanding was that the SCS was a
regional element tied into the Regional Transportation Plan and did not
require cities to change their general plan to comply with SCS. He said San
Diego was the farthest along with the SB375 process and encouraged the
Council to keep watch on its progress.
Council Member Klein asked if an analysis had been done to determine
where the units would be placed in Palo Alto.
Mr. Williams said RHNA determined that 40 percent would be place in single-family neighborhoods that were already developed. The intent was not to
07/18/2011 108-357
place them where homes already existed but to place the units in transit
areas and corridors or in proximately to these areas.
Council Member Klein asked if the agencies were aware that there was no
land for the units.
Mr. Williams said this was the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) and that Palo
Alto’s reasonable numbers were increased and the additional 30 percent was
added to the allocation. He hoped the City’s data input would serve to make
changes and have the agencies realize their perception was unrealistic.
Council Member Scharff said the process was political. He said the agencies
were pressured by social justice groups who identified cities that possessed a good quality of life should get high allocations. Palo Alto was one of the
few cities that met that criteria and had PDAs and GOAs.
Council Member Klein asked who the social equity groups were.
Council Member Scharff said the Committee for Green Foothills and Eden
Housing were two vocal groups.
Mr. Williams said there were approximately 15 social equity groups that
attend regional meetings in support of affordable housing advocates and Bay
Area environmental equity groups.
Council Member Klein asked for a list of the social equity groups and asked if
other cities had adopted their views.
Council Member Scharff said there were a few cities that did not seem to
struggle with their views and did not appear they were going in the social
equity groups’ direction. There was push back in the beginning to not
include schools in regard to the quality of life but that issue had gone to the
waste side.
Council Member Burt said social equity was to insure that communities with
lower income and communities of color would not be discriminated against
and not have impositions of environmental impacts and other elements. He
raised concerns regarding the new definition that had emerged from the
social equity groups that everyone should be entitled to live in the most
desirable communities. It appeared that the regional planners knew that the
additional 30 percent of units could not be built in the R-1 zones but it was a
way to allocate their numbers and that they had fulfilled their obligation with
the state. He said there was the argument to include schools. School
07/18/2011 108-358
capacity should be a consideration as opposed to what the agencies were
advocating to drive the school age population to where capacity did not exist
and drain it from where capacity did exist. It was a backward way of
thinking and did not understand their thought process. He said when the
IVS was introduced at the County level it was noted that the scenarios’
expectation was to only have a 2 percent decrease per capita greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG) by 2035 and that SCS was a small subset of the IVS.
He asked Mr. Williams if that statement was correct.
Mr. Williams said the overall impact of the Sustainable Community Strategy
was about nine percent of the total Assembly Bill (AB)32 GHG goals.
Council Member Burt asked if that was from mobile forms.
Mr. Williams said it was from cars, light trucks, and vehicle miles traveled.
Council Member Burt needed clarification of what portion of the total GHG
would be impacted by the strategy. He said GHG was the number one driver in the scenarios and concurred with Mr. Moss’s comment regarding electric
vehicles as a source to reduce GHG. Electricity was another. Palo Alto was
ready to embrace the issue on GHG reductions. He said by 2020, Palo Alto
would have 90 percent renewable or non-GHG emitting sources and have
the cleanest of clean electricity and the most electric vehicles or hybrids.
Palo Alto needed to respond to the fact that it was a leader and did more
than meet the regional responsibilities on GHG reductions. Palo Alto also
had the broadband element, Caltrain electrification, and the Go-Pass
programs that doubled GHG reduction around transportation. ABAG was
looking at equating numbers of residents to vehicle commute trips which
was a one-dimensional approach that Palo Alto could dispute.
Council Member Shepherd spoke on the issue of schools and recalled when
she worked with the School District how the debates were active back then.
She said they knew what good education looked like, what it cost to run
schools, what room sizes were ideal and how large schools should be. At the
same time Sacramento disregarded all the facts and how things worked.
She said Palo Alto knew what a good quality of life looked like and what it
took to operate. She was concerned that Palo Alto was asked to burden
more housing. Instead of elevating a good quality of life, communities were
asked to dilute the good quality of life into the communities. She felt the
letter was on the right track and hoped Council Member Scharff could
refocus the conversation and add a political approach. She wanted to see a
political strategy mapped out and brought back for the Council’s support.
