HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-24 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of June 17, 1996 to June 24, 1996 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the 1996-98 Budget and Approval of Budget Adoption Ordinance, including: 1) Exhibit A--The City
Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget - General Government Funds (Volume I) and Utility and Internal Service funds (Volume II), including the Appropriations Limitation Compliance Calculation; 2) Exhibit B--All Changes detailed in the
ΑAmendments to the City Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget≅; 3) Exhibit C-- Municipal Fee Schedule with Proposed 1996-97 Amendments; 4) Exhibit D--Revised page in the Table of Organization; and 5)Exhibit E--The Planning Division Work Program...............................................79-289 3. Contract between the City of the Palo Alto and Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation for Cablecasting Services..........79-324 4. Contracts for Computer Software Support and Hardware Maintenance...........................................79-324 5. Amendment No. 9 to Contract No. 4688 with Palo Alto Sanitation Company for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services..79-325 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Greenfield Services Corp. For Household and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste Management Program Services...........79-325 7. Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. S4043199 between the City of Palo Alto and Quality Assurance Engineering, Inc. dba Consolidated Engineering Laboratories for Special Inspection, Materials Testing Services, and Construction Inspection Services..............................................79-325 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for Minor or Emergency Consultant Services for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant..................79-325 9. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. S5051816 between the City of Palo Alto and Sure Flow, Inc. dba Roto-Rooter for the
06/24/96 79-285 79-285
Performance of Sewer Lateral Maintenance Services to Palo Alto Residents.............................................79-325 10. Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. S3036240 between the City of Palo Alto and Geodesy for the Performance of Geographic Information System Application Software Development Services......................................................79-325 11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Graphic Data Systems Corporation for Geographical Information System Hardware and Software Maintenance Services............79-325 12. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C6075675 with Lewis and Tibbitts, Inc. for Electric Utility Trench and Substructure Installation..........................................79-325 13. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Foundation Health PsychCare Services, Inc. dba Occupational Health Services for Administration of Employee Assistance Plan Services..............................................79-325 14. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Town of Los Altos Hills for Renewal of Emergency Animal Control and Care Services..............................................79-325
15. Resolution 7601 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Eighth Amendment to Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Access
to the California Identification System≅ ..............79-326 16. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Holiday Cleaners for Police Uniform Cleaning and/or Laundry Services...79-326 17. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for Below Market Rate Housing Program Administrative Services...............................79-326 18. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant Funds...........................................79-326 19. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C5072778 between the City of Palo Alto and Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey for Design
Consultant Services for the City of Palo Alto=s Capital Improvement Projects..................................79-326 20. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Zongar Johnson Construction for City Facilities and School Equipment Repair 79-326 21. Contracts for Recreation Programs and the Use of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Facilities............79-326
06/24/96 79-286 79-286
22. Human Services Agreements for Fiscal Year 1996-97.....79-327 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m. to the Regular Meeting...............................................79-327 1. Appointments to the Utilities Advisory Commission......79-328 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................79-329
3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Guy=s Roofing, Inc. for Ventura Community Facility Reroofing..............79-329 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. for Water Main Replacement - Phase X.....................................................79-329 5. First Amendment to Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Continuance of AB 939 Fee (Integrated Waste Management Act).................................79-330
6. Resolution 7602 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Terry More Upon
His Retirement≅ .......................................79-330
7. Resolution 7603 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating the City of Palo Alto Deferred Compensation Plan and Establishing it as the
Exclusive Plan for all Administrators≅ ................79-330
8. Resolution 7604 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 7584 Pertaining to Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 1996-1997"................................79-330 9. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in
Denny=s, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills, et al., (Court of Appeal Docket No. B 098621)...........................79-330 10. Request for Authorization to enter into agreement for legal services with Whitmore, Johnson & Bolanos, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.070.............79-330 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................79-330 11. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................79-331 12. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....79-331 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of an application to rezone the property
06/24/96 79-287 79-287
located at 2700 ASH STREET (Southwest corner of Ash Street and Page Mill Road) from RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residence District) to a PC (Planned Community District) to construct a two-story, 18,684-square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons...............................................79-332 14. Historic Resources Board recommends to the City Council Extension of a Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 275 Lowell Street.................................79-347 15. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Project 19514, Facility Roof Replacement..79-348 16. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........79-349 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to a Closed Session...............................................79-350 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m......79-350
06/24/96 79-288 79-288
06/24/96 79-289 79-289
06/24/96 79-290 79-290
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:19 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler PUBLIC HEARING 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the 1996-98 Budget and Approval of Budget Adoption Ordinance, including: 1) Exhibit A--The City
Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget - General Government Funds (Volume I) and Utility and Internal Service funds (Volume II), including the Appropriations Limitation Compliance Calculation; 2) Exhibit B--All Changes detailed in the
ΑAmendments to the City Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget≅; 3) Exhibit C-- Municipal Fee Schedule with Proposed 1996-97 Amendments; 4) Exhibit D--Revised page in the Table of Organization; and 5)Exhibit E--The Planning Division Work Program. (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED) MOTION: Council Member Kniss for the Finance Committee moved approval of the 1996-98 Budget and Approval of Budget Adoption
Ordinance, including: 1) Exhibit A--The City Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget - General Government Funds (Volume I) and Utility and Internal Service funds (Volume II), including the Appropriations Limitation Compliance Calculation; 2) Exhibit B--All
Changes detailed in the ΑAmendments to the City Manager=s 1996-98
Proposed Budget≅; 3) Exhibit C--Municipal Fee Schedule with Proposed 1996-97 Amendments; 4) Exhibit D--Revised page in the Table of Organization; and 5) Exhibit E--The Planning Division Work Program.
Ordinance 4352 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996-97 and in Concept Approving Fiscal Year 1997-98" Approval of the City of Palo Alto Statement of Investment Policy and Proposed Changes to the City's Investment Policy
Resolution 7596 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2 and G-7 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to General and Large Commercial Natural Gas
Service≅
Resolution 7597 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertain-
ing to Domestic and Commercial Wastewater Collection≅
06/24/96 79-291 79-291
Resolution 7598 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-1-FA, R-2, R-3 and R-4 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and
Charges Pertaining to Refuse Collection≅
Resolution 7599 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 7346 and Amended by Resolution No. 7519, to Change Certain Salaries and
Classifications≅
Resolution 7600 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7531, and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7567 and 7578, to Change Certain Salaries and
Classifications≅ Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to further review seven possible alternatives to the Options for Long-Term Funding of General Fund Programs at the Cubberley Community Center, Augmented Street and Sidewalk, Citywide Child Care Coordination, and Lease and Covenant not to Develop Vacant Schools with the Palo Alto Unified School District (CMR:195:96). Options include: 1)Increase the UUT tax to compensate for declining revenues; 2)Extend the UUT to interstate and international phone calls; 3)Create an assessment district for sidewalk installation and repairs; 4) Use funding from the proposed lighting and landscape assessment to fund Cubberley landscape maintenance; 9) Increase the rent paid by Child Care providers; 10) Subsidize the Cubberley operations from the General Fund; and 12) Direct the City Manager to explore the potential of opening discussions with the Palo Alto Unified School District to determine whether there is any potential for mutually agreeing to open the lease for renegotiation on the portion relating to the Covenant Not to Develop. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to work with tenants to educate them regarding their rights related to substandard living conditions using Human Services as a resource at no cost in 1996-97. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to approve the Calaveras Reserve policy described in CMR:214:96 and reduce the Electric Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve by $15.9 million and transfer that amount to the Electric Fund Calaveras Reserve effective FY 1996-97. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to approve the new Demand Side Management (DSM) policy as described in
06/24/96 79-292 79-292
CMR:209:96, to shift the goal for DSM programs from reducing rates or displacing supply resources to a goal of achieving customer satisfaction and retention while fostering the
community=s environmental values. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council that a program be established which would discount fees, by 20 percent, on designated City-run activities costing $5.00 or more, for eligible, low-income residents, based on the Utility
Department=s rates for low-income individuals. The program would be established on a one-year trial basis; thereby evaluating the potential future need for the program. Additionally, when a participant was accompanied by an attendant who was required due to a disability, only a single fee will be charged for City-sponsored activities. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council consideration of ordinances relating to the Downtown Health and Safety Enhancement Program including: 1) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Alcoholic Beverages to Add Section 9.04.030 Prohibiting Possession of Open Containers of Alcoholic Beverages Within or Adjacent to Businesses Licensed for Retail Package Off-Site Sale of Alcoholic Beverages; 2) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks to Add Section 9.48.025 Prohibiting Sitting or Lying Upon the Public Sidewalk on University Avenue Between High Street and Waverley Street; and 3) Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Distribution of Handbills, Advertising, and Samples on Public and Private Properties and Enacting a New Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Prohibiting Solicitation of Employment, Business, or Contributions Within Public Parking Lots. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to Freeze the Water Equity Transfer at the 1995-96 level of $1,622,000, and have no increase in Water rates in 1996-97, and further to potentially increase rates by 9 percent in 1997-98 and provide a full equity transfer at $2,187,000.
Council Member Kniss proposed the City Manager=s motion for the
Children=s Theatre as an amendment to the main motion. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to
amend the main motion to accept the City Manager=s proposal to: 1)
Expand the Children=s Theatre Outreach After School Play Program to reach all elementary and middle schools on a rotational basis over two years, with seven schools in the first year and six in the
second year; 2) Increase the Community Services Department=s budget to fund the Outreach Programs at two additional schools in 1996-97
06/24/96 79-293 79-293
for $16,870 and one additional school in 1997-98 for $8,435; 3)
Direct Children=s Theatre staff to work with parent advisory groups on guidelines for administering the program. Council Member Andersen appreciated the interest to fund the program for the entire Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD),
but he believed the City Manager=s recommendation was a good way to phase in the program. However, he hoped the budget for Fiscal Year 1997-98 would consider full funding for the program or at least for the 1998-99 Budget year. Theater was the most effective way to raise self-esteem, with the exception of sports, and young people would be reached who would not be involved in sports. The program was very important, but it needed to be phased in. Council Member Simitian clarified that, historically, the school
selection had been left at the discretion of the Children=s Theatre staff. As long as there had been two middle schools involved in the program in recent years following the reopening of Jordan Middle School, both middle schools had been involved each year. City Manager June Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Simitian asked what the earliest grade level was at which youngsters participated in the K-5 schools. Ms. Fleming replied third grade. Council Member Simitian asked what the cost was of one more school incrementally each year. Ms. Fleming said approximately $8,500. Council Member Simitian asked whether that figure was offset by revenue that was received from ticket sales. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said the revenue was approximately $1,200 to $1,500 per school per year. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by
Fazzino, to amend the main motion to accept the City Manager=s proposal to have the program occur within eight schools in the first year and seven schools in the second year. Council Member Simitian clarified that given the fact the two middle schools had historically been involved in the program every year, if the two middle schools continued to be involved in the program, eleven elementary schools would be left. There would be a bearability, after removing the two middle schools, to reach five schools and four schools, and only nine of the eleven schools would be covered each year.
