HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-05 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting December 5, 1994 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Aino Vieira Da Rosa for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board ............................ 74-257 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Shirley Wilson for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board ............................ 74-257 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 74-257 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 1994 .................... 74-258 4. Contract Extension between City of Palo Alto and Bank of America for General Banking Services ............... 74-258 6. Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County Transit District for Administration of Santa Clara County Congestion Manage-ment Program .......................................... 74-258 7. Ordinance 4251 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for a Downtown Parking Educational Brochure .............................................. 74-258 8. Ordinance 4252 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Sections of Chapter 16.09 (The Sewer Use Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ................................... 74-258 9. Ordinance 4253 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to the Arts and Culture Division's Visual Arts Program and to Receive Matching Grant Funds ...... 74-258 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS .................. 74-258
12/05/94 74-255
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board recommend approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Downtown Regulations to allow Incentives for Seismic Upgrade and Historic Preservation to be Combined for Commercially-zoned Properties Which Are Both Seismic Category I or II and Historic Category 1 or 2: 401 Florence (office), 456 University (Varsity Theater), 480 University (retail/residential), 661 Bryant (church), 520 Ramona (retail/office), 205 Hamilton (retail/office), 529 Alma (retail), 525 Alma (retail/office) and 232 Homer (retail). (postponed to a date certain from 8/08/94) (Public Hearing Open) ...... 74-259 12. Policy and Services Committee and Finance Committee recommendations re Organizational Review .............. 74-271 12A. (Old Item No.3) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and A. D. Machinery Sales Company for Underground Electric Vault Cleaning ............................... 74-289 12B. (Old Item No. 10) Confirmation of the City Council's Actions Regarding Approval in Concept of the Acquisition of 753 Alma Street for the Development of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing ................... 74-289 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 74-290 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. .......... 74-290
12/05/94 74-256
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 8:20 p.m.), Fazzino (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Aino Vieira Da Rosa for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Simitian, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7416 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Aino Vieira Da Rosa for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Fazzino absent. Aino Vieira da Rosa thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the Board. She was very pleased to play a part in the changes in the City of Palo Alto. She also recognized the service of Shirley Wilson who served on the Architectural Review Board with her. 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Shirley Wilson for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by McCown, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7417 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Shirley Wilson for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architec-tural Review Board" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Fazzino absent. Shirley Wilson said it was exciting to see the changes that had happened in Palo Alto and the new awareness seen in the community for the built environment. The City would continue to grow and prosper. She thanked the Council for the opportunity. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Marvin Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, spoke regarding the FM cable. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the November 29,
12/05/94 74-257
1994, cablecast on "Palo Alto Waterfront Development." APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 1994 MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of October 17, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Andersen "absent," Simitian "abstaining." CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Simitian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4 and 6-9. 4. Contract Extension between City of Palo Alto and Bank of America for General Banking Services Contract Extension between the City of Palo Alto and Bank of California for Safekeeping Services 6. Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County Transit District for Administration of Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program Resolution 7418 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Designating the Santa Clara County Transit District as the Agency Responsible to Develop, Adopt, Update, Administer and Enforce a Congestion Management Program for Santa Clara County and Approving a Joint Powers Agreement for the Administration of that Program" 7. Ordinance 4251 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for a Downtown Parking Educational Brochure" 8. Ordinance 4252 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Sections of Chapter 16.09 (The Sewer Use Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code" (1st Reading 11/21/94, PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent) 9. Ordinance 4253 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to the Arts and Culture Division's Visual Arts Program and to Receive Matching Grant Funds" MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 4 and 6-9, Andersen absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 3 would become Item No. 12A; Item No. 10 would become Item No. 12B; and Item No. 5, Utilities Advisory Commission re Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement with Bonneville Power Administration and British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation, would return to the City
12/05/94 74-258
Council at a future date. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board recommend approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Downtown Regulations to allow Incentives for Seismic Upgrade and Historic Preserva-tion to be Combined for Commercially-zoned Properties Which Are Both Seismic Category I or II and Historic Category 1 or 2: 401 Florence (office), 456 University (Varsity Theater), 480 University (retail/residential), 661 Bryant (church), 520 Ramona (retail/office), 205 Hamilton (retail/office), 529 Alma (retail), 525 Alma (retail/office) and 232 Homer (retail). (postponed to a date certain from 8/08/94) (Public Hearing Open) Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest resulting from the location of her business. Mayor Kniss recalled in 1986 as a result of the Downtown Study, a cap was established of 300,000 square feet. About 10 percent of that allowable cap had occurred in the past 8 years. The Council had a long-standing policy to support seismic upgrading and historical preservation at the same time, but the old policy had not allowed that. However, there were now policies in place that supported both seismic upgrading and historical preservation. There were only eight buildings in the City to which the policies applied. The projects were guided by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Reha-bilitating Historic Buildings that was circulated in September 1994 which allowed the Council to move forward with the item. City Manager June Fleming said staff brought to the Council that evening the recommendation that came from the Planning Commission, the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) regarding two specific items: 1) the proposed amend-ment to Downtown zoning (CD) regulations to allow the incentives for seismic upgrade and historic preservation to be combined; and 2) information regarding the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for Downtown historic buildings. Contract Project Planner Robert Schubert said staff prepared a revised environmental assessment after the July 5, 1994, hearing. The primary change was to include compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as a mitigation measure for any exterior building modifications pursuant to the double bonus. During the comment period on the mitigated negative declaration, staff received comments from Dennis Backlund, Mark Vermillion, and Gerard Marsullo (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Of the eight buildings mentioned which would qualify for the double incentive, six buildings were built out to their property lines so additions to the buildings would have to occur within the existing building envelope or by adding additional stories to the buildings. There were 53 buildings Downtown which
12/05/94 74-259
qualified for one of the two bonuses; and since the incentive program that was adopted in 1987, 4 of the 53 properties had utilized the incentives separately. There had been a total of 12,356 square feet of floor area constructed at the 4 properties. Although 4 out of the 53 buildings Downtown did not represent a large portion of the total qualified buildings, the renovations had been successful and had contributed to the visual upgrading and safety of the Downtown. Although the existing TDR program was currently applicable to 24 historic properties Downtown, to date no projects had utilized the program. A total of 63,600 square feet of development rights could be potentially transferred from the 24 properties under the existing TDR program. In researching professional publications regarding TDR, staff came up with four critical conditions for a successful TDR program: 1) sufficient restrictions on sending sites should exist to give rise to TDR sales; 2) a designation of receiving sites with infrastructure capability and sufficient development demand to make additional density increases attractive to developers; 3) a design that did not require complex approvals; and 4) a commitment to an educational effort to inform landowners, developers, realtors, and attorneys about the program. There were several revisions to the City's existing TDR program that could make it more successful. Staff did not believe that any changes to the restrictions were warranted regarding sending sites. The existing program restricted sending parcels to Category I and II of historic buildings, and the requirement of the proposed text amendment that building modifications comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards would provide additional motivation for accomplishing TDRs by placing further restrictions on sending sites. Staff recommended that the existing restrictions for receiving sites remain and that further guidance be provided on appropriate receiving sites. Under the existing program, the site had to be at least 150 feet from residential property, could not be occupied with structures of historic or architectural significance, and was permitted to receive a maximum additional floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above what would otherwise be permitted. There was further direction in the Urban Design Guide on appropriate receiving sites. The program could be revised to require that TDRs be consistent with the guidelines, and the revision would encourage improved urban design Downtown and reduce the chance of the sites being publicly rejected. It could also discourage TDRs by placing further restrictions on the sites. The existing approval process was a Planned Community (PC) process which was very complex and was an impediment for accomplishing TDRs. TDRs could be processed as major ARB applications instead of planning applications which would shorten the review process by several months and eliminate the need for public benefit findings. An alternative would be to require that the second 25 percent bonus be used as a TDR to another site. It would reduce the possibility of adversely impacting historic buildings and would not permit anymore development at historic sites compared to the existing regulations. Finally, landowners, developers, and realtors needed to be informed about the TDR program, and the City would need to commit to an educational effort. Vice Mayor Simitian said the staff report (CMR:522:94) did a good
12/05/94 74-260