07/18/2011 108-359
Council Member Price said Palo Alto had many social and economic
advantages that were not in the reach of many throughout the region or the
state. She encouraged having conversations on what additional needs
should be considered for Palo Alto since it was being perceived as a
progressive community. Palo Alto had a large employment base that would
increase and she suggested that housing be built with smaller units to
support workers and high-tech industries. The work environment was
changing and through radical shifts the traditional models where the line
that separated housing location from work location was blurred. She asked
if Palo Alto was collaborating enough with the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group in terms of affordable housing and providing opportunities. She said
the Council was a policy-making body and should look into developing a
welcoming community and to provide a variety of housing and jobs. These were long-term decisions that needed to be made and the City had a
responsibility to address issues to the extent of making a contribution. She
wanted to review the letter closer and recommended having discussions to
more fully address the housing issue.
Council Member Schmid said the RHNA numbers differed from the SCS
number. One dealt with how to manage the population and the other was
how to build a sustainable community. He said allocations were driven by
the RHNA numbers that came from an extrapolated, demographic forecast
from the Department of Finance that projected California’s total population.
The numbers are turned over to the Department of Housing who determined
that 95 percent of the forecasted numbers needed to be in urban areas. The
numbers are forwarded to ABAG. The 2010 census data indicated that RHNA
had forecasted twice the rate of growth in the Bay Area and in Santa Clara
County. The County’s number was 50 percent higher than what RENA had
forecasted 10 years ago. The information used to forecast the 2010
numbers was the same information used in 2000. Even though it was
incorrect but the agencies felt the numbers would even out by 2020 and
2030. The population numbers changed dramatically over the last decade
and scenarios could be built on the population change instead of the
assumed numbers. He said one approach in dealing with the issue was to
explore the RHNA numbers and develop scenarios that made sense in 2020,
2030, and 2035. The scenarios could be reviewed and could move forward
in building sustainable communities.
Council Member Holman said the RHNA numbers brought focus on what was
valued in the community. She agreed that the issue needed to take on a
political process and possibly need the support from higher officials to get
different results. She felt the problem with the RHNA allocations was that it
was one size fits all. One step that had been accomplished was the
07/18/2011 108-360
placement of jobs near transit systems. People who worked used transit
more than those who lived near transit systems. She addressed the issue
on housing creation and wished one of the things that would catch on was
recognition over the fact that communities lose housing through teardowns.
Zoning ordinances should provide incentives to retain housing units. Smaller
units and rentals were the most vulnerable. She was in support of a political
strategy in turning the issue around.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if there was a way to address the fact that the City
was not confident about the population growth projections. He asked Staff if
a regional approach had been formalized in addressing issues.
Mr. Williams said the concept had come up and was reported to the Council early in the process but did not go forward due to resource constraints.
There had been discussions on how to look at issues in a broader context
and specifically talked about establishing commute sheds instead of
boundary lines. ABAG’s response was that they would look at these issues
in the alternatives.
Vice Mayor Yeh said he encouraged discussions to provide feedback as it
related to the fair-share and revised methodology.
Mayor Espinosa asked Council Member Scharff to expand on his concept
regarding increased lobbying, getting more political, ramping up
engagement and recommendations.
Council Member Scharff said the first step would be to get the Council to
agree on direction. The Mayor could form an ad hoc committee. He
suggested having a Brown Act Committee depending on what the Council
wanted. Council Members would talk to lobbying groups in the area, the
ABAG Board, and state level officials, and to make the process a priority.
Mayor Espinosa asked about a timeline.
Council Member Scharff suggested starting the process in September.
Discussions on how to proceed could begin during Council’s break. He asked
what the ABAG timeline was.
Mr. Williams said the preferred scenario was due by November 2011.
Council Member Klein said he supported the political process. He did not
think ABAG was the right venue to go to. He felt it would be necessary to go
to Sacramento to get the State to come up with a different system or else
07/18/2011 108-361
Palo Alto will end up with high numbers. He felt the process would require a
hard, difficult, and expensive campaign. There were other cities in the state
that shared Palo Alto’s attitude.
Mayor Espinosa said he clearly heard from the Council Members the need for
increased political engagement.
Council Member Price asked Mr. Williams to restate the methodology in
terms of Countywide versus every city on their own in response to the
numbers that were handed in their direction. She asked what the timeframe
was when more comprehensive discussions could take place.