06/24/96 79-294 79-294
Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Some of the schools could not accept the program, so there was no guarantee that every school would receive the program every other year. Council Member Simitian wanted the certainty that there was an opportunity for every elementary school to participate a minimum of at least once every two years and that both middle schools could continue to participate on a regular basis if interested. He
believed the arguments made about the program=s continuity were compelling. Ideally, the Council wanted all the schools involved in the program; but there was a problem with the three-year middle school program since the program would be put in place one year, put aside the next year, and then reinvented the following year. He wanted to add a school to each year, i.e., eight and seven schools rather than seven and six schools, which would ensure that the two middle schools could participate every year with no interruption in the program. Every year half of the elementary schools would be able to participate. Every age was important and every age group needed programs, but there was a particular need for programs that served children at the middle school years. It was important not to eliminate that possibility for continuity at that level. Ms. Fleming asked whether the philosophy behind the substitute amendment was that middle schools would receive the program every year or whether the focus was on the eight schools and seven schools. Council Member Simitian clarified if the two middle schools were removed from the seven and six numbers, there would be five schools the first year and four schools the second year. Nine schools would be able to participate which would leave two elementary schools out. He wanted to add one school to each year even if the two middle schools did not participate. He was presupposing that staff would make the judgment to put the two middle schools in the program, but that would not be a condition of the substitute amendment. He only wanted to ensure that it was possible. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Finance Committee approved an expenditure of $65,000. Ms. Harrison said there was $45,000 in the Budget, and the Finance
Committee did not take action on the item. The City Manager=s proposal added $16,870. Council Member Fazzino asked the total expenditure with Council
Member Simitian=s substitute amendment. Ms. Harrison said the additional amount would be $25,305, and the total expenditure would be approximately $60,000.
06/24/96 79-295 79-295
Council Member Simitian said the question was what the additional incremental cost was for one school per year. Council Member Fazzino said the City Manager brought the Council a compromise proposal of $65,000 as the total expenditure for the program.
Ms. Harrison said the cost of the City Manager=s proposal was $50,610. Council Member Fazzino clarified the additional expense was only $5,000 more than the original proposal by the City Manager. Ms. Fleming explained that $45,000 was in the base Budget, and the
City Manager=s proposal would add another $16,000 for a total of $61,000. The current proposal would bring the total for the program up to $70,000. Council Member Fazzino asked the total expenditure if the Council
followed Council Member Andersen=s vision of full funding of every school each year. Ms. Fleming said if the program went to every school each year, there would be additional staff costs because it would become a regular ongoing program, and temporary staff could not be used for an ongoing program. Council Member Fazzino asked the total expenditure for coverage of every school each year. Ms. Harrison said the estimated cost would be $112,000 for the full program. Council Member Fazzino clarified the ticket revenue of $1,200 to $1,300 per school would be subtracted from the total cost. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked at what point the City would need to move from temporary to permanent staff. Ms. Fleming said when it was a regular ongoing program. At the level proposed by her or Council Member Simitian, the staffing could be accommodated within the regulations for temporary employees. If the Council moved much further than the proposal recommended by Council Member Simitian, the staffing issue would have to be dealt with. Council Member Fazzino clarified anything above Council Member
Simitian=s proposal of $70,000 would raise a staffing issue. He asked what the staffing issues were.
06/24/96 79-296 79-296
Ms. Fleming said permanent staff versus temporary staff. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it was a legal issue. Ms. Fleming said people could not be classified as temporary if they did a regular job every year. There was a 1,000-hour limit for temporary employees. Council Member Fazzino wanted to fund the program for every elementary school each year, and he did not believe it would be a significant difference in dollars when the ticket sales and other considerations were factored in. He was not certain every school would be ready each year to entertain a program which would reduce costs, and he also believed there would be some volunteer opportunities as a result of strong parent-teacher association (PTA) involvement that would further reduce the cost. He believed if the proposal were broken down into components, there would not be a significant difference among the more outstanding substitute amendment that Council Member Simitian offered, the Finance
Committee recommendation, the City Manager=s compromise, and his vision of funding each school. If the City Manager could provide a clear dollar threshold for the issue of temporary versus permanent staff, he would feel better about supporting Council Member
Simitian=s substitute amendment rather than moving ahead with the full funding. He did not believe there was a more outstanding program that the City could provide in the schools. The Outreach Program provided a tremendous benefit to children at a young age, and it provided self-esteem for many of the children who did not participate in other kinds of activities. He believed the City could provide full funding in a year. He would be willing to make a recommendation to cut costs in other areas so that the Council would remain true to its goal of being revenue neutral. He believed with a little more effort, the significant involvement of the PTAs, and the practical realization that not every school would participate every year, Council could establish a goal of each school participating in the program each year. He wanted to offer that concept as a substitute to the substitute amendment. City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained the Council could move to amend an amendment or move to substitute for a substitute but could not move to amend the amendment of an amendment and could not move to substitute the substitute of a substitute. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SECONDER SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Simitian, to amend the main motion to adopt a Council policy goal to reach every elementary and middle school each year with the funding of $112,000 to be offset by ticket sales and other factors.
06/24/96 79-297 79-297
Council Member McCown said the City Manager had articulated very valid reasons for a more cautious approach to a commitment of full funding of the program. The City was in a good financial situation for the current year, but it had just come out of a situation in which the circumstances were not so pleasant. She was not comfortable creating expectations in the community of such a
program when she could not predict what the City=s financial circumstances would be in the future. The incremental increase proposed by the City Manager was absolutely supportable, and she
concurred with Council Member Kniss= motion in that regard. She did not believe it was a wise approach for the Council to move forward so quickly because of the particular circumstances for the current year. She wanted the Council to take a more moderate, step-by-step approach of funding the program in the future. Vice Mayor Huber associated with the comments of Council Member
McCown. He also believed the Council should take a Αgo slow≅ attitude although he was interested in looking at full funding of the program in the future with several caveats. He wanted staff to explore with Stanford and Los Altos Hills a funding role in providing programs for their respective residents similar to what the City provided for its residents before the City provided full financing of the entire program. His children went through the Outreach Program at Addison School, and it was an excellent program. Council Member Schneider wanted the funding to occur on an annual basis for every school, but she had some misgivings regarding what funding would be available in future years. She did not want a precedent set that people would continue to believe the City would be able to provide such funding every year. She wanted to work toward total funding for every school in the future.
Council Member Kniss said Council Member Simitian=s substitute
amendment increased the City Manager=s proposal slightly. The cost was approximately $25,000, which increased the program substantially and indicated the Council was responsive to the
comments heard from the community. Council Member Fazzino=s substitute amendment could be incorporated with a statement that
the Council=s goal henceforth would be to provide funding to the schools that wanted to participate in the program. She understood that some schools might not want the program and concurred with
Vice Mayor Huber=s comments that some of the areas could consider funding as well. Mayor Wheeler opposed the substitute amendment. It was not a slight issue that the City Manager raised about the legalities involved with the staffing. The Council should recognize that the staff issue would not be easy to implement and should be considered
carefully. Vice Mayor Huber=s suggestions to explore the possibility of additional partners for the funding of a fuller 06/24/96 79-298 79-298
program were valid. The community was very energetic, enthusiastic, and committed to the program, and she believed the City should work with the community to find additional alternatives to raise monies that would alleviate the financial burden on the City which might be different in the future. One of the worst things that the Council could do was to hold out a promise to the children that the program would be ongoing every year and then have to eliminate the program when the funding was not available. She understood from her conversations with people in the PAUSD that there were several schools that chose not to participate in the program. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT FAILED 2-7, Fazzino, Simitian Αyes.≅ SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by
Fazzino, to amend the main motion to accept the City Manager=s proposal as revised to provide funding for eight elementary and middle schools in 1996-97 and seven elementary and middle schools
in 1997-98 for Children=s Theatre Outreach productions. (Estimated cost $20,805 in 1996-97 and $13,870 in 1997-98, net of revenues). Ideally, every middle school would have a production every year, but this is not a requirement of the motion. The goal would be to eventually reach all the schools that wanted to participate every year. Further, to direct staff to explore the possibility of support from Stanford and Los Altos Hills. Council Member Fazzino clarified the concept proposed by Council Member Kniss regarding the goal to reach each elementary school and middle school was incorporated in the substitute amendment. Council Member Simitian said yes. Council Member Kniss supported the substitute amendment. The issue was an example of how the Council and the City Manager had responded to the community. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. Mayor Wheeler proposed an amendment that related to the Palo Alto Together Program and the intention of the Mayor to proclaim the month of August as Street Block Party Month. AMENDMENT: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to amend the main motion to suspend the Temporary Street Closure Class B Block Party permit fee shown on page 60 of the Municipal Fee Schedule with Proposed 1996-97 Amendments for the month of August 1996. Council Member Schneider said August was the typical month when people wanted to get together with their neighbors, and the idea of a Block Party Month was wonderful. She hoped it continued beyond the month of August 1996.