job of responding to his earlier questions. He referred to Item No. 2, Receiving Sites, on page 9 of the staff report which said "Under the existing program, receiver sites must be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned properties and cannot be occupied with structures of historic or architectural significance. They were permitted to receive a maximum additional floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above..." He noticed that Item No. 4 on page 9 stated that the receiver sites "shall be subject to applicable downtown project size limits." He asked why Item No. 4 was not included in the proposal. Mr. Schubert said the item should have been included. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified staff recommended that the applica-ble Downtown project size limits be incorporated as one of the criteria for receiving sites. Mr. Schubert said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian said there was concern that an additional increment of 25 percent might compromise the historic integrity of the building for which the historical preservation work was done. The HRB attempted to address that concern by adding the condition that building modifications had to conform to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and also by adding the require-ment that the HRB would have approval authority over the final design of the projects that utilized both Floor Area Ratio (FAR) incentives. He asked whether there was any value to shifting the burden of proof in order to receive the second 25 percent and use it at the historic site. Staff's proposal stated that it could be done as long as the two conditions were met. He asked the outcome if that could not be done unless the two conditions were met and there was a burden of proof to prove that it was not inconsistent with historic preservation to use the 25 percent. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council could legally add some discretionary review requirements to the ability of a receiving property to receive the second 25 percent transfer. There were policy implications, but the practical implication was for the programs to work, the receiving sites should be easily used. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the reference was to the sending site, not receiving. Two possibilities had been given: 1) to take the second 25 percent and use it as a TDR somewhere else if preferred and 2) that the applicant must use the second 25 percent as a TDR. The difference was that permission could be requested to use it on-site rather than as a TDR, but there was discretionary approval rather than a matter of right. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said that would be a reasonable alternative as long as the application was reviewed by the HRB and then HRB's recommendation would be forwarded to the ARB. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified in addition to HRB approval, author-
12/05/94 74-261
ity over the final design of any project utilizing the FAR incentive on the original site, the HRB would also have the opportunity to comment on whether or not the proposal was consis-tent with historic preservation in terms of using the 25 percent on-site. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian said there might be some interest in pursuing not only the zoning amendments but also some additional work on TDRs, but the staff report indicated it would take until May 1995 before the items could return to the Council. He asked what impact that approach would have on the Council's deliberations on the Varsity Theatre in April 1995 if there were a suggestion to bring something back to the Council in May 1995. Mr. Calonne said there would be no legal mechanism in place at that time for the City Council to approve a connection of the two density incentives for seismic and historic with respect to the Varsity Theatre. If someone in the future wanted to take advan-tage of one of the two incentives that was not used for the Varsity Theatre should the project be approved, a process would need to be reinitiated with the City. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the Varsity Theatre would have to wait for action by the Council after it had taken action on the Ordinance in May 1995. Mr. Calonne said that would depend on the Council's policy judgment regarding the Varsity Theatre. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Council could enact as part of the Ordinance the requirement that the sending site could be subject to a discretionary review process. She understood it could be part of the Ordinance and the initial thinking would be that the project would be presented to the HRB, and the HRB's recommendation would then be forwarded to the ARB. Ms. Grote said if the outcome of the CD text amendment was that the HRB would have the final authority over the particular buildings, then the decision on whether or not to allow the additional 25 percent to be used on the site would be decided at the HRB level. If it were decided that the HRB would only recommend and the ARB would make the final decision, then the recommendation would be forwarded from the HRB to the ARB. Council Member Wheeler clarified if the Council were supportive of the HRB's recommendation, then the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards would be the final decision maker regarding the conformance of the application. The ARB would only deal with design issues on the building, not with the historic issues. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the Council could structure the process in a variety of ways, including having the HRB be the final decision maker on all or a portion of the issue. However, staff had recommended in the past
12/05/94 74-262
that the Council not change the HRB ordinance. The HRB recom-mended earlier in the year that it have final approval authority. The staff recommendation that the issue opened many other issues related to the HRB function, staffing requirements, resources, etc. Staff believed it was a separate and broader issue and recommended that the HRB not have final authority as part of the process. In the present situation, it was anticipated that an application would end up being an ARB application with the HRB in a recommending role. Council Member Wheeler asked whether there was another body that was a better interpreter of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards than the HRB. Mr. Calonne said it was a procedural concern about how the HRB would handle final decision-making authority. It was his under-standing that the proposed process based on the Ordinance and based upon the Planning Commission's recommendations had no intention of supplanting or disregarding the HRB's expertise, but the question was who should make the final decision before an application would be approved. Council Member Wheeler said the HRB was concerned about the way its recommendations to either the ARB or the Council would be treated by the decision-making body. The Council needed to address those legitimate concerns. Vice Mayor Simitian noted the possibility of confusion with respect to the difference between a body which was recommending to the Council and the use of the phrase "the final approval." He believed the reference to the final approval was the body that took the last action but it was still an item that would be appealable to the Council which meant that controversial projects would ultimately come before the Council. Council Member Huber wanted to know the amount of square footage that would be impacted if there were a double bonus. There were eight buildings that would qualify for a double bonus. He referred to Table 1 in the Planning Commission staff report dated May 20, 1994, which showed a potential new square footage for nine buildings that totaled 32,168. He asked the total square footage with the existing ordinance. Mr. Calonne clarified the number was eight because one of the nine buildings was the Resident Apartments which was presently in excess of FAR. Mr. Schubert said the breakdown was not presently available. Mayor Kniss clarified the people who spoke at the public hearing in July 1994 would be able to speak again that evening. She announced that Mr. Jewel did not wish to speak but wanted to indicate his support for the Varsity Theatre. Dennis Backlund, 488 University Avenue, Apt. 503, referred to page 1 of the City Manager's Report (CMR:522:94) which stated "If
12/05/94 74-263
Council wishes to consider this item after completion of the review process for the Varsity Theatre project, staff recommends that Council continue this public hearing to May 1, 1995." On page 11 of the City Manager's Report, staff presented an additional benefit that a "revised TDR program" would be ready. The Council did not have either the first draft of the Varsity Theatre's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or the revised TDR program, and therefore, Council lacked the necessary information that evening to make a fully informed vote on the issue. The first draft EIR would not be available until December 22, 1994. The information on the revised TDR program, particularly the question of whether the second 25 percent of the double bonus should be used from the historic site in a non-historic building, would not be ready until May 1, 1995. He said the double incentive zoning text amendment was a good incentive for expensive seismic upgrades of historic buildings, but when concrete details were considered, difficulties arose which could not be addressed by the mitigated negative declaration attached to the zoning text amendment. The mitigation was restricted to exterior building modifications. An EIR was being done on the Varsity Theatre that would review the interior as well as the exterior, and it would raise questions that the mitigation measure could not address. He said the use of the second 25 percent square footage in a historic building would dangerously diminish the significance of those historic buildings whose interiors were an integral part of the buildings' overall significance. The EIR on the Varsity Theatre showed that at least one of the buildings covered by the double bonus was that type of building. Other buildings that might be covered by the double bonus in the future might also involve building interior issues. He offered that the second 25 percent should be required to be transferred out of historic buildings which preserved some of the incentive while eliminating extreme dangers to historic buildings. He recommended the Council delay its vote until May 1, 1995, when a fully informed decision on the zoning text amendment would be possible. Chop Keenan, 750 Emerson Street, said the 1986 Downtown Study was done that referenced various incentives for certain citywide objectives which included how to preserve seismic and historic resources in the City. If there were both seismic and historic problems, only one 25 percent bonus could be used for Category I or II buildings. He had indicated at the time of the study that he did not believe that 25 percent was enough of an incentive for private property owners to take on twice the cost of building one of the buildings from scratch. The context at the time of the Downtown Study was restrictive due to a series of new construction in Downtown Palo Alto so even the first 25 percent bonus was a leap of faith. He predicted at that time that the incentive would be adequate, particularly for Category I and II buildings. The buildings were at high risk, and the costs of seismic and historic were additive. For example, a seismic retrofit of the Varsity Theatre auditorium would include bracing the ceilings and the loads with new columns; but a historic and seismic retrofit of the auditorium would carry all the loads to the outside walls to meet the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation which required that the building would be able to return to its original
12/05/94 74-264
