HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-01 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 1, 1996 1. Appointments to the Human Relations Commission..........79-3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................79-4 2. Community Development Block Grant Allocations and Draft Annual Action Plan.............................................79-5 3. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. re Electric Cost of Service Study....79-5 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Power Engineering Contractors, Inc. for the Aeration Inlet Modification Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.............79-5 5. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Wallace Roberts & Todd for Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project, Phase I - Feasibility and Schematic Design..............79-5 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacheco Brothers Gardening, Inc. for Renovation of the Irrigation System at Peers Park..............................................79-5 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacheco Brothers Gardening, Inc. for Installation of Water Backflow Devices at City Facilities Landscape Areas.........................79-5 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Inglewood for Parking Citation Handling.................79-5 9. Ordinance 4339 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to change the Classification of Property Known as 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court from RM-30 to PC District.........................79-5 10. Initiation of Community Commercial Zone Text Change for the Stanford Shopping Center (continued from 3/18/96).......79-6 11. Mayor Wheeler re A Proposal for Creating Unity through City-Facilitated Community Action (continued from 3/18/96)...79-9
04/01/96 79-1
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Proposals for an Option to Lease the Restaurant at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, 1875 Embarcadero Road.......................................79-11 13. Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 4.42.085 Imposing Requirements for Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing of Drivers of Taxicabs and Other For-Hire Vehicles, Amending Section 4.42.010(A) Exempting Paratransit Providers Under Contract with Other Government Agencies from the Regulations of Chapter 4.42, and Repealing Section 4.42.020(B) of Chapter 4.42 to Conform to the Changes to Section 4.42.010(A) of Chapter 4.42.......................................................79-14 14. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapters 5.25 and 5.26 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Aerial Spraying of Pesticides Due to State Preemption.............................................79-17 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........79-18 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. in memory of David Packard................................................79-18
04/01/96 79-2
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Rosenbaum SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to the Human Relations Commission
Council Member Simitian supported Catherine O=Brien on the first
ballot. Ms. O=Brien had been interviewed for a previous vacancy but was not appointed at that time. Council encouraged her to stay active in the community and apply when another vacancy occurred.
He felt Ms. O=Brien=s application was even stronger for the current vacancy and that she made a compelling case in terms of bringing some different perspectives to the process that would serve the community well.
Council Member Andersen supported Ms. O=Brien on the first ballot.
He was extremely impressed by Ms. O=Brien as she provided a great deal of energy and enthusiasm for the assignment and a tremendous amount of background. He was pleased to see her provide a different insight and felt it would make a good mix on the Human Relations Commission (HRC). He also supported Roy Blitzer on the first ballot. Mr. Blitzer had done an outstanding job during his first term and had been a positive influence on the HRC.
Council Member Schneider supported Ms. O=Brien on the first ballot.
In addition to a remarkable background, Ms. O=Brien would bring liveliness to the HRC. Council Member Fazzino supported Mr. Blitzer on the first ballot. He said Mr. Blitzer had been an excellent HRC member, even though he and Mr. Blitzer did not always agree, but the purpose of the HRC was to challenge the Council and push and encourage the Council to look at issues in a different light and to think about ways that
the Council=s policies affected all members of the community. He
also supported Ms. O=Brien on the first ballot. Based upon his
knowledge of Ms. O=Brien and review of her application, he felt she brought a nice balance of compassion and common sense to the HRC which was needed. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR AGIEWICH: VOTING FOR BLITZER: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler
04/01/96 79-3
VOTING FOR COOK: VOTING FOR FREEDMAN: VOTING FOR O'BRIEN: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR URIBE: VOTING FOR WEINSTEIN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Roy Blitzer and Catherine O'Brien received seven votes and were appointed on the first ballot. Mayor Wheeler congratulated the appointees and said there had been an outstanding candidate pool. She encouraged those who were not appointed to reapply if a vacancy should occur. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding entertainment (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Howard Smith, 3267 Emerson Street, spoke regarding CalTrain. Sharon Adams, 670 San Antonio Road No. 37, spoke regarding Cable Co-op. Regina Pustan, P. O. Box 60724, Palo Alto, spoke regarding Linus Pauling. Michael Anthony, no address, spoke regarding the March 27, 1996, incident in the Downtown (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Stuart Tanner, 260 College Avenue No. F, spoke regarding taxicab franchises. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 9. 2. Community Development Block Grant Allocations and Draft Annual Action Plan - Refer to Finance Committee 3. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. re Electric Cost of Service Study
