Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-06 City Council Summary Minutes 1 9/06/2011 Special Meeting September 6, 2011 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 P.M. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd Absent: Yeh CLOSED SESSION City Manager, James Keene stated there was an expectation the Closed Sessions would be longer than the scheduled allotted time. He recommended the labor portions of the Closed Sessions be continued to the end of the Council meeting. Mayor Espinosa confirmed the Council would adjourn to the Closed Session for an hour and if there were items that needed to be continued they would be continued to the end of the Council meeting. Council Member Schmid stated the agenda read the Closed Sessions were from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Assistant City Clerk, Beth Minor stated the agenda had no specific start time for the regular meeting to begin. Tony Spitaleri recommended the proposal of Agenda Item No. 1 be supported by the Council. He stated their support would provide an opportunity for the involved groups to create a modification to the Binding Arbitration provision that everyone could be in support of. 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto, Public Employee Relations Board Case No. SF-CE-869-M 2 09/06/2011 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 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) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 2785 Park Blvd., Assessors Parcel No. 147-08-052 Negotiating Party: Essex Park Boulevard, LLC City Negotiators: James Keene, Steve Emslie, Lalo Perez Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 2747 Park Blvd., Assessors Parcel No. 132-31-071 Negotiating Party: Brown Fairchild-Park Investment Company, L.P. City Negotiators: James Keene, Steve Emslie, Lalo Perez Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment The City Council reconvened from the Closed Sessions at 7:44 P.M. and Mayor Espinosa advised no reportable action. He also advised that the Closed Sessions regarding labor negotiations and existing litigation would be heard at the end of the meeting. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission for One Unexpired Term Ending on January 31, 2014. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Mayor Espinosa to interview all candidates for the Library Advisory Commission for one unexpired term ending on January 31, 2014. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Yeh absent Council Member Klein asked about Nancy Clark’s application as it appeared to be from the Storm Drain Oversight Committee. 3 09/06/2011 Assistant City Clerk, Beth Minor explained that it was an older application and that Ms. Clark was indeed applying for the Library Oversight Commission. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager, James Keene spoke regarding: 1) the Annual Moonlight Walk to be held September 9th, 2) the art project on King Plaza by Mildred Howard, and 3) the Children’s Theatre sold 27,000 tickets in the 2011 season and the 2012 season was now open. Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated on September 11, 2011 the City would be hosting a tribute to those who lost their lives during the 9-11 attacks at Newell and Embarcadero. Mr. Keene stated that Airport Day would be held on the morning of the 10th and the Quakeville Emergency exercise was scheduled for the evening of the 10th through the morning of the 11th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Mayor Espinosa to approve the minutes of June 20 and 27, 2011, and July 11 and 18, 2011. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include the following correction to the minutes of July 11, 2011, page 24, third paragraph, end of the second sentence; “...same resources or revenues to use UUT.”, change to “…..same resources or revenues as in the past.” MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Yeh absent ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ronna Devincenci spoke regarding the need for walkable corridors in the California Avenue district. She noted the current situation in the area was dangerous and the reduction of lanes of traffic flow was the best way to reduce the dangers to pedestrians. Matthew Fremont spoke regarding the sale of 1,800 acres in East Palo Alto. The developer interested in purchasing the property was attempting to build 100 units per acre which would more than double the density and disrupt the views of Menlo Park and the Crescent Park area of Palo Alto. 4 09/06/2011 CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to approve Agenda Item Nos. 3-7. 3. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Comment Letter to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) Regarding Caltrain Electrification Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 4. Resolution 9198: entitled: “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to Execute a Title 16 Grant Funding Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation for Planning and Environmental Studies for the Proposed Recycled Water Project to Serve the Stanford Research Park.” 5. Ordinance 5126: entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Dissolving the Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency.” (First Reading July 25, 2011 - Passed 8-0 Schmid absent) 6. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 18 Extending the Term of the Rail Shuttle Bus Administration Agreement With the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Through 6/30/2012 and Increasing the Cumulative Expenditure Limit by $50,000 for a Total of $2,825,264. 7. Ordinance 5127: entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for a Zone Change of a 1,565 Square Foot Parcel From PF (Public Facility) to ROLM (Research Office Limited Manufacturing) at 200 San Antonio Avenue.” (First Reading August 1, 2011 - Passed 7-0 Price, Scharff absent) MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Yeh absent ACTION ITEMS 8. Consideration of Development Center Blueprint Recommendations and Actions. Deputy City Manager, Steve Emslie summarized the Staff recommendations for the Development Center (DC) improvements. He stated there were five personnel additions; a management position, a Development Center Official, and three project managers. He gave a brief presentation on the processes and the different types of projects that went through the Development Center for approval. 