use in the future. The extra $200,000 to carry the loads was additive. There had been issues raised about the protection of the second FAR bonus and whether a project could be created that did not ruin the architectural integrity of the building. He proposed that even the first FAR put that building at risk, but each building was different. The Varsity Theatre could use both FARs on-site; however another building owner might not want an extra square foot but might want to sell both FARs to someone else to mitigate the costs. Each building would have challenges, obstacles, and solutions. He suggested the City have a broad-based ordinance. The HRB's and ARB's review process had to meet the guidelines. It was not a right anymore than it was a right to build in the Downtown absent the ARB's constraints based on its guidelines. There was much protection in the existing ordinance for the first or second bonus. He reminded the Council that the incentives were historic. If the PC requirement were eliminated on the receiver site, it would answer the question. He hoped the Council would adopt the double FAR incentive that evening and approve the staff recommendation to take another look at the TDR in the spring. The TDR could be amended which would be helpful for the buildings that could accommodate either FARs on-site. Council Member Huber asked whether there was a market in Downtown Palo Alto for an easier TDR program. Mr. Keenan said the number of people who would avail themselves of the program was limited. It fell into the same category as the in-lieu ordinance that was recently adopted and the 350,000-square-foot cap which was always a theoretical cap because there were not that many sites for new projects. Bjarne Dahl, owner of the Cardinal Hotel, 1095 Valley Forge, Sunnyvale, was concerned about the extension of the gift over and above the 50,000-square-foot allowance that was given for free parking to new or additional development. There were about 250,000 to 300,000 square feet left, and the remainder included a sizable square foot addition to the Varsity Theatre which would leave many parking spaces exempt. He asked whether the future burdens as well as the present parking tax exemption would create a burden to the property owners who were not exempt and whether new developers would get free parking at the property owner's ex-pense. He asked whether the Council would review the situation of the square footage formula of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of area of the property. A bookstore at the Varsity Theatre would create a blockbuster industry, and he did not understand why the gifts should be considered. He said his hotel had been assessed for 147 parking spaces which it could not use, and he wanted to know how much burden he and others would have to bear who had square footage with no parking. Arne Hillesland, 250 Del Medio Avenue, Mountain View, encouraged the Council to direct the staff to prepare a revised TDR program as indicated in Section 1(b) and Attachment G of the staff recommendations. The mitigated negative declaration as written would go against the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The standards specifically called for the preservation of features
12/05/94 74-265
that were of historic, architectural, or cultural value. The interior of the Varsity Theatre had all of those values, but the features would be lost forever if the interior of the Varsity were gutted as planned. The mitigated negative declaration should be revised to reflect the recommendation of the standards of reha-bilitation. The primary impact of the negative declaration was on the Varsity Theatre property, and the logical time to consider the negative declaration would be after the conclusion of the Varsity Theatre's review process. He urged the Council to accept the staff's recommendation to postpone the date until May 1, 1995. He asked that the second 25 percent incentive on historic buildings be used as a TDR at another site. Staff pointed out that that would reduce the possibility of an adverse impact on historic buildings and would still allow for developmentally realistic economies of scale. He believed such a compromised solution would be found acceptable to most members of the community, including both the preservationists and developers. Staff stated that a revised TDR program would be ready for review at the May 1, 1995, meeting which would be a logical time to consider that program along with a revised negative declaration that conformed to the standards of rehabilitation. The Varsity Theatre's review process would also be complete. Staff stated the TDR process was complex, but the complexity was brought about because it was an innovative solution. The City needed innovative solutions in dealing with the issue of preservation of historic properties and because the needs of the community were so diverse. The current property owner of the Varsity Theatre wanted the negative declaration with the 50 percent clause in place in order to facilitate the conversion of the Theatre into a nationally-based retail establishment. He was not opposed to such establishments but he believed they had a proper place. He believed that a historically significant building such as the Varsity Theatre should not be sacrificed for a retail outlet. He said page 2, Attachment D, of the Comprehensive Plan Feasibility Study dated October 24, 1994, stated "The downtown area serves more as an entertainment oriented retail district with a selection of restaurants and cafes as well as more locally oriented shopping district in addition to its region serving activities. Its entertainment pedestrian oriented functions provide an appropriate complement to and distinction from the role of Stanford Shopping Center and these distinct roles should be encouraged." He encouraged the Council to follow the recommendations of the consultants, not vote for the negative declaration, and pursue innovative solutions that would preserve the building for use as an entertainment facility. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, supported the people who asked that consideration of the matter be postponed until May 1, 1995, after consideration of the Varsity Theatre in March 1995. She suggested the Palo Alto Art League be chosen as the task force to consider the artistic use of the Varsity Theatre, a Downtown per-forming arts center, and teen center. Time and opportunity were needed to make creative trade-offs. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, reminded the Council that boards and commissions were advisory only. He said Tables 1 and 2 used the same figures for the nine buildings, and the data was incon-
12/05/94 74-266
sistent for the staff report. He asked how there could be a first reading of the Ordinance based on the data in Table 2. He compared his opinion to the opinion of Mr. Keenan's attorney. He said in his opinion the proposed ordinance was part of the same project as the Varsity Theatre conversion and, therefore, should be combined in the EIR with the conversion. The attorney stated that based on a case for which the citations were omitted, the particular EIR as a negative declaration was correct. The case referred to was a general plan amendment rather than a zoning change. The general plan still had to be implemented by a zoning change. The attorney's opinion failed to state any facts of the current case. His opinion referred to specific facts and the documents the facts were taken from. In addition, the opinion added more weight to show that the ordinance change and the Varsity conversion were the same project. The opinion on the proposed ordinance had nothing to do with the project. Mr. Keenan was the person who originally came to the Council with the idea of having a double bonus amendment to the CD zone district regulations. He noted for the record that the Mayor introduced Mr. Keenan as the applicant, but he was only the applicant for the Varsity Theatre conversion. The public was prohibited on its own from applying for or initiating changes to site development regulations. The entire context of what was before the Council was that the proposed change to the site development regulations for the CD district was part of the project for the Varsity Theatre conversion and out of necessity had to be part of the same EIR for the Varsity Theatre conversion. Similarly, the TDR was an alternative project to the main project for the Varsity Theatre conversion, and it had to be part of the same environmental review. If the Council preferred to enact the first reading of the Ordinance that evening, it would be easy to get a referendum on the issue. Mayor Kniss asked comments from the City Attorney regarding the legal aspects of Mr. Borock's comments. Mr. Calonne said under the environmental law, deciding whether to do an EIR or negative declaration was fundamentally an evidence question for the Council and whether there was substantial evidence in light of everything that had been heard and everything in the record that the project might have a significant effect on the environment. Some courts had characterized it so that if a fair argument could be made based on the evidence presented that it might have a significant effect, then an EIR was necessary. It was unclear to him whether the fair argument standard was still applicable, given changes in the law the previous year. The safest course was to assume that if there were a fair argument based upon substantial evidence that there might be significant effect in light of the whole record, then the EIR was necessary. He understood from the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration that there were two principal environmental issues staff had identified: 1) the potential impact on historic resources and 2) parking. In staff's view, the change made to the proposed ordinance during the Planning Commission process to require compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for renovation of historic buildings sufficiently
12/05/94 74-267
mitigated the impact on historic resources to justify a mitigated negative declaration. Staff also concluded that the impact was not significant with respect to parking based on the current state of the parking availability Downtown. He quoted the definition of substantial evidence from the Public Resources Code which read "What is not evidence is argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, or narrative; evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous; or evidence of social or economic impacts which did not contribute to or were not caused by physical impacts on the environment." Council Member Fazzino asked for an explanation in layman's language and what it meant in terms of the alternatives before the Council that evening. Mr. Calonne said the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) set out a very low threshold for preparing the EIRs. The courts and the legislature viewed the EIR as the environmental alarm bell that was used to warn society of the impending bad changes that might happen from a decision. The courts had been generally very protective of the need for EIRs. Over the last few years in response to what some people had characterized as abuses of the CEQA process, the legislature had responded to many court decisions. The legislature's basic thrust in the last two years in particular had been to limit the opportunities for abused EIR processes. Most significantly for the issue that evening, the legislature strongly encouraged the use of mitigated negative declaration when the impacts were clear. The potential impacts from the Ordinance change were obvious. There would be potential impacts on historic resources and some impacts on parking, and therefore, the law said that the City should prepare a negative declaration if there were identifiable mitigation measures. The law generally urged preparation of EIRs when there was a question. However, the legislature in the last few years had asked that a mitigated negative declaration be done if possible. Mayor Kniss clarified that the mitigation involved adherence to the standards that had been issued by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Calonne said the Council could make changes to the staff's proposal in response to public testimony. It was the Council's decision whether the proposal was sufficient to adequately mitigate the effects identified. Council Member Huber clarified there were two potential impacts: 1) change to historic buildings and 2) parking. The City Attorney believed that the staff's recommendation comported with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's standards and mitigated that particular problem or the Council could find that it did. Staff believed the parking was insignificant, and therefore, if the Council made that finding, there was no need to mitigate. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Andersen asked whether the seismic upgrade was seen
12/05/94 74-268
as de facto mitigation for some of the historic concerns. Mr. Calonne understood that seismic needs might be the most problematic parts for the historic preservation. Vice Mayor Simitian said Council Member Huber asked about the historic preservation issues, the argument that an EIR might be necessary, and the determination the Council might make that the HRB's imposition of a condition regarding federal standards mitigated those impacts. He asked whether there would be even less of an argument for an EIR if there were a measure of discretionary review added to the staff proposal since it would then take the City out of the entitlement category and provide the additional protection of discretionary review at a later date. Mr. Calonne said it would give a further indication of the Council's intention to strictly regulate the use of the program. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, said the issue was complex and had many ramifications. She urged the Council to wait for the results and recommendations of the EIR before making an informed decision. The Planning Department's recommendation of a mitigated negative declaration was inadequate unless the additional 25 percent FAR was required to be used off-site of historically important build-ings. Palo Alto had the duty and the privilege of upholding CEQA guidelines; and under those guidelines, Appendix G, Item J, stated "A project will normally have a significant affect on the environ-ment if it will disrupt or adversely effect the property of historical or cultural significance to a community." At least one of the buildings was affected by the Ordinance change. Some of Mr. Keenan's plans for the Varsity Theatre were in direct conflict with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Local government was required to uphold those guidelines. She presented additional petitions signed by 1,986 people who asked the Council to vote against the proposed Ordinance change (on file in the City Clerk's Office). She said that if more than 6,000 people saw fault in an ordinance change designed to financially benefit one private developer, it behooved the City Council to consider its fault as well. Council Member Andersen asked how much money had been raised to acquire the Varsity Theatre property. Ms. Bell said money had not been raised at the present time to acquire the property. There were several organizations that were interested in performing arts within the Theatre. She hoped the City would become involved in a Downtown performing arts center. Vic Lovell, 885 Sherman Avenue, Menlo Park, urged the Council not to approve the proposed amendment to Downtown zoning regulations and the mitigated negative declaration, continue the issue to May 1, 1995, and have the staff prepare a revised TDR program. The idea of requiring the TDR be used on a building other than the historic landmark was valuable. The double bonus would be an important precedent that rewarded the projects that violated the guidelines of CEQA and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's