Mr. Williams said the initial inclination was for the Planning Directors to have discussions with City Managers and Council Members and to try to schedule
discussions for the next RHNA cycle, which was expanded from five to eight
years by SB375. There would be focus on the current SCS with RHNA. The
City would not have the opportunity to establish a sub-regional approach
until late 2012 or 2013.
Council Member Price said her understanding was that the City of San Mateo
was quick in getting a methodology.
Mr. Williams said the City of San Mateo already had a formalized inner
agency process that dealt with their regional transportation Congestion
Management Agency (CMA). Palo Alto did not have an inner structure
process.
NO ACTION REQUIRED
17. Recommendation from Policy & Services Committee Regarding
Adoption of Two Resolutions Calling a Special Election for November 8,
2011 Submitting to the Electorate; (1) Resolution 9189 A Measure To
Eliminate Binding Interest Arbitration Requirements for Disputes with
Public Safety Employees by Repealing Article V of the City Charter, and
(2) A Measure To Substantially Modify Binding Interest Arbitration
Requirements for Disputes with Public Safety Employees by Amending
Article V of the City Charter; and Adoption of an Ordinance Adding
Section 2.36.040 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Impartial
Mediation for Impasses in Labor Contract Negotiations.
City Attorney, Molly Stump gave a brief summary of what was being
presented before the Council. She stated when Council last heard the item
on June 20, 2011; they directed the Policy & Service Committee to prepare
07/18/2011 108-362
recommendation language for two Charter Amendments; 1) to appeal Article
V of the Palo Alto City Charter and 2) to substantially modify the language in
Article V of the Palo Alto City Charter. The Staff had put together and
presented to the Committee a menu of several different options compiled
through surveying several Binding Interest Arbitration provisions done in
other jurisdictions, interviews with experts and practitioners, and academics
of varying view points. The Committee had reviewed the Staff
recommendations and directed Staff as to which elements they wanted
included in the two Charter Amendments. Staff had drafted two Charter
Amendments and a companion Ordinance and brought the language back to
the Committee for their review. There were modifications and changes to the
drafts prior to being submitted to the Council for review and approval. She
stated the Ordinance before the Council was to repeal Article V from the Charter in its entirety; the effect of language would be to place Public Safety
bargaining on the same footing as non-safety bargaining in Palo Alto, the
language was the same as stated under State law. The City would be
obligated to bargain, to meet or confer, in good faith with Safety over all
items in the Mandatory Scope of Bargaining which were wages, hours, and terms of conditions of employment. If an impasse was reached the City
would be able to implement its last, best, and final offer, which was the
State law minimum process required. She clarified the repeal Charter
Amendment before the Council provided it would be effective on its earliest
possible effective date which was upon certification of the election results
and filing with the Secretary of State, the repeal would apply to all labor
negotiations and Arbitration proceedings that may be in process that had not
progressed to the point of a binding decision under the old rules. The
Committee requested Staff draft an Ordinance that set-up mandatory non-
binding mediation and be accompanied with the repeal. She stated there
was a question on whether the items before the Council require mediation
for all bargaining units in Palo Alto at the point where an impasse in contract
negotiations may occur. The process would be that mediation would be
required for a short period of time, the parties would not be required to use
the process if they both agreed, and if any issues which were not resolved
by agreement through the mediation would then be under the State law rule
and the City would then be able to implement its last, best, and final offer.
She noted the Ordinance before Council was ready for adoption if the Council
was ready to move in that direction. The Ordinance could be adopted tonight
although would not have any legal effect or force until the voters repealed
the Interest Arbitration. She stated the second item before Council was a
Charter Amendment to substantially modify Interest Arbitration. She clarified
this Charter Amendment retained Interest Arbitration for Public Safety
subject to comprehensive and substantial modifications. She explained the
primary modifications as; 1) the Charter Amendment limited Arbitration to
07/18/2011 108-363
compensation issues arising in contract negotiations it excludes all other
issues, 2) the modifications to Article V would require the negotiations to
begin in time to be completed consistent with the budget, it would require
Arbitrators’ to have additional qualifications; they needed to be attorney’s
licensed in California and members of the National Arbitrator’s Association,
the Amendment would adopt the Mediation/Arbitration (Med/Arb) form of
Arbitration which put Mediation and Arbitration into the single neutral
Arbitrator and allowed the body to flow between both functions of
Arbitration. The Amendment required the Arbitrator to base his/her decision
on the City’s officially adopted financial documentation unless a labor
organization were to show by clear and convincing evidence that there were
errors or omissions in the documents. She noted the clear and convincing
level was a higher level than what was traditionally required. The Arbitrator was required to consider the City’s total need for funds including all of the
services, programs, and activities in which the City provided; debt service,
supplies, equipment, infrastructure needs, and its reasonable reserves. The
Arbitrator was also required to review the City’s financial document to view
the projected situation with respect to revenues, growth, contraction, and identify the revenues which were likely to be available to meet the cost of
the contract. Finally the Arbitrator was required to consider the total cost of
providing the compensation and benefits in the contract, including the City’s
cost for items which may not be new. The Arbitrator had a list of factors that
he/she was to consider when making decisions on all items in dispute; 1) the
City’s ability to meet the total cost of the contract from ongoing revenues
without reducing services, 2) the City’s ability to recruit and retain
employees, 3) the total compensation and the rate of increase or decrease
for other bargaining units and unrepresented employees, 4) the total
compensation of employees performing similar services in other
jurisdictions, and 5) the rate of increase or decrease in the cost of living.