5 09/06/2011 John Barton, DC Customer Advisory Group Chair stated in order to have a smooth implementation it was imperative to have the top level of management in the DC to maintain the flow of work and progress. He stated until the Department Heads agree with and participate in the changes there would be friction in the process. He stated the greatest concern for the project to be implemented was the funding of the five new positions, if there was no funding then the plan did not exist. He made note that no matter the timeframe to receive a building permit the City received the same amount of funds, the possibility of receiving more funds to the City was dependant on a fully functioning and smooth running Development Center. The potential for cost recover was very high with the addition of the requested positions. George Arimes stated every community had development processes and decisions on how to improve their communities; the difference with Palo Alto was the partnership approach. There was a very important partnership between the Staff performing the work, the customers who understood the problems, and the support of the Department Directors. Director of Planning & Community Environment, Curtis Williams spoke regarding the updated technology and the importance of the customer finding the software easy to use. He stated the technology being reviewed for self-help, online permitting, and for web information was being designed to meet each step of the process and for quick updates. The second question was how much Staff time would be dedicated to updating the information. He noted the new process was for the data to be updated as the applications were submitted thereby becoming part of the standard process moving forward. The third question was, would there be paper back-up of the information. He noted there would be paper back-up for a period of time; following the Records Retention Schedule. The fourth question was would technology reduce the volume of the Development Center visits by increasing the counter permits in all departments. He noted the system would reduce the current scenario of having multiple Development Center visits for single over the counter type applications. The fifth question was once the Development Center was fully automated would there be a reduction in Staff. He noted Staffing would not be reduced based on the online capabilities; the primary benefit to the online services would be the reduction of wait time for the customers. The sixth question was how would cross training be addressed with other departments. He noted the three project manager positions were being trained to perform cross departmental activities so that they may communicate between departments and resolve issues that arose between them. The seventh question was how the new process would minimize the code interpretation inconsistency. He noted the new process would not modify any codes; the Development Services Official 6 09/06/2011 would be responsible for ensuring consistency with interpretations in applications and the codes. Judith Wasserman spoke on the downturn of the Palo Alto development process from the late 1960’s to date. She noted her personal experiences with the Development Center from then to now and mentioned she was a participant in the pilot program. She stated the process was in need of change for the better and the program being proposed was a successful one. Council Member Price asked for an explanation as to why some of the efficiencies could not be implemented more easily without adding additional management positions to the process. City Manager, James Keene stated there were times when it was clear why management was needed and he felt this was one of those examples. He clarified there was only the addition of one management position; the senior management position of the Development Center Official or Director. There was currently a contracted employee who was referenced as the Permit Manager in charge of interacting with the customers and maintaining the consistent flow of the DC. He stated the key position was the Development Director who had the ability to convene Department Directors if need be to resolve matters. He reviewed customer satisfaction surveys from 2008 through to 2010 and noted the satisfaction ratings were low and he felt the process being undertaken would greatly improve those ratings. Council Member Scharff stated during his campaign for the City Council the most frequent complaint he heard was regarding the Development Center. He agreed the efforts being made by the Staff to correct the customer satisfaction issues were well thought out. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve the actions discussed in the Staff Report and to direct Staff to return to Council with appropriate budget amendments to implement the recommended Development Center Blueprint project to streamline and modernize the City of Palo Alto’s permit process, focusing on improving the customer satisfaction and regulatory efficiency. Council Member Scharff thanked Mr. Barton for the efforts he had put forth and stated his appreciation for bringing the community into the change process. Council Member Shepherd stated she was happy to second the Motion and owed her change of heart to the Staffs hard work in making every effort to clear up errors and answer questions from Council. She understood Palo Alto 7 09/06/2011 was a complex City but she felt it was a small community and fixing such an important part of its function was critical. She stated during the presentation there was a concept about wanting to know how the community felt during the process; she stated there needed to be quantitative analysis results that could be