12/05/94 74-269
Standards. There was a contradiction in a system that set a system of rewards which had the effect of destroying what the system tried to save. The Council should wait and look at the Varsity EIR and an alternative TDR program. Historic buildings created an ambiance for the entire Downtown area. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, said the TDR and the zoning change were tightly interlinked, and it would be difficult to make an informed decision that evening. The amendment amounted to an ad hoc for zoning. Although it theoretically applied to other Downtown structures, only the Varsity Theatre and one other property could or would take advantage of the zone change. The assumption that combining seismic and preservational work doubled the cost was not necessarily accurate. The double bonus should only apply if the two phases were done separately. He thought most people would agree that disallowing the double zoning was worth the risk to save the Varsity Theatre. The Council's vote that evening would reassure the public and local bookstore proprietors that the Council had their interest at heart. Tami Jefferson, 360 Forest Avenue, No. 104, said the City was about to lose its community theater. The committee had worked many hours to save the Varsity Theatre for the community. She supported the comments of the earlier speakers. The Varsity Theatre would bring people from all over the Bay Area. The committee could not raise money or apply for funding until it became a nonprofit organization. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, asked the Council to oppose the negative declaration which incorrectly checked "maybe" in box 18(b) and (c) regarding adverse impacts on historic and cultural structures. There would be adverse impacts, and it did not consider any feasible alternatives such as TDRs, increased incentives coupled with TDRs, or special circumstances. The negative declaration violated CEQA. Failure to consider all feasible alternatives was a clear violation of the law and the guidelines of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and an indication for a lawsuit. There was no public benefit for giving Mr. Keenan the double incentive for converting the theatre. There was a proposed public benefit of more tax revenue. He suggested that all aspects of the evaluation of the Varsity Theatre be delayed until there was an opportunity to look at the entire EIR and completely evaluate TDR possibilities. It was premature to adopt a negative declaration until the Council had an opportunity to look at all the aspects of the issue. The Council should be friendly to locally-owned businesses first and not provide incentives for large external chains that were not interested in the local economy. The proposal did not benefit the community. Martine Habib, 243 Blakewood Way, Woodside, employee of the Stanford Theatre, urged the Council to defer its vote on the negative declaration until the results of the EIR were available. She said the coalition to save the Varsity Theatre was a grass-roots organization, not wealthy developers. Many of the historic theater restorations throughout the country had been successful for the cities. The League of Historic Theaters had figures
12/05/94 74-270
available on the benefits brought to a city by the restoration of old movie palaces as performing centers and movie theaters. She wanted the City to become a more important cultural center. Winter Dellenbach, 457 Kingsley Avenue, was confused about a major seismic upgrade being done on the Varsity Theatre. Staff had indicated to her earlier that the building was basically sound seismically, and she had read in a report that only the outer courtyard needed a seismic upgrade. She supported the seismic upgrade, but it was being painted as more of a burden to the present owner than it really was. She was concerned that the radio, television, public meeting that evening, and the packet indicated only three people responded to the issue. Her letter and several others were not included in the packet, and she asked what happened to the other letters that the public submitted on the matter. She agreed the matter should be postponed since the Council was working on partial information. It would be helpful to have the EIR available. The TDR was a worthy source of concept. She suggested it should be the applicant's burden to show that there would not be adverse effects to the historic structure. The extra 25 percent incentive should only be added to the present 25 percent incentive if the owner only owned that historic property and not other properties to shift the extra 25 percent; then anyone that owned a historic building could take advantage of the incentive. RECESS: 9:25 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. Ms. Fleming said three pieces of correspondence had not been analyzed and included in the Council's packet for distribution. She asked the Council to continue the item to the Monday, December 12, 1994, City Council meeting. In addition, staff would look into the issue raised by Council Member Huber about discrepancies with some numbers. Mr. Calonne concurred with the City Manager's suggestion which was good administrative practice, and he would advise it from a legal standpoint. The staff and Council would be well informed to review the letters. He clarified the Mayor had closed the public hearing. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the item to the Monday, December 12, 1994, City Council Meeting to allow for the City Council to review correspondence which had not been forwarded in the Council's packet and to clarify the discrepancy with some numbers as raised by Council Member Huber. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider "not participating." REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 12. Policy and Services Committee and Finance Committee recommen-dations re Organizational Review
12/05/94 74-271
Council Member Wheeler said the Finance Committee met on three occasions to review aspects of the City Manager's and the Hughes, Heiss & Associates (HHA) recommendations that dealt with staffing additions, reductions, or transfers. Most of the Committee's recommendations were in line with the City Manager's recommenda-tions. She would highlight only the issues that generated considerable debate among Committee members or that differed from the City Manager's recommendations. There were several recommendations from the Committee to defer proposed additions to staff. The first was the proposed addition of a Geographic Information Systems Coordinator. The vote to defer recommending the addition of that position until at least the 1996-97 budget process passed the Committee on a 2:1 vote. The other staffing addition deferral related to the proposed business manager position in the Community Services Department which had a 4:0 unanimous vote. There was one proposed staffing reduction that came to the Council with a recommendation that it be deferred. The reduction related to the deferral of the addition of the business manager in the Community Services Department which was the proposed staffing reduction in the Junior Museum. Both the City Manager and the Finance Committee agreed that the two positions, the addition of the business manager and the reduction of the junior museum superintendent, were related and the position in the Junior Museum could not be reduced without the business manager position being added to absorb the administrative duties that needed to be performed in the Junior Museum. There were two items which came to the Council after a great deal of debate and discussion with no recommendation from the Finance Committee. The first item was in the Police Department. There was a motion made at the first meeting to adopt the HHA recommendation to change the current 10-hour shift to either an 8- or 12-hour shift. The motion was reconsidered at the second meeting with a 2:2 vote, and therefore, any change in the staffing for dispatchers came without recommendation from the Finance Committee. The second item was in the Fire Department. There was initially a motion made at the first meeting to reduce the minimum staffing from 29 to 28 by means of reducing one personnel from the Rescue Truck. The proposal was also tied to a second proposal which was to add a Hazmat Investigator. Because of the reconsideration of the vote at the second meeting, the Committee reconsidered the reduction to the minimum staffing of the Rescue Truck. It came to the Council with no recommendation because of a 2:2 vote on whether to reduce that staffing or not. The issue of the Hazmat Investigator was not discussed a second time by the Finance Committee and remained a recommended addition. In the recommendations presented by the City Manager, the reduction in the rescue staffing and the addition of the Hazmat Inspector were tied to each other. The Council needed to take final action on that item. She referred to page 1, Attachment B, of the staff report (CMR:556:94) for the Hazmat Investigator position. She summarized that the disagreements among the Committee members that surfaced during the Finance Committee discussions on the items related to the various interpretations that each of the Council Members as individuals brought to the major purpose of the study. She believed that among the four Council Members there was broad agreement that the
12/05/94 74-272
Finance Committee was to examine an organization and an organiza-tional structure that had not been looked at for at least 15 years to determine whether the structure was serving the citizens of the City well and was performing effectively and efficiently. The Finance Committee's disagreements and differences in opinion related to some of the secondary goals of that study. Some members of the Committee quite clearly put an emphasis on a perceived necessity to use the study to effect savings and to determine to what extent the City should effect savings. Other members on the Committee felt that the study should not be used simply to effect savings but that the study was predicated upon delivering to the citizens of Palo Alto the service levels to which the citizens had become accustomed and had indicated that they wished to maintain. Vice Mayor Simitian recalled that after the Finance Committee members indicated they were unable to support the business manager position at the present time, the staff member identified for handling both open space and the Junior Museum position indicated that he could not handle both the duties in the absence of a business manager. At that point, the Committee indicated it wanted the City Manager to return with some guidance on the point. He did not believe the Committee had reached a conclusion about whether or not that was an accurate description of what the Committee thought was manageable, and it had deferred judgment on the issue. Council Member Huber said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee met to consider its assignment on November 1, 1994. He said Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:556:94) summarized the P&S Committee's activities. The Committee looked at future items such as the creation of a Community Services Commission, a Master Plan for the Arts, feasibility of consolidating Police and Fire Departments, and the Utilities Department Review. The City Manager's recommendations were unanimously adopted by the P&S Committee with the suggestion that as the various proposed studies were decided, the appropriate committee, including the P&S Committee and community organizations, would be involved. Council Member Wheeler said the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and Public Art Commission (PAC) actually reported into various sections of the Community Services Department, and she asked whether there had been any discussion on what the impact of the formation of a Community Services Commission would have on the existing commissions. City Manager June Fleming said existing commissions would not be abolished by the recommendation for a Community Services Commis-sion. The HRC and PAC would continue with the same charges, and there would be no impact on those bodies by the recommendation. Council Member Huber said there were also reservations by several members of the public who expressed concerns about whether or not an umbrella committee could handle the disparate interests from library people to playing fields. The P&S Committee discussed the issue and deferred it to the City Manager to return with a