She stated there was a list of decisions the Arbitrator may not in any case
make, the Arbitrator shall not 1) fund ongoing benefits from a one time
source, 2) create any new or additional unfunded liability, 3) undermine
internal equity among related classifications in the City’s compensation and
class system, 4) disturb key compensation relationships within the class and
compensation system or cause or exacerbate compaction with other class or
units, 5) the Arbitrator shall not provide any retroactive increases in
compensation, 6) shall not provide compensation beyond available and
projected revenue growth, and 7) shall not issue an award that was
reasonably likely to cause the City to default on legal obligations. The
following were new provisions; 1) the Arbitration would need to be open for
observation to the public and the documents submitted in Arbitration would
be public record, 2) the Amendment provided for court review for abuses of
discretion, 3) the Charter Amendment would be effective upon certification
07/18/2011 108-364
of the results and filing with the Secretary of State, it would apply to all
proceedings in which had not reached the point of being submitted to the
Arbitrator for final decision. She noted there was a question presented to her
on whether the Charter Amendment could be combined with a mandatory
mediation Ordinance. The answer was yes, although Staff had not prepared
such an Ordinance. If Council directed Staff to draft such an Ordinance they
could return at a subsequent meeting with an Ordinance that would require
mediation.
Council Member Price stated the Policy & Services Committee voted 4-0 on
both items without regard to personal opinion in order to move both
Resolutions forward for Council review.
Tony Spitaleri requested the Council adhere to the California Government
Code. Government Code 3507 which was a part of the Meyers-Millias-Brown
Act stating that a public agency must consult in good faith with
representatives of a recognized employee organization before adopting
procedures for the resolution of disputes involving wages, hours, and other
terms of condition of employment. He noted Government Code 3507A and
other sections under 3500 deemed any public agency needed to provide
reasonable written notice to each recognized employee organization effected
of any Ordinance, Resolution, rule or regulation directly relating to the
matter of scope of representation proposed of being adopted by the governing body, the designated Board or Commission, and shall give the
recognized employee organization the opportunity to meet with the party of
the Boards or Commission.
Council Member Burt stated there was a press release published by Mr.
Spitaleri in which he noted Council Member Scharff had voted to reject the
offer presented by Mr. Spitaleri during the Closed Session. He asked for an
explanation as to the assertion.
Mr. Spitaleri stated his team was informed that their offer was rejected prior
to the Council meeting where Council Member Scharff made the following
statement; we do not have a budget until we see what the Police Officer’s
and the Fire Fighter’s do as far as concessions in the agreement. He stated
that Council Member Scharff’s comment sounded as if he had rejected the
proposal.
Council Member Burt stated he was not concerned with what a Council
Member stated during an open meeting, he was requesting clarification
regarding how Mr. Spitaleri had knowledge regarding a vote a Council Member took during a Closed Session.
07/18/2011 108-365
Mr. Spitaleri stated he was unaware of Council Member Scharff’s vote during
the Closed Session; although, he knew how matters were conducted in a
Closed Session through his experience with the City of Sunnyvale. He made
the assumption that when the Council rejected their proposal and Council
Member Scharff had made a statement to their Public Relations person that
there was no deal if there was not Binding Arbitration.
Council Member Burt requested the statements made in the press release be
corrected since it was clear there was no inside knowledge of how Council
Member Scharff voted on the matter during the Closed Session.