06/24/96 79-299 79-299
Ms. Fleming said the City had received some applications for block closures for the month of August, and the applications were being
held until after the Council=s action that evening. Council Member Schneider asked the procedure and the time frame for the community on requesting block party applications. Ms. Fleming said the Mayor would be issuing a press release soon that would indicate where people could pick up kits that would contain complete instructions on planning and implementing a block party. Mayor Wheeler said a press release would be issued after the
Council=s action that evening. The press release would announce where kits that the City had developed to assist people with their block parties could be picked up. One of the ingredients in the kit was a street closure permit form. The forms were also available in the Police Department. AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen had not been persuaded that the ordinance relating to obstructing streets and sidewalks on University Avenue between High Street and Waverley Street was a necessary ordinance to carry out the concerns that the community had with regard to some violations that appeared to be illegal. He wanted to wait until the Council had received the recommendations from the Human
Relations Commission=s Homelessness Task Force before taking action on the matter. He said the money to increase the police support and attention to the Downtown area recommended by the Finance Committee could be approved, but he did not believe the ordinance was necessary. AMENDMENT TO REFER: Council Member Andersen moved to amend the main motion to provide that discussion of the ordinance relating to obstructing streets and sidewalks on University Avenue between High Street and Waverley Street be referred to the Policy and Services Committee to review in the context of the recommendations from the
Human Relations Commission=s (HRC) Homelessness Task Force. Council Member McCown clarified the matter would be referred to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee with the expectation that it would be held until some event occurred with the Homelessness Task Force. She was unclear what that might be. Council Member Andersen recalled that representatives from the Homelessness Task Force had requested previously that the Council give some attention to the matter before proceeding. There was a comprehensive approach to dealing with some of the issues, and he
06/24/96 79-300 79-300
wanted to hear the Homelessness Task Force=s suggestions before moving forward with the issue. Council Member McCown clarified the Council would not be acting on any of the ordinances that evening but would be giving direction to staff. She asked whether an alternative to Council Member
Andersen=s motion would be to make a particular request to the Homelessness Task Force that it provide the Council with its input on the subject in conjunction with the normal scheduling of the ordinances. Ms. Fleming explained staff needed input from the Council, and the issue would be brought back to the Council before its vacation for further discussion and official action. The Homelessness Task Force was not appointed by the Council or the City Manager; it
reported to the HRC. The Council=s direction should be given to the HRC. AMENDMENT TO REFER FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member McCown agreed that if the Council gave direction to bring the ordinances back for consideration, it was appropriate that the process receive full public input, including the HRC, interested members of the Homelessness Task Force, or the Task Force itself. She wanted the timing to occur in such a way that an opportunity was given for input. She agreed that an opportunity to be heard on the issue was extremely important, and it would be critical to her in evaluating what the City should do on the
issues. She supported the sense of Council Member Andersen=s concern, but procedurally the Council did not need to put the matter on a separate track. Council Member Fazzino clarified if the Council approved the budget based upon the recommendation of the Finance Committee, the City Attorney would return with three proposed ordinances. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The Finance Committee had recommended that Council consider those ordinances. The Council could direct staff to provide additional research or changes that it wanted incorporated that evening. The ordinances would return in the form presented that evening if nothing were indicated by the Council. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council did not need to take any action that evening unless it wanted to make recommendations for staff to consider other alternatives. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He reserved the opportunity to change the form slightly before returning to the Council if the Council did not make any changes that evening. The Council could give policy direction that evening if it desired. If the
06/24/96 79-301 79-301
ordinances were brought back in two weeks for Council consideration, it would be possible to have two readings before the Council vacation providing the first reading took place by July 22, 1996. The discussion could be held as late as July 8, 1996, and there would still be time to return to the Council with two readings before vacation. Council Member Fazzino clarified the City Attorney had suggested that he would bring something back to the Council in two weeks, at which time the Council would have a thorough discussion involving public comment on the item. Mayor Wheeler asked whether the City Attorney would bring back something besides the ordinances. Mr. Calonne said no. The Finance Committee recommendation directed the Council to consider the ordinances, so the ordinances would be agendized in the near future. Mayor Wheeler understood that the ordinances would return to the Council based on direction from the Council. Mr. Calonne said the ordinances would be ready for action at that time if Council desired. Mayor Wheeler asked whether there would be no separate discussion on July 8, 1996, on the philosophy of the matter and then the ordinances would be brought back for action. Mr. Calonne said if Council acted affirmatively on the Finance Committee recommendation that evening, on July 8, 1996, the Council would have the opportunity either to introduce ordinances or direct policy changes to those ordinances. Within reason, staff would be able to bring the ordinances back to the Council by July 22, 1996, if the Council desired so that the ordinances could be given first and second readings before the Council went on its August vacation. Council Member Fazzino said the City Attorney carefully crafted a preliminary proposal, but he wanted to consider the possibility of
extending the ordinance=s effect on additional two blocks on University Avenue to Cowper Street. Mr. Calonne said the Council could extend the boundaries of the ordinance. It would be helpful if the Council articulated its reason for the extension. Council Member Fazzino said in terms of the Seattle case which was decided by the Appeals Court, it was also very carefully crafted to include certain parts of Downtown Seattle. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. A previous speaker mentioned that there was a request for a hearing en banc by the full Ninth
06/24/96 79-302 79-302
Circuit on the Roulette case, and that could take until the first week of August to resolve. The Seattle ordinance required police notification of the illegality of sitting or lying before any kind of citation or arrest, and he intended to include that in the ordinance. Council Member Fazzino clarified a person would have to be informed that he/she was illegally sitting or lying on the sidewalk. He asked whether it would be a warning or whether the person would have to immediately get up and sit on a bench. Mr. Calonne said a person would have to be notified, and if he/she remained on the sidewalk, a citation would be issued. Council Member Fazzino asked what was special about the time limit of the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the hours came from the Seattle case. The time limit was when the Council believed that type of restriction was necessary. The time was founded on the obstructions to the flow of pedestrian traffic, so there should be some rationale between the hours and what the Council wanted to achieve with the ordinance. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Council could extend the time limit. Mr. Calonne said the Council was in the position to make the legislative fact findings. It would be a legislative fact if the Council determined there was a need to extend time limit. It would be advisable to have additional information from the Police Department, but it was not essential. Council Member Fazzino asked how the ordinance would affect street musicians and whether there was a permit process which allowed street musicians to play music in the Downtown area. Mr. Calonne said he would report back to the Council on that issue. He had mentioned previously to the Council that at some point in the future, the Council might want to review the street activity Downtown. The area would have to be approached carefully and would depend upon what the Police Department indicated was needed. Council Member Fazzino said at one point the City had looked at the possibility of prohibiting solicitation within a certain number of feet of automatic teller machines (ATM). Mr. Calonne said in the Berkeley case, the challenge on that case was based on the state law preemption that there was a provision enacted for the benefit of banks that stated that if a city had those safety measures around ATMs, nothing else needed to be done. It had been argued in the Berkeley case that that preempted the City from putting in a solicitation restriction.
06/24/96 79-303 79-303
Council Member Fazzino asked why the City was on solid legal ground with respect to public parking lots. Mr. Calonne said there were the traffic safety hazards that were discussed in the ordinance, and public parking lots were not a traditional public forum for speech activities. It was a very limited restriction. Council Member Fazzino understood the City Attorney decided not to include anything specifically related to panhandling except for public parking lots because of the Berkeley case. Mr. Calonne said he and the City Manager had an assignment that the Council had been asked to defer based on the Berkeley case. He
said the City Manager=s caution about the Homelessness Task Force
was that one part of the Panhandling Task Force=s recommendation was to establish some forum for dialogue on an ongoing basis, and HRC had moved forward in that area which had not involved the Council. Council Member Schneider wanted to make certain that the people in the audience that evening understood the process and realized that the Council would not be making a decision that evening. She explained that the public testimony was closed that evening, but there would be opportunities in the future when the ordinances returned to the Council for consideration for public dialogue. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the ordinance related strictly to University Avenue, so a person could sit or lie around the corner on a side street off University Avenue and not be in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Andersen said the City Attorney previously indicated
the Ninth Circuit=s ruling would probably be in August. Mr. Calonne said the sitting or lying ordinance was based directly on the Roulette case which involved a Seattle ordinance. One panel of the Ninth Circuit had already ruled on that case and had upheld
the City=s ordinance. There was a petition that asked the entire Ninth Circuit to rehear the case together. The Ninth Circuit had until the first week of August to decide whether to rehear the case. The best law available to him at the present time stated that the ordinance was lawful. Council Member Andersen asked if an ordinance were put in place that were consistent with the Seattle ordinance and the Ninth
Circuit decided to rehear the case, whether the City=s ordinance would be valid during that interim period or whether it was in limbo.
06/24/96 79-304 79-304
Mr. Calonne said the ordinance would be valid, but he would reserve the right to advise the Police Department on whether or not to enforce it given that uncertainty. Council Member Andersen said the City Attorney had previously commented that he would not with full integrity feel comfortable doing something that discriminated against the poor and that was not based on some actual illegal behavior. He asked how the proposal fit into that category. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance dealt directly with a particular kind of behavior, i.e., sitting and lying on sidewalks. A broader issue was raised by the background question of who was doing the sitting or lying which the Council could not ignore from a policy or legal standpoint. He did not believe the proposals were designed to eradicate people or a particular class of people, and he did not believe it would be ethical to endorse an ordinance that did that. He believed the findings in the ordinance set forth a lawful legislative basis for language about tripping and slipping hazards. There were times during the day when University Avenue was very crowded and obstructions could be a problem. He believed there was a factual basis for the ordinances, and the language would not raise any concern. His previous comments were designed to stimulate the policy discussion. Council Member Andersen did not understand how the City could be concerned about people tripping on other people sitting on the sidewalk on University Avenue but not be concerned about people who might trip on other streets such as Emerson Street. He wanted a good policy direction for the Council. Council Member McCown wanted a better discussion and definition of the problem being identified. She understood the focus was on human beings as the source of obstruction, and perhaps that was because the City already had ordinances that dealt with other types of nonhuman obstructions. She needed the problem to be placed in context. She wanted to know how the ordinance was specifically targeted to address the defined problem. She also needed more factual information for both the definition of the problem and the fact that the remedy in the ordinance dealt with the problem in order to evaluate the appropriateness of enacting an ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the Police Department could provide the factual basis.
Ms. Fleming said when the assignment returned, the City Manager=s staff would work with the City Attorney on providing that information. She was not convinced it was a police issue. The City issued encroachment permits out of another department, and reasons had been established for those encroachment permits and the distances covered. The encroachment permits addressed safety, etc.
06/24/96 79-305 79-305
Council Member McCown understood that findings of fact had to be made if the Council wanted to enact legislation. She wanted more information about how the City was defining the problem that the ordinance was trying to address. It was a safety issue if the focus were on obstruction. She queried whether the City could come up with an objective definition of what obstruction meant which would address the question about University Avenue versus any other street. If obstruction were the issue, it did not matter which street it was on. An ordinance might be needed to address the obstruction issue which would eliminate the question of why the Council was indicating a certain behavior was considered obstructive on one street but not on other streets as opposed to defining the obstruction that the City was trying to address. Mr. Calonne said traffic volume would be the basis for distinguishing other streets. Staff had another assignment on newsracks, and one First Amendment activity on newsracks was safe passage. There was some consistency in the approach. Council Member McCown said if it were a safety issue of obstructing free passage, there were many other things such as newsracks, chairs, and tables that had the potential of obstructing passage in addition to human behavior of sitting or lying. In order to regulate the behavior, she wanted that put in the entire context so that the focus on the human activity was equal to what was being done with other physical ways in which obstruction was an issue. Mr. Calonne asked whether the reference was to the previous comment regarding encroachment permits for sidewalk cafes. Council Member McCown wanted to understand the factual basis for the regulation in the context of how the City regulated other potentially obstructive things. Mr. Calonne said someone would need to be retained to investigate it, but a factual investigation was not how he had interpreted the assignment given earlier. He believed the Police Department had the information available which he could compile. The factual questions were for the Council and the Police Department. Council Member McCown said the information was important and would help her evaluate the direction she would take on the issue. She did not understand the significance of the language that was trying to make a distinction between intending to obstruct and presumptive obstruction. She said the language tried to say there would be some objective sense in the ordinance of obstruction which did not have anything to do with whether somebody intended or did not intend to be obstructing free passage. There should be some objective definition of what constituted obstruction. Mr. Calonne said there seemed to be a need for a complete legal analysis of the draft ordinance. Staff had taken the language from
06/24/96 79-306 79-306
the Roulette case, but staff could analyze each piece of the ordinance. He had felt that that was unnecessary for the purpose before the Council that evening. Council Member McCown understood there would be some objective definition of what the obstruction was that the City was trying to regulate with the ordinance. Council Member Kniss said the City was struggling with what many other communities were struggling with which was increased activity in their downtowns and increasingly late hours. Palo Alto had become a destination city, and as a result of that, the increased activity had changed the way the Council looked at the Downtown and the obstruction issue. The Council needed to look at the Downtown in terms of the health safety enhancement program and consider the ordinance in that particular framework when it returned. Mayor Wheeler said the Finance Committee and the Council had previously discussed tools to allow the Police Department to do its job properly. If that were the major impetus for enactment of the ordinance, then she wanted very clear information from the Police Department as to how that particular set of regulations benefitted
the Police Department=s ability to carry out the heightened assignments that had been given to them in terms of the increased funding to deal with extra patrols in the Downtown area. She
wanted to know what specific portion of the Police Department=s assignment in the Downtown area the ordinance would further or lack
of the ordinance would impede. She was concerned about the City=s trying to moderate bad behaviors in the Downtown and other areas of the community. Everyone needed to live by a set of rules, and everyone was expected to obey the rules. However, there was a point at which if exceptions were made, there needed to be a balance between a host of exceptions and getting to the point where the City had an ordinance that was not applied fairly, equally, and tended to divide the community into classes of citizens. She asked whether the report could address the balance between exceptions and making the ordinance so narrow that it singled out one group of people which was not the intent of the Council. Mr. Calonne said laws went through classifications processes all the time. He believed the request was for the scope of the legal restrictions on how classifications could be drawn in the ordinance, i.e., whether the Council could permit or exclude different classes of behavior. He would report on the scope of the
Council=s authority in that area. Council Member Andersen appreciated the staff report (CMR:323:96) regarding the Recreation and Arts and Culture fee reduction program and also the alternative recommendation before the Council that evening.