12/05/94 74-273
recommendation. Tony Spitaleri, President, Palo Alto Professional Firefighters Local 1319, International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), said the Council would make a decision that would affect each citizen, firefighter, and the business community in Palo Alto. The Council's vote to reject the City Manager's proposal would keep the fire service at its best and safest level. If the Council supported the City Manager's recommendation, it would reduce the fire service to its lowest level and jeopardize the safety of its citizens and firefighters. The firefighters took great pride in serving the community and were dedicated to their profession. The firefighters also served the community by providing thousands of dollars for activities such as the sponsorship of children's sports leagues, the Ronald McDonald House, and the Centennial Foundation. The firefighters were hosting the third annual New Year's Eve Party to help raise funds for the Palo Alto arts groups and were involved in various activities as volunteers. They cared about the community that they served. The community cared about the firefighters and wanted them to be as safe as possible so that they would be there to provide the consistent, quick, skillful, and caring service they were accustomed to. The HHA Organizational Review was a study of efficiency and it stated the City ran a good efficient operation. The study was not for the purpose of budget cutting, but a few Council Members were trying to turn it into that and wanted to reduce the firefighting force. The savings from the reduction would go toward clerical and support staff of fire administration. Although support staff might be needed, it should not be obtained by compromising the safety of the citizens and firefighters of the community. The firefighters urged the Council to reject the City Manager's report. Curt Sheford, Palo Alto Communications Division, 617 Canyon Road, Redwood City, had been an employee of Palo Alto for 20 years. He was a dispatcher who was proud of the job that he did for the citizens of Palo Alto. He was part of a team of professionals who provided the high level of service that the residents of the City both deserved and expected. He asked the Council to allow the team to continue to provide that level of service by accepting the City Manager's recommendations. Professional dispatchers who staffed the Communications Center were truly the voice of Palo Alto. The dispatchers were always there whether it was a minor question or an emergency regardless of the time of day or night, weekday, weekend, or even holidays. It was a dispatcher's job to know every job in the City, and sometimes he/she knew who to call in the right amount of time to save property or lives. He needed the proper training to make split-second decisions, and he asked that his training time not be taken away. HHA made its recommen-dations based on the formula used for other cities but had not ever visited the dispatch center. He hoped the Council would take into consideration that Palo Alto was not like other cities and neither was the dispatch center. Mark Almer, Palo Alto Communications Division, 11 Garden Court, No. 2, Belmont, urged the Council to approve the City Manager's
12/05/94 74-274
recommendations and allow the dispatchers to retain the current 10-hour work schedule and staffing level of 21 dispatchers. The dispatchers needed to retain the current staffing level and work schedule to allow for sufficient time off and training needs. Training and expertise were extremely important to keep the current level of service that was provided to Palo Alto. He told about an incident where a well-trained, experienced dispatcher helped save lives and property in Palo Alto on November 13, 1994. A 911 call was received from a resident who stated that her daughter had been burned in the shower. The fire dispatcher sent the engine company and paramedics. Shortly after the engine company and paramedics left their station in response to the call, the dispatchers received a second 911 call from that same resident. The only sound on the telephone line was the sound of the smoke detector. The dispatcher noted that it was the same address as the 911 call for the burn victim. Based on the dispatcher's 23 years of experience, he realized that the person was not burned in the shower but that there was a fire in the residence. The dispatcher immediately sent the additional fire apparatus to the scene. Because of his quick thinking and actions, not only was the medical assistance rendered to the patient but also the fire was confined to a single room in the residence. He read a thank you letter from the residents and the Fire Department commending the dispatcher's prompt actions and decision-making abilities. The letter showed how much well-trained, experience dispatchers were needed. The current work schedule and staffing levels supported that. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, said the art community was extremely grateful for the recommendation of the City Manager to retain the Division of Arts and Culture and the position of Director of Arts and Culture. The City Manager's recognition of the art community's long history of commitment to quality in art and the fact that none of the major organizations could get funding from the various state or federal organizations without that categorization of being in a separate arts and culture department were appreciated. She asked the Council to maintain the position of theater director as well as technical director at the Community Theatre. She hoped the position would not be eliminated but kept unfilled if funding were not available. The art community was fearful of a Community Services Commission since the Human Relations Commission (HRC) had recently made a recommendation to eliminate the performing arts center Downtown from the Comprehensive Plan without the art community's knowledge. Fortunately, the art community was notified by a Council Member, and the problem had been resolved. There would be trouble if people focused their decisions in fields that were wildly dispa-rate. Many on the Council felt the art community was too orga-nized and vocal, but the community was eager to be cooperative and work on its own structures. Patricia Henry, President, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 2516 West Middlefield Road, Mountain View, supported the Finance Committee recommendation to maintain the Junior Museum Supervisor position. The Junior Museum had been a wonderful place for the children of Palo Alto to visit for the previous 60 years.
12/05/94 74-275
A dedicated director was necessary to maintain the collection of exhibits at the museum. The museum had suffered during the previous eight months by having no supervisor focused on the facility. The Junior Museum was in the process of being reaccred-ited by the American Association of Museums but had had to ask for two extensions. The American Association of Museums had made it known that it would require the supervisor position be filled promptly with a museum professional before the museum was reaccredited. Without the reaccreditation, the museum would not be able to maintain its high quality of exhibits. She asked the Council to accept the City Manager's recommendation to maintain and fill the Junior Museum Supervisor position. Ron Lee, volunteer at the Palo Alto Junior Museum, 1119 Harker Avenue, said in 1988 due to staff reductions, two positions were lost at the Junior Museum. Concurrently, the volunteer undertook a program under the leadership of Superintendent of Open Space and Sciences John Walton to involve itself in exhibit preparations. The volunteers had developed enough expertise over the years to become almost completely in charge of exhibit preparation. There was an ongoing savings as a result of their efforts. The group lacked professional direction, and he encouraged the Council to recommend to the staff that the supervisor position be a profes-sional in the area of exhibit building. Sean Lanthier, Palo Alto Firefighter/Paramedic, 270 Cuesta Drive, Los Altos, presented a slide show that supported the three-person rescue unit and the value the City received from the nine profes-sional firefighters on the unit. The unit was the most specialized diverse unit on the Peninsula. He said HHA never communicated with the personnel from the unit as did the City Manager which showed a great deal of responsibility and respect for the department. He said the $300,000 for the unit and an additional $100,000 hazmat training directly associated with the unit. He explained the diverse complex capabilities of the unit. The hazmat unit needed three people to be a state certified hazmat unit. A two-person unit with a third person coming from another station as suggested by HHA was dangerous on such a technical unit. Specialized training on a continuous basis was needed for such a sophisticated unit. The service that the nine professional firefighters rendered was safety. Sandra Strehlou, Service Employee International Union (SEIU) Local 715, 891 Marshall Street, Redwood City, believed that its members had been greatly impacted by the organizational review. Change and adaptation was both healthy and inevitable, but the Local asked for the retention of the dispatch 10-hour schedule. It had supported and endorsed an alternative plan for contracting out of park maintenance. The Council was asked to oppose the eventual consolidation of two positions in the garage and the contracting out of permanent positions in the Tree Division. The reasons for that opposition were outlined in a memorandum to the Council dated September 25, 1994 (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). The Local was opposed to contracting out any work, but it was not in opposition to the Council's commitment to eliminate positions by attrition. The long-term impact of contracting out, i.e., the
12/05/94 74-276
ongoing diminishment of the bargaining unit and the compromising of the City's human resources and employee relations, was both shortsighted and contrary to the kind of community and government ideals that Palo Alto professed. Specific to the discussion on the trees recommendation but applicable generally was the recognition that contracting out positions in trees or any other department resulted in savings only because contract workers received inferior wages and benefits. Local 715 believed it was possible to contract out virtually every non-elected position in the City which raised the question of why one group of employees instead of another. If cost savings were the motivation, the union believed its future depended on a thoughtful discussion of the question of why HHA chose parks and trees and not other departments. The answer to the question would or would not set the City of Palo Alto apart from companies such as McDonald's or Bank of America that cut the hours of its lowest paid workers and considered the bottom line and not human considerations. The workers and unions represented that evening were motivated by a belief that all workers deserved fair wages, benefits, and working conditions. She asked the Council not to create a two-tiered staff structure in Palo Alto and reconsider contracting out work. Jean Fowkes, 1675 Middlefield Road, was sad that park work would gradually be contracted out over the next few years because she had worked in the Parks Division for over 17 years, and it had become better and more efficient. She said the analysis was done by how much it cost per acre to take care of parks facilities. Some areas were right-of-ways that needed to be neatly groomed, big playing fields for the children that required moving once a week, and intimate areas, e.g., Cultural Center, Lucie Stern, University and California Avenues, and library patios, that required a higher level of maintenance. The lowest bid contrac-tors would be selected, and additional supervision would be important to make sure that the work was done properly. The savings would not be as much as expected. She did not want the parks to deteriorate and wanted the parks to improve as part of the infrastructure. Richard Dauler, Palo Alto Fire Department Captain on Rescue 1, 2566 Webster Street, was concerned about the firefighters' safety. Rescue 1 was the hazardous materials inspection program as well as the soon-to-be hazardous materials response team. The unit inspected over 325 facilities that used or stored hazardous materials in Palo Alto. Rescue 1 would no longer be able to perform the inspections if one position were reduced. It would be difficult for a civilian to handle all the inspections in one year, e.g., Stanford Hospital was a five-day inspection. Also, reinspections would be necessary for the violations found. Rescue 1 also inspected the facilities at the same time, and a civilian inspector would not have the insight on how to deal with certain aspects in relationship to fire safety. A rapport had been established with the facility managers and each knew what to expect from the other on a fire call. The City of Palo Alto was unique and could not be compared to other cities. The City should continue to maintain its safety levels and the same standards. Menlo Park ran a two-person rescue but did not have the fire load