Bob Moss stated he felt it would be cleaner to merely place the repeal on the Ballot. He stated revising Arbitration was an improvement over the current
situation, although few of the voters would understand what was being
proposed. Whether the repeal or the modification went to the Ballot he felt
having mandatory mediation was a good approach. He noted the points that
were listed for mediation were unclear. He agreed that the mediation process should be provided across the board with all employee
organizations.
Herb Borock stated the proposed Ordinance in mediation had been linked to
whether or not the Binding Arbitration was repealed. However, the non-
Public Safety represented employees did not have an impasse procedure. He
felt in order to be constant; there should be two Ordinances; one for the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) represented employee
organizations and the proposed Binding Arbitration Ordinance. He stated
there was no reason to provide binding mediation for the SEIU employees
based upon whether the Public Safety employees had an Arbitration
procedure. He noted in the proposed Charter Amendment language for the
modification, section 8 stated the provisions of the article were not severable
and if any portion were declared invalid, all provisions would be declared
inoperable and invalid. He felt section 8 should end with that point.
Council Member Price stated under section 3; an obligation to negotiate in
good faith, there was a proposal for a portion of the sentence to be
eliminated: Including the establishment of procedures, for the resolution of
grievances. She asked for clarification on the results of the proposed
language modification, and how there would be a process to establish
procedures for the resolution of grievances if the language was deleted as
proposed.
07/18/2011 108-366
Ms. Stump stated the deleted language was essentially a restatement of
State law and was not intended to have any substantive effect. The current
contracts for both Safety Units provided for Binding Arbitration of
grievances, alleging that there had been a violation of the contract itself.
She noted the City’s merit rules also provided for Arbitration of grievances.
She read the new language as: The City and recognized Fire and Police
Department employee organizations through their duly authorized
representatives shall negotiate in good faith on matters within the scope of
representation under the Meyers-Millias-Brown Act including the establishment
of procedures for the resolution of grievances submitted by either employee
organization over the interpretation or application of any negotiated
agreement including a provision for Binding Arbitration of those grievances
and shall endeavor to reach agreement prior to the City’s adoption of it’s
final budget for the ensuing year. She stated this verbiage may clarify that
the intent of the modification was not to alter the grievance procedures
which were currently in place.
Council Member Holman asked how many cities had retained Binding Arbitration within the State of California.
City Manager, James Keene stated Staff’s understanding was there were 22
out of 120 Charter Cities’ and a total of 482 cities within the State of
California.
Ms. Stump stated the City of San Luis Obispo which did have Binding
Arbitration had placed a repeal on the Ballot for the August election.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Klein
to: 1) adopt a Resolution calling a special election for November 8, 2011, to
submit to the electorate a measure to amend Article V of the Charter to
substantially modify the Binding Interest Arbitration requirement for disputes
with Public Safety employee organizations, and 2) the City and recognized
Fire and Police Department employee organizations through their duly
authorized representatives shall negotiate in good faith on matters within
the scope of representation under the Meyers-Millias-Brown Act including the
establishment of procedures for the resolution of grievances submitted by
either employee organization over the interpretation or application of any
negotiated agreement including a provision for binding arbitration of those
grievances and shall endeavor to reach agreement prior to the City’s
adoption of its final budget for the ensuing year.
Council Member Price stated it was critical to support the modifications of Binding Arbitration rather than repeal Article V of the Charter. She felt in
07/18/2011 108-367
fairness to Public Safety they were unable to strike and therefore Binding
Arbitration was a recognized form of conflict resolution and all parties were
engaged in the process. She noted Binding Arbitration had not been over
used in Palo Alto. She encouraged her Colleagues to support the Motion.
Council Member Klein stated the current mandatory Arbitration was put into
place over 30 years past and was sponsored by labor groups. He felt the
underlying premise had merit which was as mentioned earlier that the Public
Safety could not strike and thus to provide some type of balance they need
protection, although not nearly as much as was currently in the Charter. He
felt the reform Ordinance drafted by the Staff struck a good balance
employee rights and management of the City. He noted a straight repeal did
not cover the fairness issue and labor laws were complicated.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by
Council Member Scharff to adopt a Resolution calling a special election for
November 8, 2011 to submit to the electorate a measure to repeal Article V
of the City Charter to eliminate the Binding Interest Arbitration requirement for disputes with Public Safety employee organizations, and a companion
Ordinance adding section 2.36.040 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to require
non-binding mediation for impasses in labor negotiations with all recognized
employee organizations.