04/01/96 79-4
4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Power Engineering Contractors, Inc. for the Aeration Inlet Modification Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; change orders not to exceed $17,000. 5. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Wallace Roberts & Todd for Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project, Phase I - Feasibility and Schematic Design 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacheco Brothers Gardening, Inc. for Renovation of the Irrigation System at Peers Park; change orders not to exceed 10 percent or $9,800. 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacheco Brothers Gardening, Inc. for Installation of Water Backflow Devices at City Facilities Landscape Areas; change orders not to exceed $16,291. 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Inglewood for Parking Citation Handling 9. Ordinance 4339 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to change the Classification of Property Known as 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court from RM-30 to PC District" (1st Reading 3/18/96, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent) MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 2 - 8, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 for Item No. 9, Huber "abstaining," Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. Initiation of Community Commercial Zone Text Change for the Stanford Shopping Center (continued from 3/18/96) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the item related to the Sand Hill Corridor projects that Stanford University had applied for and which staff was preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). One of the projects was a proposed expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center which involved a text change to the zoning ordinance. Under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC,) an initiation of a change to the text in the zoning ordinance could only be done by the Planning Commission or the City Council, not by staff or the public. The item before the Council that evening was to initiate the consideration of the Community Commercial zone text change for the proposed expansion of the shopping center. Failure to initiate the consideration of the zone text change meant that staff could not schedule the public hearing at the Planning Commission level, so either the Planning Commission or the Council needed to take action. He stressed it was a
04/01/96 79-5
procedural issue, and any vote on it would not signify an intent of the Council or individual Council Members on how he/she would vote when the item returned to the Council for substantive resolution which would be after the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been publicly reviewed and the Planning Commission had made its recommendations. Council Member McCown said the staff report (CMR:185:96) pointed out the most recent policy action by the Council was that any potential removal of the cap would have to be evaluated based on some addressing of circulation and parking issues. She clarified the initiation or the potential amendment would not be viewed as inconsistent with that prior policy. Mr. Schreiber said it was consistent in that it would allow the project to be reviewed and the EIR to be processed, which would provide the basis for the Council to evaluate the circulation and parking issues that were related to the item. Mayor Wheeler was concerned with the latter portion of the process. If the process were reviewed and evaluated and for some reason the project did not go forward as a package, she asked whether the zoning text change would be worded in such a way that the Council could be assured the City was not left with language in the zoning text that would allow for the increase of the cap. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said if the Council reached the point where it was absolutely not interested in the project, staff would recommend that the Council take action to stop all further proceedings including the initiation that had been taken. Mayor Wheeler asked about its appearing on a ballot to the voters. Ms. Case said anything that went on a ballot was likely to be something the Council could control because it would either be put on the ballot by the Council or it would go in the form of a referendum on an action that the Council had already taken. It would essentially be based on something the Council would frame. Mayor Wheeler said she did not want to see the potential at the other end of the process with a technical wording change on the books because of an action the Council took on advice from staff that it was purely technical. Ms. Case said the projects as being studied in the EIR were all in one report but were being studied as separate projects and by law could be approved and disapproved as separate projects. Mayor Wheeler said the result could be that the Council or the voters determined they did not want the road extended; however, she clarified there would still be the potential to expand the shopping center without the road.