12/05/94 74-277
as far as high-rise procedures. A high-rise took four times the amount of people needed on an initial response. Lives and property could be lost waiting for additional staff. Rescue 1 also dealt with backup medical calls throughout the City, which kept the engine company in its district. It was a safety issue, and he urged the Council to keep the three-person unit. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke on behalf of the Barron Park Association (BPA). He reminded the Council that the HHA's report came to the conclusion that the City was well operated and efficient which meant that the City Manager and the senior staff had been doing an excellent job. The total amount of savings proposed by HHA was approximately 1 percent of the General Fund which did not show a slack operation or a lot of waste and abuse. BPA concurred with the recommendation that the Terman Library remain open. The BPA Board was aghast at the proposed reduction of the staff on the hazmat unit from three to two people. The neighborhood would be the most impacted by probable hazardous materials spills due to its proximity to the Stanford Research Park. The reduction would be dangerous to the community and also to the rescue and firefighter personnel. The BPA unanimously opposed the proposal. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said it was foolish not to increase the budget as recommended by HHA and add more than $200,000 in order to bring the trees up to some standard. Two trees were lost for each tree planted. The City would end up with 2 to 400 less trees per year. Parking lots and utility areas were not being maintained. It would take two full-time equivalent positions 20 years to trim all the trees in the parks. The large jobs required people who did that kind of work. The trees in the parks would be 100 percent worse than the trees on the street which were trimmed every 10 to 11 years, but the park trees would be every 20 years. Parks maintained the landscapes in the neighborhood parks, athletic fields, parkways, median strips, underpasses, utility areas, and fire stations, but she did not believe anyone maintained the trees. Many areas in South Palo Alto had no trees. Utility areas were left vacant. Residents had complained to the City Tree Division and more people were noticing the problems. The City would have to deal with the problems soon. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the City Manager deferred responding to the HHA recommendation for a large increase in spending for trees until the report of the Tree Task Force (TTF) had been received. The TTF should provide that report soon. The Council needed to set a deadline for receipt of the report to be able to make budgetary decisions for next year and provide the City Manager an opportunity to respond to the TTF's recommenda-tions and integrate that response with the response to the HHA recommendations for increased funding. If the majority of the TTF could not produce a report, the Council would then have an opportunity to encourage individuals on the TTF to present their views to the Council. He hoped the Council would move forward with a date certain for the report. Harn Soper, 1270 Cedar Street, supported the Junior Museum and
12/05/94 74-278
Zoo. The museum celebrated 60 years of activity, classes, and exhibits for Palo Alto and Bay Area children. The museum main-tained an impressive collection of cultural and natural history items that were of interest and benefit to all the children. There was also a marvelous collection of critters and plants that went into outreach to schools and to public education. The museum lost a position that had a lot to do with creating and maintaining exhibits. The Friends of the Junior Museum had increased its membership and funding and had supported the museum, but it really needed the full-time guidance of a museum professional. He supported the recommendation to sustain and fill the supervisor position. Ted Kai, 724 Central Avenue, Menlo Park, said there was a commu-nication gap with the HHA report because the workers were not interviewed. Palo Alto had a problem. The people in the envi-ronmental movement questioned whether the Council was in touch with its employees and the community. Ms. Fleming said Palo Alto was a superb city that provided a massive array of services, but the City could not have it all. The time had come to make some changes. Palo Alto could not say it was done somewhere else and it should be done here. Other cities had a different mix of services. Council Member Fazzino said the TTF planned to present the Council with its recommendations in January 1995. The TTF had checked with the staff to make certain that the budget recommendations could be incorporated into the staff decision-making process with respect to next year's budget. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council approve maintaining the current firefighters' minimum staffing and the current shift schedule for the Communications Dispatchers. Council Member Fazzino respected the different points of view of his colleagues on the issue, and he did not believe they were voting against fire safety by opposing the recommendations. He supported maintaining the current level of staffing in the Fire Department and the shift schedule in the Communications Division because Palo Alto had an outstanding public safety program which should not be changed. The City paid slightly more for police and fire services in the community, but he believed that Palo Altans were willing to pay for greater security and a higher level of service. The maintenance of a fire staffing level of 29 provided more flexibility to the Fire Department and a greater sense of security to the citizens, particularly in the event of multiple fires. The City would probably not face a tragic situation in the next few months by voting to cut the staffing to 28, but he did believe the current level of funding provided the necessary flexibility, particularly when many of the units in the community were Eichler homes and susceptible to greater fire probability. If the City were in the midst of a major budget crunch, he would ask Palo Alto citizens whether they wanted to maintain the current fire staffing, and he believed the answer would be a resounding
12/05/94 74-279
"yes" even if it meant paying higher taxes or fees. The City was very fortunate to have highly-trained, well-experienced communications dispatchers in the community. The dispatchers were an integral part of the City's outstanding safety program. Only the people who were dispatchers could appreciate just how stressful the job was. He was convinced that there was a direct correlation between the experience and tenure of the dispatchers and the current work schedule which had served the dispatchers and the City very well since 1975. The current schedule provided enough of a work break for the dispatchers to reduce their stress and remain healthy. The City might save a few dollars by adopting HHA's proposed schedule, but in the long run more dollars would be expended as increased stress led to the probability of greater staff turnover for the Communications Division. He had heard many times from citizens of the community regarding the outstanding professional service that was provided to them when they contacted the Communications Division regardless of the nature of the call. Council Member Wheeler concurred with the comments of Council Member Fazzino. She said one of things prevalent in the news recently had been the failure of 911 systems elsewhere in the country. The City had received only positive feedback on the job done by the City's dispatchers in the community. The dispatchers had done a good job of researching the issues and had presented information that she found quite convincing. The opportunities to train and get away from a very high stress level job for periods of renewable were very important factors in not only their ability to stay on the job in Palo Alto for a much longer period of time than neighboring jurisdictions had experienced but it also produced a very high level of quality of service. The City did not want to experience in the community what other communities had experienced recently with their 911 services. She felt the working conditions that were provided in the community at the present time helped ensure the City against similar instances. She believed the comments expressed by Mr. Moss were what most of the citizens in the community would feel if the reduction in the rescue staffing took place. The addition of a civilian hazmat inspector would take up the slack in terms of the inspection services that were performed for the industrial and commercial facilities; however, she felt the area that would suffer would be the emergency response. The City could not afford to have a reduction in service to the community. She said it would be consistent with the motion to include as part of the motion not to add the one Hazmat Investigator position. If the one Hazmat Investigator position were added while reducing the number of members of the rescue team, it dramatically decreased the amount of savings. It was not worth it to the community until the City absolutely had to make some hard financial decisions. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that it include not adding the one Hazmat Investigator position. Council Member Schneider could not support public safety being compromised in the community. Results of recent surveys had indicated that members of the community were willing to pay more for services such as library, recreation, and museums, but the
12/05/94 74-280
citizens were not willing to compromise public safety. Council Member Rosenbaum said there was no intent to compromise public safety with either of the recommendations. The services would not be reduced, but there would be a different way of doing things. The difficulty with the 10-hour shift and 3 shifts per day was that the City paid for 30 hours for 24-hour service. There were legitimate reasons for the Police Department, but he did not feel that was the case for the dispatchers. The recommendation asked the dispatchers to put in more hours on the phones, but it did not ask them to answer more calls per hour and the same number of dispatchers would be on duty. He said staff provided a survey of 15 surrounding jurisdictions; and San Carlos, Santa Clara County, City of Santa Clara, Alameda County, Berkeley, Burlingame, Contra Costa County, Napa, and Mountain View had the 5-day, 8-hour shift. Of the 10 cities, 7 cities had the police on the 4-10 shift which did not create a problem. The 4-10 shift was more expensive than a 5-8 shift, and he believed the fact the other cities were able to function satisfactorily with that kind of dispatch indicated the City could do the same thing. The reduction in the Fire Department was a matter of deploying the forces. The hazmat unit would not be reduced. The Fire Chief had indicated to the industries that there would still be three hazmat officers--two would travel on the rescue vehicle and one would travel with the engine company. Both of the vehicles would be dispatched for hazmat emergencies. There would be no change. It had never been the intent that only two people would operate a rescue vehicle. There would always be a third firefighter to assist the two people. The firefighters had to be cross trained, and there had never been an indication that that was a problem. He opposed the motion. Council Member McCown said the City Manager recommended that the shift schedule not be changed from the 4-10, but there was a recommendation by the City Manager to reduce one Communication Dispatcher position. The motion on the floor of the Finance Committee was the HHA recommendation which did not pass out of the Committee on a 2-2 vote. She asked whether the motion to retain the schedule was the same as the City Manager's recommendation. Council Member Fazzino clarified the motion did not include the reduction of one communication position. Council Member McCown had not heard specific objection from the dispatcher personnel to that aspect of the City Manager's recommendation. The dispatchers supported the City Manager's recommendation which included one position reduction. She supported the City Manager's proposal to retain the 4-10 schedule but to make one position reduction. She supported the City Manager's analysis of the strengths and benefits of the current schedule and the way the dispatcher group worked. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to reduce one Communication Dispatcher position. Council Member McCown found the firefighter staffing