Council Member Holman stated the repeal of the Binding Interest Arbitration
was a matter of governance and she felt the purpose of the City Council was
accurately depicted in the first Whereas on the top of page two of the
proposed Resolution which stated: WHEREAS, because the City Council is
duly elected by the electorate of the City of Palo Alto to exercise all powers
necessary and appropriate to a municipal corporation and the general
welfare of its inhabitants, the Council finds and declares that it is in the best
interest of the City, consistent with principles of sound management and
fiscal responsibility, and to the fullest extent permitted by State law, to vest
in the duly elected City Council final decision making authority over and
management of the City's agreements governing wages, hours or terms and
conditions of City employment. She noted in the private sector negotiations
occur frequently and there was not an issue of fairness that generally came
into play. The Civil Grand Jury recently recommended cities eliminate
Binding Arbitration. She stated it was not a matter of how infrequent Binding
Arbitration had been used, but how frequently negotiations had been
restrained because of its presence.
Council Member Scharff stated in all fairness 95 percent of other cities did
not have Binding Arbitration and he was certain their employees were
07/18/2011 108-368
treated fairly. He noted the Council had every intention of being fair to their
employees and having the threat of Binding Arbitration made it more difficult
to plan and move forward on decisions where the Council needed to be. He
stated repealing Binding Arbitration was a clear move for the public where
the modifications were not as clear and could raise questions as to why
certain issues were in the modification.
Council Member Shepherd stated she did not agree that Palo Alto was in a
situation with the Fire Department because of Binding Arbitration. She felt
there were multiple reasons why the situation was where it was. She did not
feel it was appropriate to make a decision for Palo Alto based on what other
cities were doing. She felt if a labor organization had no right to strike then
it was appropriate for the City Charter to have a mechanism in place for some partiality in order to negotiate with equity. Her support for the
modification was based on the fact that it brought a form of equity into play
for the employee organizations.
Council Member Burt stated without Binding Arbitration there were governances which needed to be followed by Fair Labor Practice
requirements, the type of pensions that could be offered under California
Public Employment Retirement System (CalPERS), and the lack of Binding
Arbitration did not strip the unions of fair negotiating rights. He noted the
essential service employees in the Utilities Department were in the same
situation where they were unable to strike. He stated for the Colleagues who
were favoring the reform measure, the President of the Firefighters Union
had publicly stated that every provision which made it a fair process was
stripped away in the proposal. He stated the Police Department had not
been heard from with respect to Binding Arbitration thereby they had spoken
by way of not addressing the issue. He stated there was a concern with the
reform proposal; it created complexity and ambiguity in some elements and
to a limited degree it left the City open to legal challenges.
Council Member Schmid stated Public Safety was a special part of the
working members; no one had disagreed with that fact. He felt the Council
over time had shown in pension, salary, and benefits how important their
positions were. As a Council Member there was a need to protect the value
of the City’s future obligations, both to its Public Safety workers and to all of
the employees. He noted over the past four years the budget had been the
most pressing consistent issue due to continuing declining revenues while
external costs continue to rise. The Binding Arbitration created a situation
with little incentive to make substantial concessions during a time period like
the City has been experiencing. The burden of adjustment needed to be
taken on by the other bargaining groups. He had concluded after careful
07/18/2011 108-369
consideration that there should be an end to mandatory Binding Arbitration.
Mayor Espinosa asked the City Attorney to confirm whether or not there was
non-compliance with Government Code 3500.
Ms. Stump stated there was not a threat of non-compliance. The California
Courts of Appeal had interpreted that provision in light of the question of
Binding Arbitration and have held that Binding Arbitration was not a matter
that was within the mandatory scope of bargaining although was an optional
item that jurisdictions could provide or not provide.
Mayor Espinosa stated the list of reform options had brought controversy
and he asked what areas Staff could discuss that may put the City at legal risk.
Ms. Stump stated when procedures were described with complexity, factors,
or drew boundaries there could be areas of disagreement on how to apply
the procedure in any given case. She felt the language was well drafted, clear, and believed it was enforceable although there was no promise of any
disputes.