04/01/96 79-6
Ms. Case said that was not likely because the Council would frame whatever went on the ballot. If the Council decided that it was not interested in pursuing the shopping center, Council would also take action that would make it clear that was the issue to be voted on. She felt it would be covered in any instance. There were several possibilities of action that the Council could take. The way the EIR was being done gave the Council the flexibility to make decisions and to frame what issues would eventually go on the ballot. Council Member McCown clarified that the initiation of the consideration of a potential text change would not determine by
the Council=s action that evening what that text change might be. The language would to be evaluated for change, and exactly what
that change might be was not determined by the Council=s action. It could be no change, $65,000, $100,000, or any number of things. Ms. Case said if for some reason the issue was still there at the very end of the process, staff would remind the Council that action needed to be taken at that point. Bill Petersen, 228 Fulton Street, said according to the City Attorney Ariel Calonne, zoning decisions were entitlements. Before the Council gave Stanford the right to bring a number of cars per amount of square feet per day into Palo Alto, the Council and the public needed to fully understand that, and any zoning changes should be clearly and specifically tied to improvements in circulation as evaluated in the EIR. He understood the concerns about evaluating issues correctly, but he agreed with the concerns expressed by Council Member McCown and Mayor Wheeler. Palo Alto did not want to be at risk with having another Arastra property situation in which the City had to pay Stanford millions of dollars a year because the Council said it might want to allow Stanford expand the shopping center. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said either the application request for initiating a zone text change was part of the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects or it was not. If it were not part of the project, nothing had to be done about it currently. However, if it were part of the project, it should have been part of the completed application that was necessary prior to issuing a notice of preparation for the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects. The scoping meetings indicated there were other items missing that had been identified by staff previously which were needed from the applicant before the project could be deemed completed; therefore, lawfully, was a subject of a notice of preparation for the EIR. The public was being told there was another item that should have been a part of the project application before the project was deemed completed and a notice of preparation issued. The City could not have it both ways. If it were part of the project, the EIR process had to
04/01/96 79-7
begin again; and if it were not part of the project and not necessary, then no action needed to be taken on the item. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said it had to be considered as part of the overall Sand Hill Road Corridor projects; otherwise, it was piecemeal and illegal under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He did not see the point of moving forward absent moving forward with all of the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects. The Council needed to carefully consider what it would do in the entire corridor area. There was a finite capacity such as traffic, parking, and land use. If the Council moved forward on only one portion of the project to the exclusion of looking at housing and expansion of the medical center, to an extent the Council was prejudging what the more valuable issue was. It was more appropriate to wait until all of the pieces of the puzzle could be reviewed at one time. The Council could always ask for the revisions to the zoning text ordinance in the future. Moving forward with only that one project suggested that the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center had greater priority than anything else being considered in the Sand Hill Road Corridor under the Comprehensive Plan study. He felt it was inappropriate and unwise, and he suggested that the Council wait and readdress the issue as an entire package or some serious errors could be made. The Council might find that it consumed valuable resources for the shopping center which might be used for housing, the medical center, etc. Ms. Case clarified that based on the previous two comments and because of the unusual way that the PAMC was written, Stanford had no ability to apply for the zone text change. It could only be done through the City Council. The reason the zone text change was being brought forward was for the purpose of being able to have the particular issue follow along with all of the other parts of
Stanford=s application. The action by the City Council would in essence allow what Stanford proposed to be considered. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to initiate consideration of a Community Commercial (CC) Zone Text Change pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.89.080(a) by referring the matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Council Member McCown understood the Council was proceeding precisely as Mr. Borock and Mr. Moss were urging which was to be sure that all of the projects be evaluated in a combined EIR. It was a very technical issue, and she felt it needed to be acted upon in order to allow the process to move forward. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. 11. Mayor Wheeler re A Proposal for Creating Unity through City-Facilitated Community Action (continued from 3/18/96)
04/01/96 79-8
Mayor Wheeler said recently she had the opportunity to review some of the past State of City Addresses and quoted some of the former
mayors: 1) Former Mayor Fazzino said, ΑWe=ve built a wonderful city through the initiative, creativity, and very hard work of a
remarkable citizenry≅; 2) Former Mayor McCown said, ΑWe must capitalize on strong and active neighborhood groups and associations, ensure that participants in our political processes feel that getting involved is worth it because it can make a difference in the outcome, and we must avoid a belief that only experts or professionals, i.e., those of us down at City Hall can
solve problems≅; 3) Former Mayor Kniss said, ΑIt=s not the climate, not the location, but the people who make Palo Alto special. When this community identifies a problem it wants to address, dozens of
people are ready to step forward≅; and 4) Former Mayor Simitian
said, ΑThis is Year No. One in Palo Alto=s second Century which means that each of us has a remarkable opportunity as well as an obligation to help rebuild this community as we begin our second
Century.≅ She believed that the document before the Council contained the conceptual framework which tied all of those ideas together. The timing for the proposal was perfect. The City had received a grant from the Packard Foundation to help look at the ways in which the City was using volunteers and could increase its use of volunteers. The City now had a volunteer coordinator dedicated to that purpose, there was a City staff member who was open to the idea of the use of volunteers, and the City was in a financial situation which begged for additional resources to accomplish the programs that Palo Altans were so anxious to have put into place. Finally, the City had a mayor who was experienced in and committed to community service. Council Member McCown said the memo acknowledged enormous volunteer involvement and a series of ways such as the annual event the City hosted for volunteers, in which the Council met thousands of volunteers, especially for the Police Department. Her sense was
that Mayor Wheeler=s direction was not to build on the existing volunteer efforts but to seek out new areas the City had not tried before. What she saw in the memo was a physical sense of focus. The memo addressed the revitalization of playgrounds, enhancement of community centers or public places, and preservation of public buildings and facilities. She asked for some elaboration in terms of direction if she understood it correctly, or if not, how that direction would be derived.