measured. She asked if the Staff was keeping track of repeat applicants at the Development Center. She would like to see the applicant needing to return less times for the same project. Mr. Emslie stated Staff accepted that direction as an assignment and would report back to the Council with the results. Council Member Burt stated concern that there appeared to not be benchmarking to other cities. He noted he had not seen ample material that the additional Staffing was essential. He stated there was currently a backlog of permits but no mention of what would be necessary to alleviate the backlog. He clarified additional Staffing would eliminate the backlog, but unless there was a continued growth there was no need for additional Staffing for maintenance. Mr. Emslie stated the customer foot traffic had increased dramatically and the wait times being experienced was a direct result of not having the adequate Staffing. Council Member Burt stated Mr. Barton had alluded to a backlog of permits, was there not a backlog to speak of. Mr. Emslie stated yes, there was a backlog although it could be managed. The City continued to contract services like plan checks, and much of the backlog was handled by various contracted services. He noted once the backlog was completed the contracts with those services would be eliminated. Council Member Burt asked for clarification between the Permit Center Manager and the Development Services Official and what their different job functions would be. Mr. Keene stated the Development Center Services Director was of Department Head authority in a peer to peer relationship with the number of Directors who own a piece of the Development Center. They had the capacity to assist in ensuring the systems in place remained functional. He stated the Permit Center Manager acted in the capacity of a floor manager, assisting in pushing through the workflow and being very customer focused. 8 09/06/2011 Council Member Burt asked whether one of them was not necessarily a new position. Mr. Keene stated that was correct, the Permit Center Manager was currently a non-permanent Staff position filled by a contracted employee. Council Member Burt stated the Development Services Center Director’s function was being in charge of the entire center and having the authority to cause other departments to get aligned with the needs of the centers’ customers. He asked how much of an issue organization was for the City and how much of the issues were caused because other departments were not on board. Mr. Keene stated in concept the Department Director’s were on board with the program. He stated the transition into the routine problem solving, operational aspect of the Development Center where there were complex permitting processes occurring on a daily basis could be a break down. Mr. Williams stated there had been an effort over the past few years bringing the plan checkers and inspectors together to work more efficiently. He noted the process was not complete as of yet and that was why the role of the Project Managers were so important; they were intended to assist the customer from the application submittal to the close out of the inspection. Council Member Burt clarified the increase in customer satisfaction from 2009 to 2010 was because of the joining of the inspectors and the plan checkers and some alterations within the Development Center. Mr. Williams stated that was correct, and he noted there had been a pilot program using the Project Manager approach with more than a couple dozen projects that had great success. Council Member Burt stated his understanding of the Development Center was it was a revenue neutral function. He stated with the increased volume of projects there was a surplus being generated; the proposal was to both complete reforms and additional resources to improve the performance of the department. He asked if Staff was clear that the customers were comfortable with maintaining the current fee structure if in exchange they received better services in coordination, efficiencies, and reduced cycle time. Mr. Barton stated the answer was an absolute yes. Time was unbelievably important and the quicker the permit and inspection process was the less cost there was to the customer. 9 09/06/2011 Council Member Burt stated within the costs of permitting, a prior survey was done on where Palo Alto was with regard to solar permitting versus surrounding communities. He stated he had not seen any information of utilizing the possible surplus to become more aligned with other communities on reduced fees and a reduced complexity to the permitting system which in turn would be a reduced cost to the customer. Building Official, Larry Perlin stated in the 2011 Fee Schedule there was a reduction in the Photo Voltaic permitting fees, both on the residential and commercial sides as well as the electric vehicle charge stations. He confirmed Palo Alto fees were now at average with the other cities surveyed. Council Member Burt stated he wished to see Palo Alto rise above average. He asked whether the fees for Thermal Solar were reduced as well. Mr. Perlin stated he believed the fees for the solar hot water were not adjusted although they were not at a high rate. Council Member Burt stated there were issues and complaints from citizens on the complexity with solar permitting. Mr. Keene stated with the Council priority on sustainability he felt it was appropriate to commit to looking at the key areas of indicators as to what the City was doing to achieve the objectives of the Council. He stated on a side note, at the end of the redesign process for the Development Center he wanted to be able to report to Council on where the center was in terms of satisfaction. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Mayor Espinosa to call the question. MOTION FAILED: 5-3 Burt, Holman, Schmid no, Yeh absent Council Member Holman asked for clarification on the term “desired outcome”. Mr. Keene stated the majority of the discretionary authority resided in the decisions made by the Council, the roles of the Planning & Transportation Commission, and the Architectural Review Board may have on projects. He stated most of what occurred at the Development Center was administrative and was driven by the guidelines established in the Municipal Code. He felt the desired outcome was what was owed to the community to be able to tell them what they could expect with respect to time and money then. 10 09/06/2011 Council Member Holman stated if the goal looking forward was to achieve specific desired outcomes then there needed to be a definition for the basis of the outcomes. Mr. Barton stated if Council were to review Attachment 2 of the Staff Report there were two versions of desired outcomes, one from the Citizens Advisory Group and one from the Staff Action Team. Council Member Holman stated she had reviewed Attachment 2 and the question remained what the definition of “desired outcome” was. She had concerns that by correcting some complaints there were new issues being created. She felt there were three drivers that were of importance; 1) consistency and fairness, 2) timeliness, and 3) decisions rooted in local and state regulations. She did not see any references to the necessary qualifications for the new Staffing being requested. Mr. Keene stated Staff was seeking Council approval for the funding on a conceptual basis at this time. He clarified once the funding was secured there would be a job description and a qualifications list created and brought forth to the Council for review and approval. Council Member Holman asked how customer satisfaction was determined. She noted the references in the Staff Report focused on achieving the applicants’ outcomes. She stated there was an entirely separate customer base that were not applicants that deserved to be treated with respect and fairness. She asked what access the public had of the application information. Mr. Keene stated Staff was differentiating between the entitlement process, which was ultimately a legislative action by the Council, and transactions taking place to carry out entitlements that had essentially been granted. Mr. Williams stated the focus was not a discretionary permit type of review; what had been explained to the citizens that had concerns with the discretionary permit process was the Staff level problems needed to be resolved prior to moving forward with those types of concerns. Council Member Holman stated she was aware that there were a high number of discretionary projects that were not seen by Council or the P&TC. She stated concern with adding five additional positions with the economy being in flux. She did not see who was responsible for maintaining the new software or computer systems or keeping them up to date. She stated she was not comfortable with the way the process was currently taking shape but was certain her concerns could be alleviated with work. 11 09/06/2011 Council Member Schmid stated his interest in tracking the increases of fees in order to be more self sufficient. He asked for clarification on who the customer was; the documentation referred to them as the applicant, he felt any rebuilding or development effected the neighbors and their cooperation with the process and satisfaction needed to be considered. Mr. Williams stated there had been a lot of discussion on who the customer was and the redesign of the Development Center was inclusive of the neighbors as part of the customer base. The information would be readily available and accessible to them if they had questions or concerns about what was happening in their perspective neighborhoods. Mr. Keene clarified there had been nothing in his directive to Staff regarding discounting the neighbors or community outside of the applicant. He stated the idea of the redesign was to be accountable to the community at-large. Mayor Espinosa stated he and Mr. Keene had been meeting with businesses throughout the year and they were told by the few who had been involved in the pilot program that the changes in the Development Center processed had improved immensely and they felt comfortable participating in it. MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Holman no, Yeh absent 9. Council Direction to Voting Delegate Mayor Espinosa for 2011 League Conference Regarding City’s Position on Proposed Six Resolutions. Assistant to the City Manager, Sheila Tucker stated there were six Resolutions to be considered by the League of California Cities (League). One of the Resolutions would go directly to their annual business meeting and the remaining five would be heard at various policy committees which meant they were subject to change with the Committee’s recommendations. City Manager, James Keene stated in the Staff Report there was identified coordination with departments throughout the City but that did not mean to imply they were the advocates or sponsors of the recommendations in the Resolutions. Council Member Holman asked whether the Resolutions could be heard individually or needed to be heard as a whole. Mayor Espinosa stated in 2010 the Resolutions were heard individually but there was no precedence to the say they had to be heard in a specific manner. 12 09/06/2011 Council Member Holman stated Resolution number five was to replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole. She discussed the numerous articles which explained the costs associated with the death penalty. Staff had no recommendation for this Resolution; they stated it did not impact Palo Alto. Palo Alto was impacted since the monies used to support the death penalty program came from the General Fund budgets; therefore, those funds were not spent on local parks, schools, or infrastructure. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to support the Resolution regarding Replacement of the Death Penalty with the Sentence of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole. Council Member Shepherd stated the administrative costs for the death penalty and other programs had a severe trickle effect for cities in the State. She felt the City should be standing with the League in support of the Resolution. Council Member Klein stated he opposed the Motion; he felt it was not in the Palo Alto jurisdiction. He stated there was language in the Resolution that he did not agree with. Council Member Burt stated the Resolutions from the League although with collective influence from the cities may actually have a meaningful impact on the political outcome. He felt Palo Alto should not take a stance on issues outside of their purview. However, positions by the League on State issues which impacted the cities would be appropriate to participate in. He suggested additional language to the Motion if it was accepted by the Maker and Seconder; to instruct the City Delegate to propose language modifications that included the deletion of the following words in the fourth line of the first RESOLVED, “to work in prison and pay restitution to the victims’ families”. Council Member Holman stated the language change was accepted. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to instruct the City Delegate to propose language modification that includes the deletion of the following words in the fourth line of the first RESOLVED, “to work in prison and pay restitution to the victims’ families”, and even if the wording is not accepted, the City Council still supports the Resolution. 13 09/06/2011 Council Member Burt stated his Amendment would be to present the amended wording but the Council would continue to support the position even if the change was not adopted. Council Member Holman stated she agreed. Council Member Shepherd stated her agreement. MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Espinosa, Klein no, Yeh absent Council Member Klein stated he was troubled with Resolution number 6. He stated there were 490 other cities that had been in compliance with State laws so to honor the City of Bell for complying after their illegal activities did not seem right. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to oppose the Resolution Honoring the City of Bell. Council Member Scharff stated the Resolution was offensive to a degree and the language within the document did not seem realistic. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Yeh absent Council Member Scharff stated given the financial state of so many cities he felt it was difficult to imagine the six Resolutions being presented were at the forefront of the issues needing to be resolved. He asked how the Resolutions were brought forward and whether Palo Alto took an active role in participating in the process. Mr. Keene stated the concepts worked their way from cities to the League through a line of collective processes before being sent through different Policy Committees. He noted that process was not the only one the League used to take positions on items. Council Member Scharff stated he opposed Resolution number 2 and supported the Staff recommendation for the Tort Reform. He stated the Resolution in practicality would do the opposite of what it reported to accomplish. He stated Tort Reform could be a positive process to assist cities against frivolous lawsuits but the presented Resolution did not qualify as such a process. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to oppose the Resolution relating to Tort Reform. 14 09/06/2011 MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Yeh absent Council Member Burt proposed taking a position in support of Resolution number 4; the segregation of children under the age of 18 from adults in prisons. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to support the Resolution Supporting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Council Member Burt stated on the broader aspect of whether the City should take a position on this type of issue; the matter was regarding teen aged youth and although Project Safety Net did not focus on incarceration, it was a factor for every community. MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Klein no, Yeh absent Council Member Klein stated none of the Resolutions were the position of the League; they were put forth by various members or divisions of the League. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to support the remaining two Resolutions: 1) Alternative Methods of Public Notice requirements, and 2) Raising Awareness and Safety Concerns to Support Bullied Children. MOTION PASSED: 8-1, Yeh absent Mayor Espinosa stated later in the evening when the meeting adjourned it will be adjourned in honor of William Clark. He asked Council Member Klein to say a few words regarding Mr. Clark. Council Member Klein stated Dr. Bill Clark was on the City Council from 1967 to 1973. They met in 1970 while he served as a Planning Commissioner. He noted there was not usually a lot of interaction between the Council and Commissioners, but Bill gave positive constructive criticism and as a Commissioner he was grateful to receive it. His manner of serving on the City Council was very open minded and Palo Alto was well served by his presence. COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Shepherd thanked the IT Department for the upgrade to the City email system, and the upgrades to the Council Chambers audio/video system. 15 09/06/2011 Council Member Burt reported on attending the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority retreat which focused on several issues including; the purpose of the organization, future of Stanford University’s role in the organization, how the agency will move forward absent Federal funding. Council Member Schmid spoke regarding the Lytton Garden Senior Housing recent purchase of Webster House Senior Housing. The City Council convened into the Closed Session at 10:17 P.M. 9a. (Former No. 1) 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) CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto, Public Employee Relations Board Case No. SF-CE-869-M Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) The City Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 11:44 P.M. and Mayor Espinosa advised no reportable action. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. in memory of William Clark who passed away on July 30, 2011