Mayor Espinosa stated no matter how the vote was derived, he felt the need
to assure the employees of the City they were appreciated and valued. The
policy should not be seen as not valuing the significant contribution made to
the City each day by those who put their lives at risk to ensure the safety
and well being of the citizens. He stated his support for the modification
option.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the notion of mandatory mediation was appealing
because there was a process. He stated the Substitute Motion included
mandatory mediation. He asked whether the original Motion discussed
during the Policy and Services Committee considered mandatory mediation,
which addressed fairness across all of the labor units.
Council Member Price stated mandatory mediation had been discussed in
general purpose by the Committee, in the vote taken three of the Members
were in favor of having the draft Ordinance tied to the repeal language
proposal. She stated in concept she supported the mandatory mediation
across the bargaining units.
Council Member Klein stated the concept of mandatory mediation was not
mandatory and was the default position unless both sides agreed to not use
mediation. He stated his decision for Arbitration was for it to no longer be a
07/18/2011 108-370
bargaining tool by placing it as a default position. He clarified it was not
placed in the reform measure because the Committee chose
Mediation/Arbitration.
Council Member Holman stated in speaking to the Substitute Motion with
respect to mediation, it was to require non-binding mediation. She stated it
was to try to reach fair agreement and make all best attempts to come to
agreement with the negotiating team and the bargaining units. She noted
the reason for this being upfront was to be an indication to all of the
bargaining units that this was good faith putting it out now rather than
waiting until after a decision had been made by the electorate.
Council Member Burt asked for clarification on mandatory mediation. He asked whether the intent was across all bargaining units.
Ms. Stump stated that was correct. The Ordinance before Council described
the Municipal Code change although Council Member Klein was describing an
alternative that Council may wish to consider in the future if the Council adopted the Resolution proposing modification. If the Council adopted the
modification option they could direct Staff to return with an Ordinance
adding mandatory or default mediation for all for those issues not subject to
the new scope of Arbitration.
Council Member Burt stated it was not a concern as to whether mediation
could be added to the reform as it was would mediation be applied to all
bargaining units across the board. He stated the answer was yes, according
to this reform proposal.
Ms. Stump stated as the reform was drafted, yes it would if repeal were put
on the Ballot and approved by the voters.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated for the original Motion mandatory mediation was not
built into the drafted language. He asked whether that would be addressed
at a future date.
Ms. Stump stated yes, if directed Staff could return on a future date with
language drafted to reflect that desire.
Mr. Keene stated mandatory mediation was not part of the original Motion.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated his concern was if mandatory mediation was not
included in the original Motion. He stated in the Substitute Motion there were
clear parameters across all labor units.
07/18/2011 108-371
Council Member Klein stated there could be an Amendment to the main
Motion to include mandatory mediation. He stated as the seconder he would
have no issue accepting.
Council Member Price stated her agreement as the Maker as well.
Council Member Scharff stated there was Mediation/Arbitration built in to the
Motion which was a completely different aspect of having mediation and
Arbitration occurring simultaneously. He noted in order to add mandatory
mediation the mediation portion of the Mediation/Arbitration would need to
be removed.
Council Member Klein stated the City Attorney had addressed that concern
by the mediation being on all of the issues that were not arbitrated. The
language would be different but the result would be the same. He stated the
Mediation/Arbitration approach would achieve more in mediation since
he/she could decide to Arbitrate as necessary.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated he was aligned with the fair treatment across all labor
groups and to the extent that if the language was not before them his
interest was how could something be crafted that would ensure mandatory
mediation across the non-Public Safety labor groups.
Ms. Stump stated if Council were to direct Staff to draft an Ordinance
requiring mediation for non safety groups it could be completed quickly and
it would be effective right away. She suggested the Council might wish to
extend mandatory mediation to those aspects for the labor relations of the
safety group which had now been carved out of the Arbitration.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated it was important to place before the voters something
that was simple and clear. He stated he did not necessarily support repeal
although to the extent that mandatory non-binding mediation made sense
within the City regardless of the existing terms of Arbitration. He stated for
those reasons he was supportive of the Substitute Motion.
Council Member Price stated the Council could direct Staff to create an
Ordinance indicating a requirement of non-binding mediation for all non-
Public Safety unions as a separate free-standing Ordinance. This mediation
would then be an option for Public Safety to resolve their differences. If that
were to occur, would it be sufficient for Vice Mayor Yeh to vote in favor of
modification.
07/18/2011 108-372
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the separate Ordinance would meet his concerns
although that was not an option brought before Council.