06/24/96 79-307 79-307
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to amend the main motion to accept the alternative recommendation to approve a 50 percent reduction for low-income residents for Recreation and Arts and Culture fees and a similar 50 percent reduction for qualifying residents with disabilities. Low-income status to be determined based on the Utilities Rate Assistance Program; eligibility of disabled residents set at 100 percent of the median County income. Mayor Wheeler said the original staff recommendation made some distinctions about applicability of the fee reduction to classes and fees above a certain nominal level and also specifically excluded the golf course and golf fees. She asked whether that notion was still included in the motion. Ms. Harrison said yes. The only changes were the 50 percent from the original staff recommendation of 20 percent and the addition of the eligibility guidelines for the disabled separate from those for low income. Mayor Wheeler clarified the scope of services covered by the fee reduction would remain the same. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum said the recommendation originally came for the Disability Awareness Task Force (DATF) and HRC. The recommendation was changed by staff and went to the Finance Committee where there was a brief discussion. The HRC had responded recently, but the Council had not received the minutes from that meeting. There was a split vote. He believed it was a policy issue rather than a finance issue and should be referred to the P&S Committee. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to refer the fee reduction issue to the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member Simitian asked an estimate of the potential cost implications of the alternative recommendation. Ms. Harrison said the estimate for the original staff proposal was $3,000 to $5,000, but she was uncertain how much the revenue loss would be for the disabled under the income guidelines. Council Member Simitian asked whether the alternative recommendation would involve a substantially greater incremental cost to the City. Ms. Fleming replied it would not be substantial.
06/24/96 79-308 79-308
Council Member Simitian opposed the substitute amendment to refer. He would rather have a trial period to see how the program worked than discuss the program at the P&S Committee and then end up with a lengthy set of speculations but no real data. The amount of
money was minuscule in the context of the City=s $85 million Budget, but it was significant to the relatively small number of individuals who would be involved. He was troubled when the recommendation came forward initially for people with disabilities because he believed it should be geared toward people who had a demonstrated need. He was pleased that a demonstrated need had to be identified for low income, but he thought the comments from people concerned about people with disabilities were well made to the extent that they suggested even people of median income had greater costs that they incurred as result of those disabilities. Someone with a median income who also had a disability was someone who might well need the benefit of the fee reduction. He believed the program covered people who were low income and needed a substantially greater assistance in order to participate in City programs and people with disabilities who were of median income but who had additional costs that they might occur due to their disability. He said the Council had previously discussed trying to maintain some semblance of economic diversity in the community, the cost was negligible to the City, it would substantially help people who needed the help, and the program should be given a chance for one year before referring it to the P&S Committee. Council Member Schneider opposed the substitute amendment to refer. The alternative recommendation took into consideration the needs of the disabled community and the economically challenged community in Palo Alto. Also, there was one P&S Committee meeting left before the Council took its vacation which meant that the item would not return to the entire Council until the middle of September 1996, so a whole summer would be lost. Council Member Fazzino said the amount of money was not significant. The program had received plenty of scrutiny from several City task forces, and he was willing to move forward with the recommendation. He enthusiastically supported the concept of the low-income reduction, and 50 percent made a real impact but 20 percent did not. The members of the HRC had truly had an impact on the issue over the previous weeks. He had previously had a problem with the disability fee reduction primarily because it did not include any means testing. He was a strong supporter of means testing, and he believed an affluent disabled person who could afford those kinds of programs should not be treated differently from other people in the community. At the same time, he recognized that there were special historic obstacles to disabled
people who used the City=s facilities and participated in the programs. The HRC had provided an excellent approach that applied some means testing to the disabled users of the programs but at the same time recognized their special needs as a population and including them in the program. He was not sure that a policy
06/24/96 79-309 79-309
discussion of the item would provide him with any additional information. It would be better to try the program for one year and understand the impacts and then come back and have a discussion at the P&S Committee and Council prior to the 1997-98 Budget adoption. Ms. Fleming said due to the short time frame, the alternative recommendation had not been discussed with the HRC. However, she had discussed the recommendation with various members of the HRC. The fact that the Council had not heard opposition from the members of the HRC indicated the HRC was willing to accept the alternative compromise on a trial basis. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO REFER WITHDRAWN BY MAKER WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SECONDER. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. Council Member Schneider said the Utilities Advisory Commission
(UAC) did not accept the staff=s recommendation regarding an increase in the Water Rates. The staff proposal was a water rate change of 6 percent for Fiscal Year 1996-97 and 7 percent for Fiscal Year 1997-98, with General Fund equity transfer in both of those years. She pointed out it was only a year that there was only one other increase in the utility rates, i.e., the 9 percent in the Refuse Fund. There was also a Wastewater Collection Fund
decrease of 9 percent. If the Council approved the UAC=s recommendation which would require no rate increase for the current year, there would be significant rate increases the following year, not only in the Water Rate Fund but also in other utility funds. She believed it was the only year the Council had an opportunity to balance the increases that the community would experience in the future. When the City compared itself to communities in surrounding areas that were not as old as Palo Alto and did not have the requirements for infrastructure funding, their rates would be lower because their infrastructure was healthier than Palo
Alto=s. AMENDMENT: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to amend the main motion to accept the staff recommendation to increase the Water Rates by 6 percent for Fiscal Year 1996-97 and 7 percent for Fiscal Year 1997-98, with full General Fund equity transfer. (Fiscal impact to General Fund of $422,000.) Council Member Rosenbaum supported the Finance Committee recommendation. The problem was not the infrastructure but that two-thirds of the proposed rate increase would add $450,000 to the transfer to the General Fund. He agreed with the UAC that that was difficult to justify. The Utility was not performing well, water usage did not increase as expected, and the infrastructure was a problem. Based on that information, it was difficult to justify
06/24/96 79-310 79-310
increasing the profit. The City represented the General Fund, but it was also the equivalent of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). He could not support the increase in the transfer. While infrastructure might be the source of the problem for the current year, the increase had to do with the General Fund transfer. Council Member Andersen said the issue was not infrastructure, and the Finance Committee unanimously supported infrastructure improvements. The question was how the City would fund those long-term infrastructure improvements. Currently, the improvements were
done on a Αcash and carry≅ basis. A staff analysis was currently being done about long-term infrastructure issues, and he anticipated that that area would be explored as well. He could not
support an increase in rates when the City=s water costs had not increased. When the water rates did increase due to drought conditions, the City would already be at the highest point, and the rates would have to be raised even higher. The money was simply an increase that would be transferred to the General Fund account. The recommendation would transfer to the General Fund the same amount money that went into the General Fund for the previous year but there would be no substantial increase. Many of the transfers were based on the infrastructure. Therefore, when the infrastructure was improved, the asset was improved, and then there was a basis for raising the amount that could be charged. The process needed to be considered more carefully as the infrastructure was improved significantly because it had an interesting spiral which was not easily justified. He encouraged his colleagues to support the Finance Committee recommendation. Council Member Kniss said the Finance Committee considered the recommendation carefully. The UAC believed it was not the correct year to increase the water rates. Since the community had conserved very well after going through some very difficult times in the early 1990s, the supplier would not be paid any more than previously, and the City would be conducting a study to determine how to support its infrastructure, it would not be wise to approve an increase for the current year. She urged the Council to support
the Finance Committee=s recommendation knowing that the issue would be reconsidered for the following year based on the information from the study being done. Council Member Simitian clarified two-thirds of the increase would be transferred to the General Fund which was approximately $450,000 and the third that would remain in the Utility was $225,000. Council Member Rosenbaum said that was correct. Council Member Simitian asked what would happen to the $225,000 that remained in the Utility.
06/24/96 79-311 79-311
Ms. Harrison said the Rate Stabilization Reserve would be the ultimate destination. Council Member Simitian asked what would happen to the $450,000 that went into the General Fund. Ms. Harrison said if the money were not transferred to the General Fund, the Rate Stabilization Reserve would not be increased for the current year and there would not be potential funding for the infrastructure in the future. Council Member Simitian clarified if the increase recommended by staff were approved, there would be a $450,000 transfer to the General Fund. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Council Member Simitian asked how the $450,000 would be used. Mr. Harrison said staff hoped, given the comprehensive infrastructure needs in the General Fund, that the City would be able through the funding to set the basis for a financing program that would not have to rely on either debt or assessment financing. Council Member Simitian clarified the $450,000 would provide a permanent source of funds for the infrastructure needs of the entire community, not just the Utility. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Council Member Simitian asked whether the $225,000 that would be retained by the Utility could be used for infrastructure needs in the Utility as opposed to the Rate Stabilization Reserve.
Ms. Harrison said yes. The UAC=s proposal was not to make the transfer to the General Fund at the increased rate. The Utilities Department believed the 2 percent rate increase did not make sense, and it recommended no rate increase. There would not be an extra $225,000. Council Member Simitian was sympathetic with the proposed amendment. The Council had discussed more than acted with respect to the needs of infrastructure both within the various utilities and outside the Utility structure. The study might help the City find a way to deal with the infrastructure needs over the long term, but at some point the City had to stop studying and begin to pay for the infrastructure. The City had made a good start the previous year, and even more would be done for the current year. He had not heard any comments about why the Council would not be well advised to move forward with additional infrastructure investment. He understood the attempts to bring some intellectual rationale to the transfer of funds with the Utility, but he was
06/24/96 79-312 79-312
troubled by the continuing belief that the bill could mount, the systems could deteriorate, and the cost of infrastructure needs could be handled in the future. Council Member McCown supported the staff recommendation. She was
influenced by the Finance Committee=s recommendation that there would be no increase in water rates in 1996-97, the Water Equity Transfer would be frozen at the 1995-96 level, and there potentially would be increased rates by 9 percent in 1997-98.