Mayor Wheeler said Council Member McCown=s understanding about the nature of the programs was correct. The majority of the programs would be physical improvement projects. Certain projects were specifically left vague and unannounced because of the process she wanted to see designed and implemented. Part of the attraction and appeal would be that neighborhood groups would be asked to gather together and design and prioritize those programs.
04/01/96 79-9
Council Member Schneider said approximately two years before, she and Council Member McCown were discussing some funding possibilities in which neighborhoods would make the decision on what the priorities were and monies that had previously been allocated. Council Member McCown elaborated that there was a revolving amount of money in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for traffic improvements, but the broader concept was that if the City had capital dollars it planned to spend on parks, median strips, or other public places, a discretionary piece of that would then involve the neighborhood in the volunteer program that Mayor Wheeler alluded to in her memo. It was not that decisions would be made by neighborhoods as to what streets would be paved or which sidewalks would be fixed, but there would be a piece of the capital funds that would actually be put aside to give the neighborhood the ability to decide what its highest priority was for the amount of money to be spent. In that manner, the City would not be putting in new dollars above and beyond what was already forecast in the CIP but would be giving volunteers and neighborhood the ability to have a role in how those dollars were spent. Mayor Wheeler said that was correct, along with the order that those dollars were spent. The Council might decide that one project which affected a neighborhood would be funded in 1996-97 and another project in 1997-98, and the neighborhood might return to the Council and ask that the order of the projects be reversed. Council would be amenable to that. An important point was that it was not a request for additional appropriations but was flexibility in the way that the monies were being used that were already allocated or appropriated by the Council. MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve, in concept, a program to promote the active involvement of all Palo Alto residents and businesses in a neighborhood improvement program founded on grass roots volunteer effort and for staff to return to Council with a specific plan to put the process into place. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Proposals for an Option to Lease the Restaurant at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, 1875 Embarcadero Road Real Property Manager William Fellman said the item contained a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an option to lease the restaurant space at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. In 1995, the Council approved a Golf Course Master Plan (the Master Plan) that would renovate the entire golf course. The Master Plan would also allow
04/01/96 79-10
for expansion of the restaurant facility. The ten-year lease with
Hazard=s Inc. (Harry=s Hofbrau) had been on a month-to-month lease since 1990 pending approval of the Master Plan and extensive repairs to the kitchen. Staff was proposing the Council grant a new long-term lease that would allow the lessee to expand the restaurant facility. The Master Plan called for expansion in four main areas: patio, bar, meeting/dining room, and kitchen. Construction of the improvements was not required, but the lease was designed to reward the lessee for completing the construction by extending the lease for an additional five years for the completion of the patio and bar areas and five years for the completion of the meeting/dining room and the kitchen. The proposed new lease was also designed as a percentage lease wherein the lessee would either pay a percentage of the gross receipts or a monthly minimum, whichever was higher. The lease also continued the requirements that the restaurant be open during specified hours at a minimum number of hours and that the lessee provide an express food line for golfers. The golf-related functions would be held in the dining/meeting space rent free during specific hours. The price of the bid, the cost of the tenant improvements, and the percentage to be paid were the three main bid items in the RFP. He noted there was one correction on page 5 of the staff report (CMR:206:96) in the second line. Non-daylight savings time hours
should read Α7 a.m. to 3 p.m.≅ Council Member Andersen asked, if the person who won the bid did
the construction, whether that would relinquish the City=s responsibility with regard to some of the bond issues being dealt with earlier and whether the City would be able to maintain a lower bond rate by staying out of the for-profit area. Mr. Fellman said the requirement in the bond that Council Member Andersen was referring to was estimated at about $5 million, and the requirement in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations was 10 percent of the value being attributed to that specific business. In relationship to the restaurant, staff did not feel that 10 percent of the bond would benefit the provider. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City could get a municipal bond at a lower rate than a taxable bond when the project was done. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said there were still options available to do taxable or nontaxable, but if one discrete portion were taken out of the improvements to be made and were made by the private company, that would give the City more flexibility to do the rest as a nontaxable bond issue which would be less expensive for the City. Council Member Andersen said that was a description as to the
City=s ability to get a tax-free bond.