Council Member Holman stated the reason behind adding the mediation in
the repeal option was to add fairness. She felt the mediation combined with
the repeal assisted in the overall achievement of parity among all of the
labor organizations. She stated an indication of best practices was the
people across the State of California had decided to repeal Binding
Arbitration. She added to the term of simplicity; the reform language was
five pages long which left room for subjectivity by the Arbitrator.
Council Member Shepherd stated her understanding was it was clear the
mediation piece could be added to the reform easily. She stated she was supportive of the reform initiative if the mediation Ordinance was added.
Council Member Klein stated on mediation the two options were equal,
mediation could be made available to all of the bargaining units and it had to
be mandatory unless both sides opted out. When you get to repeal versus reform in simplicity repeal was simpler, he noted reform was not that
difficult to understand. In the repeal option harm could be done to the
employees who now have fewer rights.
Council Member Holman disagreed that there were fewer rights with the
repeal option. The mediation included in the Substitute Motion was the same
mediation across all bargaining units where the mediation included in the
original Motion was only for mediation for those items in which were not
subject to Arbitration. She noted while it maybe perceived as more fair to
the safety units to reform rather than to repeal; the obligation as elected
officials was to be most fair to the electorate.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 5-4 Burt, Holman Schmid, Scharff, Yeh
yes
18. Colleagues’ Memo from Council Members Burt and Klein to Request for
the City Council to Direct the City Clerk to Reopen the Recruitment for
the Planning & Transportation Commission and Contact the Remaining
Two Applicants to be Interviewed at the Conclusion of the Recruitment.
Council Member Klein said initially there were three applications for the
Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) vacancy. Two withdrew
with only one remaining. He suggested reopening the application process.
07/18/2011 108-373
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to direct the City Clerk to go back out and recruit for the open
positions, and to keep the current applicant on file.
Council Member Holman said her support for the Motion was not out of
disrespect for the applicant who had submitted an application and remained
as a candidate. She suggested asking early on in the process to reopen or
extend the application period when there were only a few candidates who
applied for any position. She recalled through past experience of having
very few P&TC applicants. She said the Planning & Transportation
Commission was a lot of work and people needed to understand the
commitment that was required. She said that message needed to get across
to applicants as Staff moved forward to reopen the application period.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXX to have Staff return to the City Council in the fall with a plan
for strategic outreach for Board and Commission recruitments to include a
much wider audience.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
18b. (Former No. 10) Approval of a Contract with Clean Harbors
Environmental Services, Inc. in the Amount of $418,000 Per Year for
Household Hazardous Waste Management and Emergency Response
Services.
City Manager, James Keene said the contract was for a multi-year, up to
three years, for the household hazardous waste program. He said a letter
was received to have the Council direct Staff to evaluate and reduce
program and operational costs by eliminating redundancy and implementing
Environmental Permitting Regulation (EPR) solutions. Staff wanted to
continue with the household hazardous waste program. He suggested that
the Council approve the item as drafted with the understanding that it was
subject to the City Manager’s determination that if any modification should
be made to the contract within the first year, the City Manager could return
to the Council with the modification for approval. He felt it would be difficult
to work through marketing and policy issues in the first year without
modifying the contract.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to approve the contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services,
07/18/2011 108-374
Inc. in the Amount of $418,000 per year for household hazardous waste
management and emergency response services, and if any modification to
the contract is requested within the first year, the City Manager will bring it
back to the City Council for approval.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Shepherd stated she wanted the community to know that
she supports them being able to vote on the binding arbitration issue.
Council Member Burt spoke about the opening of the new Downtown Library and was overwhelmed by the upgrades done.
Mayor Espinosa stated that he was also pleased with the new Downtown
Library and Staff is working on a hard hat tour for Council of the new
Mitchell Park library.
Vice Mayor Yeh expressed appreciation to Staff for their work on the
Downtown Library.
Council Member Price asked if Council would be able to obtain a copy of the
joint report by the police and fire chiefs within the county in response to the
Grand Jury report that came out 6-8 months ago.
City Manager, James Keene answered yes and stated Staff will circulate the
City’s response to the Grand Jury reports that have been provided to the
City.
The City Council adjourned into the Closed Session at 11:44 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION
18b. (Former No. 2) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch,
Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association
(PAPMA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
07/18/2011 108-375
The City Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:38 A.M. and
Mayor Espinosa advised no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:39 A.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
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.