Staff=s projection was that if that were the decision for the current year, the potential increase would be 9 percent for 1997-98 and another 9.9 percent rate increase for 1997-98 to maintain the Reserve levels. She did not believe it was worth a zero increase when the City could forecast where it would be over a long term. The community needed to know that it was more prudent to have a graduated level of rate increases spread over two years which was
the staff=s recommendation. She preferred a 6 percent increase for 1996-97 and a 7 percent increase for 1997-98 rather than a zero increase for the current year, 9 percent for the following year, and another 9 percent the year after. Mayor Wheeler said voters of the City saw the price tag for neglecting the infrastructure of some school structures to the point where they had to be demolished 40 years later. She hoped the City was wiser than that. Regardless of the results of the study that would come forward during the current year, the City needed to make a greater investment than $450,000. The $450,000 was a small down payment on the amount of infrastructure repair to the many facilities the City had. The role of the Council was unique in that instance. It was an Enterprise Fund and similar to an investor-owned utility, but the City was shy about asking the CPUC for the return that any investor-owned utility would ask for. The City should not be shy about asking for the return that was due to the investors in the Utility which were the citizens and businesses of Palo Alto. She supported the amendment. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there was no impact on the Water Utility infrastructure. The discussion was about the General Fund infrastructure. The problem with the transfer to the General Fund from the Water Utility was that it was not sustainable, and the UAC had made that point very clearly during the year. In terms of revenues, the transfer was a large percentage and was responsible
for some portion of the fact that the City=s water rates were higher than those in surrounding communities. He believed the
current year was the year to recognize that the City=s position was not sustainable and to look elsewhere for means of funding the General Fund infrastructure. Council Member Andersen said the Council had to recognize that the infrastructure of the Water Utility was not being affected. There had been only a general reference that the money would be applied
06/24/96 79-313 79-313
to infrastructure commitments in the future. He hoped if the amendment passed that evening, it would be clear to the community that a major portion of the funds transferred into the General Fund would be transferred into an infrastructure account. There was a spiral effect with regard to how much return the City would receive based on the infrastructure improvement. There were implications that needed to be addressed, and the UAC had been reviewing that issue. A study session might be appropriate on the long-term implications of the infrastructure improvements and how the improvements would impact the rates the City had to charge. He believed the 9 percent increase in 1997-98 would be modified as the City found another manner in which to fund the infrastructure, and the Council should look at the process by which the City determined how much money was put into the General Fund account. The infrastructure problem was important. However, the questions were how to fund the infrastructure and what would be done once it was funded and the City had an increased asset base. Mayor Wheeler said there would be a joint meeting with the UAC in the fall. She had asked the chairperson to structure the agenda, but she believed the UAC would want to discuss that subject with the Council as well. Council Member Kniss underscored the comments of Council Members Andersen and Rosenbaum. She was concerned about deregulation and
the Utilities remaining competitive. A great deal of the City=s success had been based on the Utilities. She urged the Council to remember that the City needed to stay competitive in that market. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Andersen, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum Αno.≅ RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. Council Member Rosenbaum said when the Finance Committee met the previous year, the Committee was asked to approve a more significant harbor capital improvement project than previously on the premise that outside funding would be forthcoming for the project. There was a motion that if the outside money were not forthcoming, the Finance Committee would reconsider the project and possibly decide to use General Fund money for the harbor improvement. He asked the status of the outside funding for that capital improvement. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said staff continued to aggressively pursue those sources. There were two very probable sources: 1) the San Francisco Airport and 2) a developer in East Palo Alto in the vicinity of Cooley Landing. Neither one of the sources was finalized, but staff was very optimistic about them. Staff would report back to the Council either at the mid-year
budget process or during the preparation of the following year=s budget process.
06/24/96 79-314 79-314
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified if the monies were not available, the harbor capital improvement project would not begin
without staff=s returning to either the Finance Committee or the Council. Mr. Roberts said staff would report back in either case. Council Member Rosenbaum was concerned about the two contract manager positions requested by staff. The Council had been previously concerned about whether the City was receiving a sufficient number of bids, and staff had responded adequately to that concern. The City began receiving more bids and there were explanations in the staff reports for cases in which there were not enough bids, so he believed everything was under control. There was a purchasing audit by the City Auditor, and he had a number of concerns about whether staff was giving proper oversight to the purchasing function. The audit did not indicate a need for adding two people which had been proposed by staff at a cost of $160,000. He believed the new Administrative Services Department wanted to assume greater control of the purchasing function, and the savings suggested were very speculative. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Simitian, to amend the main motion to approve one Contract Manager position and after a proper period of time to then evaluate the position on the value of the savings and, if appropriate, to make a recommendation with respect to the second Contract Manager position. Council Member Simitian said Council Member Rosenbaum raised the issue of potential savings, and he asked whether the savings could be identified if the people were hired in terms of the dollar amounts or whether staff would feel a better job had been done and there were savings based on the more rigorous application of the higher standards that were in place. Ms. Harrison said the savings estimate was based on experience in the private sector. A report had been prepared, and staff was working with the City Auditor to assure him that the report was appropriate in format and would document the savings on a monthly basis. Staff would be able to show the Council at the end of any fiscal year the exact amount of savings that would come from adopting the proposal. Council Member Simitian asked whether the prospect of being able to review specific dollar savings at the end of the year for two positions made Council Member Rosenbaum more comfortable with approving two positions. Council Member Rosenbaum was concerned that if the positions were added, it would be impossible to eliminate the position unless someone left and there was a vacancy. He understood one Contract Manager would handle the Public Works and Utilities Departments and
06/24/96 79-315 79-315
the other position would handle everything else, so he assumed it was a divisible recommendation. Ms. Harrison said the proposal was not to have one contract manager for the Public Works and Utilities Departments and one for all the other General Fund or other funds but to spread the work load among the three positions in recognition of the number of contracts that each needed to administer. Assistant Director of Administrative Services Melissa Cavallo said
the City=s $35 to $40 million per year in contracts required the City to have three contract managers to manage the volume effectively. The current backlog was between 75 to 100 contracts in process, and adding one person would not add value to the process. Contract managers were very effective in the private sector purchasing organizations, and it was common to save 4 to 5 percent of the purchase dollar volume annually. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff would be able to identify and document that information. Ms. Cavallo said a process was in place that would allow staff to identify specific dollar savings contract by contract. Council Member Simitian said during the discussions about what was
a relatively modest amount of money for the Children=s Theatre for
direct services, Council Member McCown=s observation was that the City should not spend too vigorously or commit funds for the long term without regard for the uncertainties of the future. The 11 or 12 positions recommended for the year totaled $750,000, and he had the same reaction as Council Member McCown had but much more significantly with respect to the number of positions. The
difficulty he had was second guessing staff=s judgment about each of the positions, particularly because so many of the positions were mid-management positions. Relatively few of the positions were involved in the direct provision of service to the community. There were some positions in which the results of their work would be directly visible to the community, but many were support functions. He understood and respected that the positions were important and contributed to the organization, but to spend $750,000 on 12 positions after the Council had struggled to spend modest amounts of money for direct services was difficult. He asked whether it was possible to append the language to the positions that guaranteed that when the matter returned to the Council in one year, the Council would have clarity about the nature and the amount of the savings, if any. Ms. Fleming said the Council could amend the Finance Committee motion to ask staff to report back to the Council as to whether or not the two contract manager positions had met their goals in terms of cost savings.
06/24/96 79-316 79-316
SECOND WITHDRAWN BY COUNCIL MEMBER SIMITIAN. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. AMENDMENT: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to amend the main motion to direct the staff to report back to the Council through the Finance Committee at the end of the year on the cost recovery achieved by the addition of two contract administrator positions, including how much was saved and how it was saved. AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Senior Financial Analyst was one of two positions that was recommended and accepted by staff in the management area for deletion. Staff had previously agreed to eliminate the Treasury Manager position at that time, but it was returned as a proposal for a Senior Financial Analyst. Justification given by staff was that the Reserves had increased and the City might be doing some bond issues. He did not believe the Reserves had increased in either quantity or quality to a different level from when staff agreed to delete the position. The issuance of bonds was time consuming and involved senior management, but it had to be done and did not happen very often or for a great period of time. By comparison, the Mission Driven Budget (MDB) was a far more demanding assignment that whatever would be required for any bond issues the City might do, and there had been no request for new positions for that process. He referred to the Hughes, Heiss & Associates report which stated
Αwork load associated with managing and implementing the City=s investment program, including development recommendation of investment strategies and continuing execution of investment transactions, including required record keeping and reporting could be accomplished by a single experienced professional rather than be divided between two positions as now the case. This was especially true given the relatively restricted nature of
investment options given the City=s current well documented and defined investment policy. With special project analysis, including the relatively infrequent financings which have consumed reported significant portions of the time of the Treasury Manager should be reassigned to and accomplished by the Assistant Finance
Director.≅ AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to amend the main motion to disapprove the addition of the Senior Financial Analyst position for debt and investment activities in the Administrative Services Department from the 1996-98 Proposed Budget. (Fiscal impact to General Fund of $32,000; $52,200 to Utilities Department.)
06/24/96 79-317 79-317
Ms. Harrison said the Hughes, Heiss & Associates recommendation was before the Orange County losses happened and a number of changes were made to the law in terms of how the City both accounted for and reported on its investments. The recommendation did not take into account the fact that Council had made a policy decision to
start building Reserves to cover the City=s stranded costs with Calaveras Reserve which would significantly increase the portfolio and that the City would be considering several debt financing in the short term. Staff was currently spending a large amount of time considering the potential for an assessment district in the Midtown. It took a significant amount of time before the decision was made to debt finance to look at the feasibility of such a financing. The Senior Financial Analyst position would be expected to take over from the current staff who were trying to take on the additional work load. Council Member Simitian would oppose the amendment. Historically, the Council and the City had received good service from the Administrative Services Department. If the department told the Council that it needed another staff person to continue to do the job well, he would rather reward good behavior than bad behavior and would support the position based on that rationale. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Huber, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler Αno.≅ Council Member Fazzino was disappointed the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, staff, and the Finance Committee did not provide any funding for the Major Taylor Cycling Club through the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP). He believed it was a unique multi-city group and involved the PAUSD and East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto had agreed to waive some fees. The Club provided economically disadvantaged Palo Alto school children with bicycles for a relatively low cost. He believed it was a program that should be supported, and he hoped the City would look at the program more favorably next year. Council Member Andersen said he did not concur with the majority of the Finance Committee to ask the PAUSD to determine whether there was any potential for mutually agreeing to open the lease for renegotiation. He understood the rationale, but he reminded his colleagues that it took two parties to open a lease. Council Member Schneider referred to page 8 of the Finance Committee minutes of May 14, 1996, where she asked a series of rhetorical questions. She wanted to clarify for the record that it was not her intent to suggest that only the Cubberley neighborhood would be responsible for any assessment district for either sidewalks or anything else. Council Member Simitian said there had been some commentary during the year that the City was in relatively good financial shape and
06/24/96 79-318 79-318
the City had added a substantial number of positions at a significant cost. The budget referred to the potential need in the future for some increase in revenues in connection with the Cubberley Community Center. In the previous years, the Council had had some conversations with staff about potential revenue increases in the form of a landscape and lighting district, a Utility Users Tax (UUT) increase, or an extension of the UUT to long-distance telephone bills. There would be an unhappy reaction from the community if the Council finessed the issue of revenue increases; but then in the future, the Council said the City did not have the funds it needed for its operation, and an additional revenue increase was needed. He wanted to know where the City Manager and the staff thought the City was headed in terms of the need for additional revenues before the Council took action on the budget that evening. Ms. Fleming said the Budget for the current fiscal year had received much attention because there had been a surplus available. She had repeatedly stated that those were funds that the City had carefully not spent because the City knew there were long-range issues which had to be addressed, e.g., Cubberley Community Center, trees, infrastructure. The City wanted to have resources available for the Council to prioritize the direction the City would take when addressing the programs that were not in place. The money was left available to use as either to start up, to meet one-time needs, or to cushion the need for additional resources. There was an undocumented cost that was very large for infrastructure. Council had given staff an assignment to prepare a master study of
the City=s infrastructure needs and to bring the study back to the Council with suggestions as to how the City would handle those needs. The strategy had been not to spend every dollar of resources available, and a number of programs had been denied
because the staff had heard the Council=s priorities. Staff believed it was better to find ways to fund the programs on an ongoing basis without returning to the public for extra dollars. Staff had been cautious about the programs. There were structures that gave the City some additional sales tax which might not be there next year. Staff would prioritize all the needs and make recommendations on how those needs would be funded when it returned to the Council. Infrastructure would be given a high priority. Council had instructed staff to look at six or seven ways to deal with the issue of maintaining the Cubberley Community Center as it currently existed. Staff would do everything possible to avoid returning to the public for additional dollars. Council Member Simitian said the Council rearranged its calendar to better coordinate the identification of Council priorities with the budget process, i.e., the relationship between the Council priorities and how the City spent its $85 million. He asked for a reminder of the designated priorities and the extent to which the Budget document reflected those priorities.