12/05/94 74-281
recommendation difficult, and she had not sensed an overwhelming endorsement by the Fire Chief that it was a good idea. The Fire Chief agreed that it was not a safety issue but that it would affect operations. She was influenced by his comments and would not support the change at the present time. She said the Fire Chief was accepting and supportive of the City Manager's recommendation with respect to the change in the Rescue Truck, but she sensed a reluctance or qualified endorsement of the recommendation. Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva supported the City Manager's recommenda-tion, but it was a difficult decision to make. Council Member McCown would not support the change at the present time based upon the information provided, but she was open to the possibility that the City might have to make those difficult decisions in the future for the reasons articulated. Vice Mayor Simitian regretted the fact the purpose of the study was raised both by Council Members and the public because it compelled him to state that while there was a multiplicity of reasons why the HHA study was commissioned, the consultant came up with $2 million savings and $800,000 in net savings because the consultant felt after more than 2 years in the process that that was the charge the consultant had been given. Presumably then, it was among the charges the consultant had been given, and the Finance Committee and the Blue Ribbon Task Force continued to work with that understanding. It was part of the HHA agreement's charge, and every time the issue arose at the Council level, Vice Mayor Simitian raised the issue of cost savings and was assured that that was an important part of the study. There might be differences of opinion about the emphasis that should be taken, but it clearly was an important part of the study. The question was whether the study suggested savings that could be made and which should be made without compromising either the level of service expectations, the safety of employees, or the safety of the public. The savings between the Fire and Police Department recommendations were close to $250,000 which was a significant savings recommended as being available. He took a different view from Council Members who suggested that when the City reached a crisis point some time in the future, the Council might need to look at the items. The goal was not to wait for a crisis but to make the savings wherever, whenever, and as soon as the Council could if the savings could be consistent with the public service level expectations and the safety of the employees and the public. The public wanted the City to make the savings when and if it could and not wait for a crisis to arrive. He associated with the comments of Council Member Rosenbaum. He understood from Fire Chief Grijalva's remarks that an additional truck would be sent to a situation under the proposed change schedule. The additional engine had two or three people on the truck which would increase the personnel at the situation. The issue raised during the course of the debate had to do with timing. He understood that time was critical, but the Rescue Unit which would have one less staff on it was the unit at Alma Street.
12/05/94 74-282
Mr. Grijalva said the unit was currently located at Alma Street, but there were current plans to move it to Station No. 2. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the replacement vehicle would come from one of the six stations in the City which would presumedly be closer to the incident than the unit that was already at Alma Street. Mr. Grijalva said that was correct, but it would depend upon where the call came from. The larger percentage of calls would probably be away from the station. Vice Mayor Simitian said additional engine companies would come from locations that were in closer proximity in most cases, and the situation would end up with the same number of vehicles and a comparable number of individuals on the scene. As Council Member Rosenbaum pointed out, the vehicles and personnel would be deployed differently. He said his judgment was based on the fact that the consultant was asked to indicate experiences around the state that suggested it was possible without compromising public safety. The consultant told the City it could save twice as much in the area of firefighters. The City Manager was then asked to give her professional expertise, and the City Manager's expertise was to move forward with the proposal. The Fire Chief indicated he was not enthusiastic about any cuts in his department, but he could make it work without compromising public or firefighter safety. He was persuaded by the comments of the consultant, the City Manager, and the Fire Chief that it would work. The consultant felt that the schedule for the dispatchers could work, and the information from the staff indicated that 75 percent of the dispatch stations around the state operated on an 8- or 12-hour shift basis rather than on a 10-hour shift. It might not be the preferred way on the part of some staff, but the Council had to acknowledge that if 75 percent of the dispatch stations around the state made it work, all of them were not compromising public safety. It could work, and the combined savings were $250,000. He appreciated that the Council Members had a difference of opinion about whether or not the savings could be achieved without compromising public safety. He said the letters he received from the dispatchers were thoughtful, well written, and compelling, but it did not move him to a different place on the issue. Everyone wanted to save money in the abstract and spend money in the specific, but it could not be both ways. The Council had to ask itself whether it was prepared to do in specific on a line item basis what it said it wanted to do as an abstract or general matter. He supported the City Manager's recommendation on fire and the HHA recommendation on the dispatchers. Mayor Kniss was convinced that the motion actually served the community best. Based on the results, it was working so far. She would not vote to decrease the firefighters from 29 to 28 that evening. There would be some dramatic changes out of Sacramento in the next six months, and she would support the City Manager's recommendation in the future if she said it needed to be done. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
12/05/94 74-283
FIRST PART OF THE MOTION regarding firefighters' minimum staffing (including not to add the one Hazmat Investigator position) MOTION PASSED 6-3, Andersen, Rosenbaum, Simitian, "no." SECOND PART OF THE MOTION regarding the current Communications Dispatchers' shift schedule and reduction of one Communication Dispatcher position. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Rosenbaum, Simitian "no." MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the Finance Committee and the Policy and Services Committee recommendations as follows: Finance Committee Recommendations: 1. Approve the City Manager's recommendation to realign Tree Services in the Public Works Department, including reducing street tree trimming staff by five positions, expanding contract services for some street tree trimming services, utilizing savings from staff reductions in street tree trimming to increase the level of park tree care staffing by two, and eliminating the CIP for park tree maintenance. To be accomplished through attrition. 2. Approve the City Manager's recommendation, as revised, to combine the Fleet Service Coordinator and Lead Mechanic posi-tion into one position and reduce one temporary staff position in the Fleet Management Division. To be accom-plished through attrition. 3. Defer addition of a Business Manager position to Community Services Department Administration. 4. Approve combining Community Theater Manager with Technical Supervisor position into one position. 5. Maintain the Junior Museum Supervisor position and request the City Manager to propose alternative realignments for Community Services Department positions in the 1995-96 budget. 6. Accept the City Manager's recommendation for phasing in over four years the contracting of parks maintenance and reduce staff by 4.5 FTE as attrition occurs. 7. Approve City Manager's recommendations to make no change in the paramedic billing and to reduce the Treasury staff by one position. 8. Recommend to defer the Geographic Information Systems Coordi-nator in the Information Resources Department at least until 1996-97 because more information was needed regarding differ-ent ways to approach the task, with a request to the City
12/05/94 74-284
Manager to look at alternatives. 9. Approve one Code Enforcement position to Inspection Services, with a request to the City Manager to bring back a plan for an appropriate fee recovery schedule with the budget process. 10. Reduce one management position in Planning and add one Senior Planner position (Contract planner services are full cost recovery). 11. Approve transfer Environmental Protection Coordinator posi-tion from Planning to Fire Department. 12. Approve the City Manager's recommendation to upgrade two Office Assistant positions to Office Specialist in the Planning Department. 13. Approve conversion of Fire Department management employees to exempt status. 14. Approve one part-time clerical conversion to full time in the Fire Department. 15. Defer adding administrative staff in the Fire Department until completion of the study of merging the Police and Fire administrative services. Policy and Services Committee Recommendations 1. Create an Administrative Services Department, initially consisting of Finance and Information Resources, which would report to the City Manager (Public Works and Community Services would report to Assistant City Manager); net cost: $6,500. 2. Conduct an organizational study of the Utilities Department. 3. Create a Community Services Commission; net cost: $3,000 for City Clerk expenses. 4. Complete a Master Plan for the future of the Arts in the community, within three years. 5. Study the feasibility of consolidating Police and Fire Department administrative services. 6. Reassign Human Services Division as a part of Community Services Administration. 7. Transfer Right-of-Way contract maintenance functions, exclud-ing the two major business districts, to the Public Works Department. 8. Retain Cubberley Community Center management in the Community Services Department and clearly assign leasing/long-term rental responsibility to the Real Estate Division of the
12/05/94 74-285
(new) Administrative Services Department. 9. Retain Transportation Division in the Planning & Community Environment Department. 10. Further direct staff to prepare a draft of the proposed studies for review, with involvement of affected community groups, at a net cost of $9,500. Council Member Wheeler said the Finance Committee attempted to do a thorough job of examining the recommendations that came to it from the City Manager as well as reviewing some of the HHA recommendations. Council Member Andersen was disappointed that the TTF's report was not available that evening. If the recommendations were in contrast to the recommendations from the Finance Committee, he might be interested in persuading his colleagues to reconsider the item. He was concerned that the community did not have a human rights ordinance that required specific recommendations for contract employers to provide contract workers with a health benefit. He would be discomforted if the source of the savings for using contract employees was the fact that contract workers did not receive health benefit. Vice Mayor Simitian was also concerned about the responsibilities of the contractors. He had discussed the issue with the City Manager and would bring the topic to the Council early in the coming year in cooperation with the City Manager. Council Member Andersen said other communities in the area had such an ordinance, and he had requested information regarding those ordinances. Palo Alto was the kind of community that should consider that kind of ordinance as well. Vice Mayor Simitian asked what the motion would do with respect to the Junior Museum. Ms. Fleming understood that the Junior Museum position would remain. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the City would advertise and fill the position. One person was currently doing the job of two people, and there was some discussion in the Finance Committee about the fact that the position was unfilled. Ms. Fleming said the position would remain and would be filled. Internally, staff would look at other ways to make realignments within the Community Services Department to meet some of the needs to be met by the business manager. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether realignment meant spending more money on another position and whether the issue would return to the Council for approval. Ms. Fleming said yes.