04/01/96 79-11
Ms. Case said the City would be getting a financial advisor. There were various things that would influence whether to go with taxable or nontaxable, but that was one way to make the decision easier at the time of the project. Because there was no need for the project to be done as a part of the bond issue and it could be taken care of in the proposed manner, it made the decision easier down the road. Council Member McCown asked what interests the staff expected based on putting out the RFP for bid. The last time it had been done was in 1980, and she wondered whether there would be a lot of interest and competition for the opportunity. Mr. Fellman said it was a little premature, but there were two other restaurants that were interested in seeing the RFP. Council Member McCown asked what the ongoing role of the City was during the term of the lease for the quality of the operation of the restaurant. If the City were to receive many complaints from the public with regard to not liking the restaurant, she asked if there was anything in the lease that involved the City. Mr. Fellman said there were performance standards in the lease. Vice Mayor Huber recalled a discussion with the Finance Committee with regard to the bond aspects of the project and said his impression of what was being done was essentially pulling the whole restaurant operation out of the bond aspects of the project. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said
that was correct. Staff=s concerns centered more around the City=s relationship with the golf pro than around the restaurant and the lease with the restaurateur. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) package and direct staff to solicit proposals for an option to lease the restaurant at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. ORDINANCES 13. Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 4.42.085 Imposing Requirements for Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing of Drivers of Taxicabs and Other For-Hire Vehicles, Amending Section
04/01/96 79-12
4.42.010(A) Exempting Paratransit Providers Under Contract with Other Government Agencies from the Regulations of Chapter 4.42, and Repealing Section 4.42.020(B) of Chapter 4.42 to Conform to the Changes to Section 4.42.010(A) of Chapter 4.42 Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said although the law mandated that taxicabs or for-hire companies had to ensure that drivers tested negative for controlled substances or alcohol prior to employment and as a condition for permit renewal, she clarified that the City would not be conducting the test but would require certification from both the company and the individual drivers at the time new permits or renewals were obtained. Council Member Andersen asked whether the permits were renewed annually and whether the drivers had a predetermined notion as to when they would be taking the next test.
Ms. Johnson said the companies= permits and individual driver=s permits were issued on an annual basis. Council Member Andersen asked how reliable a test was that was anticipated. If there were any real concern about controlled substances, one could wait a few days before the test was to be taken. He asked if there were any ability on the part of those doing the testing to test the drivers without their previous knowledge. Ms. Johnson said that was a possibility. However, the law did not require random testing; it was just at the time prior to renewal or at the time of the new permit. Council Member Andersen asked if the City could require that the testing be random. Senior Assistant City Attorney William Mayfield clarified that the regulations state law addressed were federal regulations that applied to bus drivers, commercial truck drivers, etc. Within those regulations were requirements for a program to include such things as random testing, for-cause testing in the event someone appeared intoxicated or impaired at work, and post-accident
testing. Those requirements were not explicitly in the City=s Ordinance or in the statute but were incorporated by reference from the Code of Federal Regulations, so there was no need for the
City=s Ordinance to spell it out. The program had to adhere to the federal requirements. Council Member Andersen asked if there were a taxi driver in Palo Alto who had a dependency problem, whether the City would have the ability, as a result of some of the stipulations in the franchise agreement, to specify that random testing be done as a condition for receiving a contract with the City.