06/24/96 79-319 79-319
Ms. Fleming said staff developed through the MDB process a portion of the Budget that it felt crossed departmental programs. Added into the general description narrative were the Council priorities for the next two years. The programs that supported those priorities followed the description in the section, and it was a section that would continue to grow as the funding was addressed. Ms. Harrison said the four Council priorities identified for 1996-97 were: families, youth, and community; traffic management and safety; completion of the Comprehensive Plan; and the infrastructure plan. Families, youth, and community and traffic management and safety were priorities that could be found in the cross-department program sections that began on page 427 of the Budget. Budgeting for the Comprehensive Plan was solely within the Planning Department. Staff was in the process of putting together an infrastructure plan so placement and presentation of how that Council priority in the MDB was waiting that plan. Council Member McCown referred to the package of Downtown health and safety ordinances that were presented to the Council that evening and said it was an unusual path to present policy issues and ordinances in the context of the Budget. The real policy discussion of the issues would occur when the Council had the discussion of those ordinances rather than in the context of the Budget that evening. She looked forward to a vigorous debate and discussions when the issues returned to the Council. Mayor Wheeler said the Council had previously discussed a wide range of potential revenue enhancement methods. She had recently attended a League of California Cities Policy Committee meeting in which there was a lengthy discussion of an initiative that qualified for the November 1996 ballot which would have a very significant impact on the community discussion of revenue items. Ms. Harrison said the initiative was the Jarvis Right to Vote Act.
Staff saw a chilling effect on the City=s revenue-raising ability even as a Charter City if the Act should pass. She believed the Act would require a vote of the citizenry on a number of revenue alternatives that the Council had previously been able to pass on its own authority. It would also have an impact on assessment district financing. Staff was awaiting the outcome of the Act before working on any future revenue alternatives. Mr. Calonne emphasized that the single most significant change was in the assessment procedures. It would require mail ballots to everyone subject to an assessment. The assessment theory was different from taxation and had to be justified and legally dependent upon the showing of special benefit to the properties involved, hence justifying the assessment. The additional procedural layer appeared to be aimed at eliminating a reasonable financing vehicle.
06/24/96 79-320 79-320
Mayor Wheeler said there was some concern that a council would not be able to easily change the yearly municipal fee schedule should the initiative pass. It was a far-reaching initiative and would need to be clarified and adjudicated in the future. Council Member Andersen reinforced the comments of the City Attorney that when a city had mail ballots to the property owners, that meant the voting was not the vote of the people but the property owners. Mayor Lanie clarified an assessment district would not pass unless there was a majority explicit approval. Ms. Harrison said it also precluded the possibility of any citywide assessment districts. Council Member Fazzino said unfortunately the initiative would probably pass. He was troubled the City was not receiving any leadership on the issue from Sacramento. The Constitution Revision Commission had been meeting for the previous two years and had set forth some very interesting and in some cases outstanding proposals on state and local fiscal reform. However, the recommendations were being completely ignored by legislature. The voters would not have an opportunity in November to vote on the Constitution
Revision Commission=s recommendations. Similar measures would continue be presented in the future that would make it very difficult for cities to provide adequate funds for critical public services.
Ms. Fleming wanted to respond to Council Member Fazzino=s comment regarding the HSRAP process. She explained the allocation of funds through the HSRAP process had been developed previously by staff. She had met with the department head who administered the process,
and the following year=s process would have a thorough review and analysis. Council could be certain in the future that the recommendations brought forward would have gone through a process that identified community priorities. Mayor Wheeler said staff had done a remarkable job of bringing the Budget to the Council and also responding to the questions and concerns that had been raised by the Finance Committee, the Council, and members of the public. MAIN MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE MAIN MOTION regarding pursuing the ordinance relating to obstructing streets and sidewalks to add Section 9.48.025 prohibiting sitting or lying upon the public sidewalk on University Avenue between High Street and Waverley Street. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Andersen Αno.≅
06/24/96 79-321 79-321
SECOND PART OF THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS Council Member Kniss said she would not participate in Item No. 4. Council Member McCown said she would not participate in Item Nos. 4 and 22. Council Member Fazzino said he would not participate in Item No. 4 due to his employment with Hewlett Packard. Mayor Wheeler said she would not participate in Item No. 22 due to her employment with Palo Alto Community Child Care, Inc. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Item Nos. 3 - 22. 3. Contract between the City of the Palo Alto and Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation for Cablecasting Services 4. Contracts for Computer Software Support and Hardware Maintenance Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007168 for PALOALTO2 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57006761 for PALOALTO3 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57006527 for PALOALTO4 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007840 for PALOALTO7 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007146 for PALOALTO8
06/24/96 79-322 79-322
Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007853 for PALOALTO9 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007187 for PALOALTO9C 5. Amendment No. 9 to Contract No. 4688 with Palo Alto Sanitation Company for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Greenfield Services Corp. For Household and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste Management Program Services 7. Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. S4043199 between the City of Palo Alto and Quality Assurance Engineering, Inc. dba Consolidated Engineering Laboratories for Special Inspection, Materials Testing Services, and Construction Inspection Services 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for Minor or Emergency Consultant Services for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 9. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. S5051816 between the City of Palo Alto and Sure Flow, Inc. dba Roto-Rooter for the Perfor-mance of Sewer Lateral Maintenance Services to Palo Alto Residents 10. Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. S3036240 between the City of Palo Alto and Geodesy for the Performance of Geographic Information System Application Software Development Services 11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Graphic Data Systems Corporation for Geographical Information System Hardware and Software Maintenance Services 12. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C6075675 with Lewis and Tibbitts, Inc. for Electric Utility Trench and Substructure Installation 13. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Foundation Health PsychCare Services, Inc. dba Occupational Health Services for Administration of Employee Assistance Plan Services 14. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Town of Los Altos Hills for Renewal of Emergency Animal Control and Care Services
06/24/96 79-323 79-323
15. Resolution 7601 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Eighth Amendment to Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Access
to the California Identification System≅ Amendment No. 8 to Contract No. C0014413 between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara to provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Acquisition to the California Identi-fication System 16. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Holiday Cleaners for Police Uniform Cleaning and/or Laundry Services 17. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for Below Market Rate Housing Program Administrative Services 18. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant Funds Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Urban Ministry of Palo Alto for 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant Funds 19. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C5072778 between the City of Palo Alto and Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey for Design
Consultant Services for the City of Palo Alto=s Capital Improvement Projects 20. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Zongar Johnson Construction for City Facilities and School Equipment Repair; change orders not to exceed $14,500. 21. Contracts for Recreation Programs and the Use of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Facilities Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Peninsula Sports Officials Association for Scheduling of Umpires and Officials for Adult Softball and Basketball Leagues Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and John Whitlinger for Tennis Instructors Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Gymnastics West for Instructors for Gymnastics and Related Classes Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Skyhawks Sports Academy for Instructors for Sports Camps Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for Rental of Facilities for Recre-ation Programs
06/24/96 79-324 79-324
22. Human Services Agreements for Fiscal Year 1996-97 Amendment No. 7 to Contract No. C0006279 between the City of Palo Alto and Adolescent Counseling Services, Inc. for Provision of Counseling Services for Adolescents Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. S5053182 between the City of Palo Alto and Community Association for Rehabilitation for Services for Provision of Services to the Developmentally Disabled Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C5053189 between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Community Child Care, Inc. for Provision of Subsidized Child Care and Administrative Support for Operation of the Subsidy Program Amendment No. 7 to Contract No. C0006277 between City of Palo Alto and the Peninsula Area Information and Referral Service, Inc. for Provision of Telephone Information and Referral Services and Operation of Landlord/Tenant and Community Mediation Services Amendment No. 8 to Contract No. C0001714 between the City of Palo Alto and the Senior Coordinating Council of the Palo Alto Area, Inc. for Provision of Services for Senior Adults MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3 and 5 - 21. MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item No. 4, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown Αnot
participating.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 22, McCown, Wheeler, Αnot
participating.≅ ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m. to the Regular Meeting.
06/24/96 79-325 79-325
Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 10:26 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to the Utilities Advisory Commission Council Member Rosenbaum would support James Sahagian and Richard Gruen on the first ballot. Mr. Sahagian had served on the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) for one year, and the City was fortunate to have someone of his expertise available. He was the chief executive officer of an independent power producer, and his
knowledge fit in with the City=s concerns regarding Electric Utilities. Mr. Sahagian had shown himself to be a very perceptive observer. Mr. Gruen had attended most of the UAC meetings, and he had indicated by his questions and comments a considerable knowledge and interest in the area. He strongly endorsed adding Mr. Gruen to the UAC.
Council Member Fazzino concurred with Council Member Rosenbaum=s comments. Mr. Sahagian had been an outstanding member of the UAC. His expertise in the utilities area was particularly needed as the City moved into the uncharted waters of electric deregulation and grappled with direct access, POOLCO, etc. No one was better qualified to join the UAC than Richard Gruen. Mr. Gruen was a publicly spirited individual who had devoted most of his Wednesday evenings over the previous five or six years to the UAC and had provided invaluable public comment. Mr. Gruen had a nice mix of technical background as well as a grass roots residentialist perspective on complex utilities issues. He was delighted to support Mr. Gruen and looked forward to his outstanding service on the UAC. Council Member Schneider said in the short time that James Sahagian had been with the UAC, he had proven himself to be an excellent member. She was impressed with what Richard Gruen had to offer the UAC, and Mr. Gruen made complicated topics understandable. Council Member Kniss was delighted to support Richard Gruen for the UAC. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR CASSEL: VOTING FOR DAVIS:
06/24/96 79-326 79-326
VOTING FOR DEBS: VOTING FOR GRUEN: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR SAHAGIAN: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler City Clerk Gloria Young announced that James Sahagian and Richard Gruen received unanimous votes and were appointed on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mimi Wolf, 745 San Carlos Court, spoke regarding representing the Palo Alto Civic League. Tony Ciampi, P.O. Box 213, Palo Alto, spoke regarding Palo Alto. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, spoke regarding the Downtown Improvement Project. Victor Frost, Telephone Pole #1139, spoke regarding homelessness. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honor in government. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 10.