12/05/94 74-286
Vice Mayor Simitian clarified that approval of the motion would not approve the business manager position but would approve the Junior Museum position which would be filled in the future. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian asked how the City would proceed with the Community Services Commission upon approval of the motion. Ms. Fleming would recommend to the Council the creation of a Community Services Commission and the recommendation would be forwarded to the appropriate committee for review before returning to the Council for action. The proposal would explain to the Council the roles of the bodies that presently existed and the friends of the groups. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether he would have an opportunity in the future to vote against the issue if he had serious reservations. Ms. Fleming said the Council would have an opportunity to vote on the issue. Council Member Rosenbaum said the City Manager's interpretation was not the interpretation he meant when he made the motion which the Finance Committee passed unanimously. The motion in the Finance Committee minutes dated November 17, 1994, stated "that the Finance Committee tentatively defer consideration of the proposal to merge the Junior Museum Supervisor and Open Space Superintendent staffing positions until the 1995-96 budget discussion." He believed it was the Finance Committee's intent that the position would not be filled but left open because of Mr. Walton's comment that he did not feel he could handle the job in the absence of a business manager. Ms. Fleming said the substitute motion stated "that the Finance Committee tentatively defer consideration of the proposal to merge..." which she understood would not be merged until 1995-96. She believed the position could not be filled until 1995-96. She had not accurately interpreted the substitute motion. Council Member Rosenbaum said it would be very difficult to decide to merge the positions if someone were hired at the present time and then another decision were made with regard to the business manager. Ms. Fleming asked that the Council consider the fact that work had to be done, and there were ways to accomplish the work other than hiring permanent staff. It was an imposition on the person who was presently trying to perform two tasks. Council Member Rosenbaum said the business manager would not be hired until next year anyway. It was the City Manager's recommen-dation to merge the position of Open Space Superintendent and Junior Museum Supervisor. His intent was not to finalize that
12/05/94 74-287
merge until the 1995-96 budget discussions. It would not be a correct interpretation to fill the position at the present time. Ms. Fleming said the direction was doable. It would have to be brought back during the budget process, and minor adjustments would have to be made to accommodate the work load between now and the budget hearings. Council Member Andersen said there was a discrepancy between the staff report (CMR:556:94) and page 20 of the Finance Committee minutes, and he supported Council Member Rosenbaum's suggestion. Council Member Wheeler said there was a second half to the synopsis of the recommendation that was on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:556:94). Based on the context of the discussion that evening, she believed the City Manager had the message. She did not believe the motion should be amended. Council Member Fazzino said Mr. Walton indicated at the Finance Committee meeting that the work could not be done unless the City maintained the Junior Museum Supervisor position. He made the motion, seconded by Council Member Wheeler, to maintain the Junior Museum position, and it was his intent that that position would be filled. He recalled that Council Member Rosenbaum's motion had to do primarily with the issue of whether or not the merger of that position with the Open Space Superintendent position would take place. The Finance Committee voted in favor of that substitute motion, but he was still under the impression that the staff would move forward and make sure that someone could provide the services necessary to handle what was currently being done by the Junior Museum. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that staff be directed to fill the Junior Museum Supervisor position. Vice Mayor Simitian said the frustration he felt at the Committee was that there was a clear expression from the majority of the Committee about the business manager's position. When the Committee discussed the Junior Museum position, Mr. Walton indicated that he had been able to do both jobs; but if the Council did not approve a business manager position, then there was no way he could do both jobs. He was put in the position of voting against the business manager's position, and then he was told that he had de facto voted against an adequate Junior Museum staffing position. Council Member Fazzino made very good points at the meeting about trying to find ways to cut that were not directly related to the provision of services. Council Member Fazzino's compelling argument that evening had to do with the fact that the Junior Museum position was a position that delivered services to the people as contrasted with a mid-level management-type position such as a business manager. The Junior Museum Supervisor position was not maintained because the Committee ended up with a substitute motion instead of the original motion as noted on page 19. If the intent had been to maintain that position, the Committee would have approved the original motion rather than approving a substitute motion to do something
12/05/94 74-288
differently. He believed the City should provide support at the Junior Museum level which was why the Council Members who supported the substitute motion asked that the staff return to the Council for further discussion on the issue. He did not like being told that if he voted against the business manager position, services could not be provided at the Junior Museum. Ms. Fleming explained that she had not heard clearly from staff either that the combination Mr. Walton was trying to carry off was not working. Based on that information, she recommended that the Junior Museum Supervisor be filled and the business manager not be filled. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 12A. (Old Item No.3) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and A. D. Machinery Sales Company for Underground Electric Vault Cleaning; change orders not to exceed $8,200 Vice Mayor Simitian asked why the City only received two bids on the item and why the second bid was 150 percent higher than the first bid. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said the project was a unique cleaning process, and high voltage vaults would be cleaned that had 12,000 volts of power that would not be shut down. Staff contacted a number of other utilities in Northern California and only found three companies that did that type of work. One company declined to bid, and the other two companies provided the two bids indicated. Staff also questioned the high bid from Lewis & Tibbitts. Lewis & Tibbitts misread the specifications and it bid on twice the number of vaults as indicated in the bid. Lewis & Tibbitts indicated it would do the work for $95,000 which was still higher than the low bid of $82,000. The low bidder was accepted. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council: 1) Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with A. D. Machinery Sales Company in the amount of $82,000 for services performed in connection with the Underground Vault Cleaning Project; and 2) Authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to cover additional related but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. The value of these change orders shall not exceed $8,200. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 12B. (Old Item No. 10) Confirmation of the City Council's Actions Regarding Approval in Concept of the Acquisition of 753 Alma Street for the Development of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Council Member Rosenbaum said he had asked for two pieces of
12/05/94 74-289
information from the staff at the previous meeting and only one piece was provided. The second concern had to do with the adequacy of the alleyway to serve one of the levels of the garage. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said when staff reviewed the action minutes after the City Council meeting, it was staff's collective recollection that that piece had not been noted in the motion as indicated by Council Member Rosenbaum which was the reason the confirmation of the City Council's actions was on the Council's agenda that evening. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the City Council confirm the motion and amendments as noted on the November 28, 1994, City Council Action Agenda, with the addition that the adequacy of the level of the alleyway be addressed. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Andersen announced the birth of his granddaughter "Margaret Maurey," who weighed eight pounds three ounces. Council Member Wheeler asked about work being done in the inter-sections around City Hall. She said that the trucks were often parked in the intersections and, therefore, blocked the views of cars approaching it. City Manager June Fleming said she would look into the issue. Mayor Kniss spoke regarding the National League of Cities 1994 Congress of Cities held last week in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She announced that KZSU would broadcast the December 7, 1994, City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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.
12/05/94 74-290