04/01/96 79-13
Mr. Mayfield said yes. If the City Council chose to adopt the City Ordinance that evening, it would be adopting the Code of Federal Regulations requirements which were a lengthy packet of federal regulations including random testing. The taxi company would be obligated to impose a system on its drivers that would include such things as post-accident or random testing and other things the City commercial drivers currently went through. Council Member Andersen clarified that random testing could be expected as a condition. Mr. Mayfield said yes. It was one of the requirements of a program under the Code of Federal Regulations. Vice Mayor Huber confirmed that the taxi companies would have to give the City their program. Mr. Mayfield said the City had not required the Police Department
to try to evaluate the taxi companies= programs, it was limited to the requirement that companies certified they had a program which complied. There was no expertise within the Police Department on
that matter. The City=s Human Resources Department did have a program for its own commercial drivers. Staff had not tried to undertake that on behalf of the Police Department and absorb that requirement. Staff was trying to put the burden back on the taxi companies to comply and certify to that. Vice Mayor Huber understood that the taxi companies gave the City a certification stating compliance, but the City would have to ask at some point to see what their program was to guarantee that they were in fact complying. He asked how that could be done. Ms. Johnson said the taxi companies would have to provide certification with the results of the tests for the individual drivers which would determine whether the criteria listed in the Ordinance were met. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the results of those tests would indicate they were random, post-accident, etc. Ms. Johnson said no. It would only be the test results that the Human Resources Department received which indicated whether or not the results of the tests were negative or positive and, if positive, for what substance in addition to the date of the test. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 4.42.085 Imposing Requirements for Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing of
04/01/96 79-14
Drivers of Taxicabs and Other For-Hire Vehicles, Amending Section 4.42.010(A) Exempting Paratransit Providers Under Contract with Other Government Agencies from the Regulations of Chapter 4.42, and Repealing Section 4.42.020(B) of Chapter 4.42 to Conform to the Changes to Section 4.42.010(A) of Chapter 4.42" Council Member Andersen was concerned about the quality of the service which related to some of the earlier comments that were not directly related to the item. He asked that the staff give careful consideration to the way in which the Ordinance was carried out and that the Council be assured of those kinds of issues which had been brought up earlier. He did not think there had been a problem previously, but he did not want any post-accident reports that stated the driver was under the influence. He thought it was appropriate that the Council expect the drivers be given tests on a random basis, and he wanted to make sure that took place in the process of adopting the Ordinance. Council Member McCown understood that, currently, random testing was not done. Therefore, the Council was saying that anyone providing the service in Palo Alto would have to comply with the same laws applicable at the federal level. Over time, staff might learn of better ways to evaluate the quality of a company compliance since the City would require random testing. It should be a significant criterion in evaluating who was eligible for the franchise to provide service in Palo Alto. It needed to be acknowledged as a new requirement which reached into areas where the law had not previously realized; and since it was required by federal law, the City should take advantage of that. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. 14. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapters 5.25 and 5.26 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Aerial Spraying of Pesticides Due to State Preemption Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said the item was a
housekeeping request from the City Attorney=s Office. The City was no longer allowed to regulate pesticide spraying. Council Member Simitian clarified that under state law the City had no ability to impose stricter standards. Ms. Case said that was correct. Council Member Simitian clarified that by adopting the Ordinance, the City was simply complying with state law, and there was nothing the Council could do to impose stricter standards, notwithstanding that it might want to do so.
04/01/96 79-15
Ms. Case said that was correct, she had spoken with Ted Smith of the Toxics Coalition to advise him that the City was adopting the Ordinance, and he agreed that the City did not have much choice. Council Member Simitian wanted the record to show that his vote reflected the fact that the Council had been advised by legal counsel that it had no alternative in the matter. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce the Ordinance in order to comply with state law and remove the provisions from the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapters 5.25 and 5.26 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Aerial Spraying of
Pesticides Due to State Preemption≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler thanked her colleagues, members of the Human Relations Commission, and staff who participated in the Round table Discussion on Escalating Rents held on Saturday, March 30, 1996. Council Member Schneider asked staff in preparation for next week's agenda item regarding law enforcement services in Downtown Palo Alto to review any ordinances that related to littering and the use of dumpsters in apartment buildings and commercial buildings by people who did not pay for the garbage removal. Council Member Fazzino spoke regarding David Packard's memorial and his tremendous contributions to the country, world, and the Palo Alto community. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. in memory of David Packard. 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
04/01/96 79-16
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
04/01/96 79-17