3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Guy=s Roofing, Inc. for Ventura Community Facility Reroofing; change orders not to exceed $7,000. 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. for Water Main Replacement - Phase X; change orders not to exceed $166,450. 5. First Amendment to Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Continuance of AB 939 Fee (Integrated Waste Management Act)
6. Resolution 7602 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Terry More Upon
His Retirement≅
7. Resolution 7603 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating the City of Palo Alto
06/24/96 79-327 79-327
Deferred Compensation Plan and Establishing it as the
Exclusive Plan for all Administrators≅ Deferred Compensation Plan Document
8. Resolution 7604 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 7584 Pertaining to Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 1996-1997" 9. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in
Denny=s, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills, et al., (Court of Appeal Docket No. B 098621) 10.Request for Authorization to enter into agreement for legal services with Whitmore, Johnson & Bolanos, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.070 MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3 - 9. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1 for Item No. 10, Simitian Αabstaining.≅ AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to cancel the Regular Meeting of July 1, 1996, and schedule a Special Meeting on July 1, 1996, starting at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of extending the interview period for the Planning Commission applicants. MOTION PASSED 9-0. City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2, Contract with Four Seasons Landscape and Maintenance for Landscape and Maintenance and Contract with Gachina Landscape Management for Landscape and Maintenance, had been removed by staff. CLOSED SESSION The items might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11.Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Michael Jackson, Rodger Jensen, Susan Ryerson, Tony Sandhu, Larry Starr, Paul Thiltgen, John Walton) Represented Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (SEIU)
06/24/96 79-328 79-328
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva, Joe Saccio, James McGee) Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Lynne Johnson, Joe Saccio, Tom Merson, Bob Brennan) Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 Public Comment None. 12.Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Martin v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC No. CV 755863 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) Public Comment None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13.PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of an application to rezone the property located at 2700 ASH STREET (Southwest corner of Ash Street and Page Mill Road) from RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residence District) to a PC (Planned Community District) to construct a two-story, 18,684-square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons, and 10 on-site parking spaces where 43 spaces are normally required. The project includes multiple variances for: 1) a 15-foot street side setback along the entire Ash Street frontage where special setbacks of 10-feet and 35-feet are normally required; and 2) a 10- to 14-foot-highstepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line where 7-feet is the maximum height allowed. Environmental Assessment: a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Mayor Wheeler pointed out the item was quasi-judicial and subject
to the Council=s disclosure policy.
06/24/96 79-329 79-329
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said a question was raised at
the pre-Council meeting regarding the possibility of the project=s establishing some local resident occupancy preferences in the selection criteria for the project. Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition would speak to that item. Staff understood there would be a proposal to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD allowed some preferencing, and the proposal submitted to HUD for approval would be that 50 percent of the units would be reserved for families living in Palo Alto who had a family member who was developmentally disabled. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel indicated the Planning Commission overwhelmingly supported the proposal. Council Member Simitian clarified the request to HUD would be a condition of the Planned Community (PC) District. Ms. Lytle said it was not a proposed condition, but a proposal could be made to HUD which might or might not meet its approval. Council Member Simitian asked whether a request to make the condition part of the PC should or could be done. If the Council wanted to protect the potential for a preference, a condition of the PC that the request would be made might offer the best assurance. Ms. Lytle said Council would need to amend the Ordinance to include that condition.
Council Member Simitian asked for staff=s opinion of adding that condition. Ms. Cassel explained the Planning Commission did not discuss that condition. Council Member Simitian asked the applicant to speak to that issue during her presentation. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, Applicant, 658 Blair Island Road, Suite 300, Redwood City, said the proposal was the development of 24-unit multiple-family residential housing development specifically designed for developmentally disabled adults. The primary public benefit was that the facility would serve developmentally disabled persons and provide supportive living services for that population. The proposal received overwhelming support from both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The Planning Commission found
the project would add diversity to the City=s housing stock and was appropriatly sited, well designed, and an attractive development that would be an asset to the community. There were 11 policies of
06/24/96 79-330 79-330
the Comprehensive Plan that the project supported or furthered. Some of the other jurisdictions that had requested funding also asked about preferences, and those jurisdictions had been informed that HUD would only allow a local preference for the jurisdiction where the project was based, e.g., preferences would be allowed for Palo Alto residents as long as that preference did not create any racial discrimination. The plan was to request HUD for preference of 50 percent of the units to be for families in Palo Alto who had a member of the family who was developmentally disabled. That proposal had been discussed with some of parent supporters of the project, and they were supportive of an allocation of 50 percent of the units. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the application, including the following: 1.Approval of the negative declaration (96-EIA-1), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of project approval are imposed; 2.Approval of the variances allowing for a 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street where special setbacks of 10 feet and 35 feet are normally required and a 10- to 14-foot high stepped noise wall adjacent to the Page Mill Road property line to exceed the 7-foot high fence height limit. The following findings for the Variance requests have been prepared by staff in support of the proposal: VARIANCE FINDINGS 15-foot street side setback along Ash Street frontage: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to the property involved that do not generally apply to property in the same district in that the site is an irregularly shaped lot that is significantly smaller than others in the area and poses difficulty in designing the project to meet the normal setback requirements and other development regulations required for the site. Other properties have setbacks within 15 feet of Ash, and the pedestrian environment along Ash Street will benefit by building architecture closer to the sidewalk. The project also has frontage on Page Mill Road, a major 4-lane arterial and significant noise source. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship, in that this irregular L-
06/24/96 79-331 79-331
shaped parcel, a partial 35-foot setback along Ash Street would not otherwise meet site development requirements including usable open spaces, parking and achieving Comprehensive Plan density, and would set the buildings back further than is desirable for a pedestrian-oriented area. Multiple family residential development for very low-income and developmentally disabled persons who will occupy the project would not otherwise have access to these units and the site facilities under the normal development regulations. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the multiple-family residential development with a 15-foot street side setback will be compatible with and will not have visual impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. A setback further from the sidewalk would not be consistent with surrounding properties and would be less desirable. 10-foot to 14-foot high stepped sound wall 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to the property involved that do not generally apply to property in the same district in that the site is adjacent to a heavily trafficked expressway, Page Mill Road, and poses difficulty in designing the project to meet the normal noise requirements for a multiple-family residential development without a 10-foot to 14-foot high stepped setback. As recommended in the Noise Analysis, completed by Wilson and Ihrig on April 18, 1996, a noise wall at least 6 feet in height will reduce noise levels to
be at or below the City of Palo Alto=s goal of Ldn 60 decibels. The fence height of the ordinance would not meet the noise requirements. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship, in that this multiple family residential development has the right to acceptable exterior noise levels and would not otherwise be able to comfortably reside on the site next to Page Mill Road without a sound wall designed as proposed. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the multiple-family residential development with the sound wall as proposed is designed in a manner which will not have a visual impact
06/24/96 79-332 79-332
on the neighborhood as the wall is stepped in height and meanders along the site rather than providing a straight edge along the site perimeter, and it will be planted with dense landscaping to obscure it. 3.Adoption of the ordinance, including findings and conditions, rezoning the property at 2700 Ash Street from RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residence District) to PC (Planned Community District), allowing the development of the two-story, 18,684 square-foot, 24-unit residential project for very low-income and developmentally-disabled persons (Attachment #1); and 4.Approval of the following ARB findings (Attachment #3) and conditions of project approval: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL The following findings for the Standards for Architectural Review have been prepared by staff in support of the proposal: 1. The proposed project complies with the goals and purposes (Section 16.48.010) of the Architectural Review Board Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that: a. Orderly and harmonious development will result from approval of the project which has been designed to relate well to the various existing land uses surrounding the site. b. The project, will enhance the desirability of the area and encourage investment in the City in that the project will result in the provision of 24 multiple-family dwelling units in a desirable area of Palo Alto and is a better use of land than a vacant site used for overflow parking. c. Approval of the project encourages the attainment of the most desirable land use of the land and improvements in that the Comprehensive Plan designates this site for multiple-family residential housing. Developing the site for housing provides an appropriate use in an area predominately surrounded by residential properties. d. Approval of the project enhances the desirability of living conditions on the site and in the adjacent areas, in that the project results in 24 new dwelling units and related site improvements which have been designed to fit the architectural style and character
06/24/96 79-333 79-333
of the neighborhood and complement the surrounding residential developments. e. The project promotes visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other, in that the project results in improvements to the Sheridan Avenue, Ash Street and Page Mill Road frontages, and provides quality architecture and variety in the landscape plantings throughout the development. 2. The design and architecture of the proposed project further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as follows: a. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan as
discussed in the ΑPolicy≅ section page of the staff report dated May 29, 1996, pages 6-8 (Standard #a1). b. The design with some modification as recommended would be compatible with the immediate environment of the site as the architectural building style respects the mixed architectural character of the nearby vicinity and neighborhood in that the 25 feet high building will be a comfortable height in relation to the 20-foot tall building adjacent to the site and the three- and four-story buildings to the north and east of the site. In addition, the common open space is compatible with the amount of common open space provided on the multiple-family sites in the immediate area (Standard #a2). c. The design is appropriate to the function of the multiple-family residential project in that it would provide adequate public open space and private outdoor living area for each unit; adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been provided by locating the parking close to the Ash Street entrance and allowing for pedestrian access at the back edge of the parking area rather than through the middle of the parking area. The separation of the two functions allows for safe use of both the pedestrian and vehicular areas (Standard #a3). d. The area in which the project site is located has no unified design character or historical character; however, it is an emerging mixed-use, residential support area for the California Avenue retail district. It is within walking distance of a multi-
06/24/96 79-334 79-334
modal transit station, and pedestrian orientation is desirable. This project contributes to improving the pedestrian environment (Standard #a4). e. The project consists of one- and two-story structures and is designed to fit within the surrounding development which consists of a three-story multiple-family residential project across Ash Street to the north, a 20-foot high research and development use (Linus Pauling Institute) to the south, and a four-story multiple-family structure across Sheridan Avenue to the west; therefore, the project promotes a harmonious transition in scale and character (Standard #a5). f. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the multiple-family residential development complements the scale of the existing adjacent residential and commercial buildings along Sheridan Avenue and El Camino Real (Standard #a6). g. The siting of the buildings, open space, on-site parking and circulation, landscaping with recommended modifications would create an internal sense of order to the site providing a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community, as described and discussed on pages 11-14 of the May 29, 1996 staff report (Standard #a7). h. The proposed amount of open space, both common (57% of the total site area) and private (5% of the total site area), is appropriate to the design and function of the project, in that the site plan and landscape plan assure that each dwelling unit is designed with adequate private yard area (Standard #a8). The smaller than usual private open space is adequately compensated for by the increased common open space. The user group will be better served by the greater amount of common open space rather than a typically-sized private area that a resident will not use. i. The common community building and courtyard for all residents of the project provide sufficient ancillary functions, compatible with and supportive of the main
function of the project=s design concept (Standard #a9). j. Access to the property and circulation for both drivers and pedestrians with recommended modifications would be provided in a safe and convenient manner in that vehicular access is limited to one driveway off
06/24/96 79-335 79-335
Ash Street, pedestrian access is provided on Ash Street and Sheridan Avenue, and pedestrian walkways are proposed throughout the development (Standard #a10). k. The area in which the project site is located has no existing natural features (Standard #a11).
l. The proposed landscaped plan and the applicant=s proposed use of natural materials (mainly stucco, wood siding, wood rafter tails, wood eave brackets, wood railings and wood trellises, and composition shingled roofs) and colors (terra-cotta and ochre base colors and white painted wood details) are appropriate expressions to the design of the buildings and compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures (Standard #a12). m. The proposed landscape design provides a desirable and functional environment and pleasant outdoor space and is appropriate to a multiple-family residential development in that the landscape scheme provides pleasant walkways and open space conducive to residential surroundings as well as additional street trees being an advantage to the pedestrian qualities along all 3 frontage streets (Standard #a13). n. The proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site and can be properly maintained on the site, and the plantings are appropriate for private outdoor space and public open space and includes a mix of trees, and flowering shrubs and groundcover suitable for this type of development (Standard #a14). o. The building design incorporates energy efficient features, such as dual glazing and insulation (Standard #a15). STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Most of the conditions listed below are standard conditions. These conditions would normally be applied to the project as part of the final ARB approval process. However, given that the project proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District, which includes the normal ARB process, these conditions have been incorporated into this recommended action. Major and/or special conditions are proposed for incorporation into the PC Ordinance for this project. All mitigation measures identified in the mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Assessment are incorporated as conditions of project approval. The project plans shall be
06/24/96 79-336 79-336
revised to comply with the required mitigations and return to the ARB for review and approval. Any changes to these plans, other than those provided in this review, must be reviewed by the Public Works Engineering Division. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit Utilities Electric 1. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at 1-800-642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Utilities Electric 2. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the landscape plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the ARB. Utilities Rule & Regulations #1-3 (B) (3), #17-A2 (4). 3. All new electric service must be underground. Utilities Rule & Regulations #19-G(1). 4. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulations #19-G(2). 5. Location of electric panel switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the ARB and Utilities Department. 6. All electric substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed by the customer to City standards. Fire Department 7. Fire sprinklers required per PAMC, Section 15.04.170(dd). Planning/Zoning 8. The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
06/24/96 79-337 79-337
9. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall take into consideration all elements included on: 1) the City of Palo Alto Landscape Plan Checklist: and 2) the Water Conservation Guidelines. The plan shall include: a. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size and locations. b. Irrigation schedule and plan. c. Fence locations. d. Lighting plan with photometric data. e. A separate water service for irrigation is required. 10. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application. 11. Approved color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building permit drawing set by the applicant. Public Works Engineering 12. The sidewalk on the Ash Street frontage requires installation partially outside the City right-of-way, and a deed dedicating the additional right-of-way shall be required. The property owner shall dedicate to the City 3 feet deep of Ash Street right-of-way frontage prior to building permit issuance in a form acceptable to the City, and recordation of dedication must be at the Santa Clara
County Recorder=s Office. 13. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including existing and proposed drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that preexisting drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec. 16.28.270. The plan shall show the existing affected off-site storm drainage and provide calculations showing how this system will handle the proposed site run-off. This plan shall show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades showing how drainage patterns work. This plan should also incorporate
the direct connection of site drainage to the City=s storm drain system. 14. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall
06/24/96 79-338 79-338
provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 15. The applicant must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 16. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for a structure, awning, or other features left in the public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest. This permit must be obtained prior to the placement of the encroaching feature. 17. The sidewalk on the Sheridan Avenue and Ash Street frontage shall be replaced. An approved permit allowing the construction in the public street will need to be obtained for this work. 18. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All
truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto=s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 19. The applicant will be required to submit a copy of a recent Preliminary Title Report to resolve discrepancies between the submitted plans and City records regarding the accurate location of private property frontage along Ash Street. 20. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering prior to commencement of work for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec.12.08.010. 21. A portion of the proposed work is within the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 22. The applicant shall be required to combine the underlying lots into one parcel. If there are 4 or fewer underlying lots, a Certificate of Compliance may be used. If there are 5 or more lots, a tentative map process shall be used.
06/24/96 79-339 79-339
Transportation 23. Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements. Utilities Electric 24. All utility meter, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. 25. The applicant shall dedicate a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed in private property located at 2700 Ash Street for City use prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Works Operations 26. Street trees shall be required 15-gallon size spaced at minimum 20-foot intervals along project frontage on Sheridan Avenue, Ash Street and Page Mill Road. The trees shall be installed in 5-foot planter strips between the street and sidewalk, per City standards. Species shall be
Pyrus Calleyane ΑChanticleer≅ as determined by the City Arborist. Newly planted street trees shall be planted in
accordance with the Public Works Department=s Standard Tree Planting Specification and irrigated and maintained by the property owner. During Construction Building Inspection 27. To reduce dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor=s operations, either inside or outside of the
right-of-way, shall be controlled at the contractor=s expense. 28. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and
06/24/96 79-340 79-340
the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utilities Rule & Regulation #19-A(1). 29. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. Utilities Rule & Regulation #19-A(1). 30. Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. Police 31. All residential construction activities shall be subject
to the requirements of the City=s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted regarding allowable construction times. Construction times for the project shall be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday No construction allowed on Sundays Public Works Engineering 32. The Contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.060. 33. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 34. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate
best management practices (BMP=s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall
monitor BMP=s with respect to the developer=s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works
Department shall monitor BMP=s with respect to the
developer=s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. Federal Clean Water Act. 35. All construction within City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to
06/24/96 79-341 79-341
Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Sec 12.08.060 Prior to Finalization Utilities Electric 36. The applicant shall install junction boxes as required and for all cable runs exceeding 500 feet. Utilities Rule and Regulation #17-A(2). 37. The customer shall install a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the service lateral and the service entrance conductors. Utilities Rule & Regulation #17-A(2). 38. The applicant shall install a switch pad and box for the installation of the padmount switch. Utilities Rule & Regulation #17-A(2). Planning/Zoning 39. The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed, and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function and all plants including streets trees are healthy. Public Works Engineering 40. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance 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 2700 Ash Street from RM-40
to PC≅ ADDITIONAL CONDITION
41. THAT THE APPLICANT REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO APPROVE A SET ASIDE OF 50 PERCENT OF THE UNITS FOR PALO ALTO RESIDENTS Council Member Simitian was delighted the project had almost come to fruition. He thanked the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition and
06/24/96 79-342 79-342
the many families and staff who had worked very hard to make the project possible. Mayor Wheeler said it was an extraordinary project. The project from its very inception did not have the negative energy within the community that many projects had for very low-income residents. It was warmly welcomed on a conceptual level at the Midtown planning workshops, and it only had a small amount of opposition when the real site was found. Council Member Fazzino concurred with the comments of Mayor Wheeler and Council Member Simitian. He applauded the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition and others who had worked very hard on the project. He wanted to particularly thank the other cities that had been involved in the effort. He hoped it was a wonderful precedent for similar projects in the future. He was troubled by a letter from Harold Hohbach who expressed problems with the development (Attachment 15 of the staff report (CMR:321:96). Mr. Hohbach had benefitted significantly by City approval of his projects of overdevelopment in that area, and he believed the project would only benefit that entire area and was a wonderful asset for the entire community. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 14.Historic Resources Board recommends to the City Council Extension of a Moratorium on Issuance of a Demolition Permit for 275 Lowell Street Mayor Wheeler pointed out the item was quasi-judicial and subject
to the Council=s disclosure policy. Historic Resources Board Member Carol Willis said the community was fortunate to have a house by John Hudson Thomas in Palo Alto. The house was hidden behind shrubbery, and unfortunately the view from the driveway was not representative of the building. The applicant had not realized the building was a marvelous piece of architecture, and sometimes an empty site was considered more of an asset than a building that needed tender loving care. She hoped it would be a successful application of the demolition ordinance and that Palo Alto would end up with an incredible example of a Bay Area tradition in architecture. Carol Murden, 1331 Martin Avenue, said she supported the comments of Ms. Willis. She found the inside of the house to be extraordinary, and John Hudson Thomas was a well-known Bay Area architect. The applicant/owner was agreeable to a six-month period to reconsider demolition of the house after speaking with the Historic Resources Board (HRB). She explained she was not a member of the HRB when the project was presented.
06/24/96 79-343 79-343
Dennis Backlund, 488 University Avenue No. 503, explained that he was not a member of the HRB when the project was presented. He reviewed the minutes of the meeting and found that the applicant and the architect for the project had learned a lot from the comments of the HRB. The HRB was prepared to accept the six-month moratorium to restudy the situation. John Hudson Thomas was not as well known in Palo Alto as other Bay Area architects, but he had given tours in Berkeley where there were several houses by that architect, and the architect had become known as one of the greatest of all the Bay Region architects. Palo Alto was extremely fortunate to have a house by that architect, and HRB was glad the applicant/owner had asked for further time to restudy the situation. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to extend the moratorium on issuance of a Demolition Permit for 275 Lowell Street for a period of six months from the date of application, such that a demolition permit would not be issued until October 29, 1996. This will allow time for the applicant and community to explore alternatives to the proposed demolition. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 15. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Project 19514, Facility Roof Replacement City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained the current Budget was effective on July 1, 1996, so the Budget Amendment Ordinance before the Council that evening was appropriate. Council Member Fazzino asked whether opportunities for more long-term renovations had been considered before reroofing the area, e.g., another floor above the Council Chambers or changing the roof to make it more attractive. City Manager June Fleming said the issue of remodeling the Chambers was before the Council. The building had severe leakage, so the project would only take care of those leaks. Any changes to the structure would be a separate project, and staff did not plan to make any structural changes at the present time. Council Member Fazzino recognized that a 25-year-old roof needed repair, but he was concerned that the money would be wasted as a result of a longer term renovation project that might change the design of the roof. Ms. Fleming said the only major building project that would be pursued was the construction of a safety building that would
06/24/96 79-344 79-344
require some extensive remodeling, but the leakage could not be delayed any longer. Council Member Fazzino clarified the changes to the Council Chambers would not conflict with the reroofing project. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Ordinance.
Ordinance 4353 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Capital
Improvement Project 19514, Facility Roof Replacement≅ Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Royal Roofing Company, Inc. for Civic Center Police and Council Wing Reroof Project MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 16. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler announced that three City programs had been given honors by the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA): the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Pollution Prevention Program, the Palo Alto Black & White Ball, and the graffiti program. She wished City Manager June Fleming a happy birthday on behalf of the Council. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation and existing litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 12. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 11. Mayor Wheeler announced that on Item No. 12, Martin v. City of Palo Alto, et al., Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to reject the plaintiff=s June 5, 1996, settlement proposal. MOTION PASSED 9-0. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
06/24/96 79-345 79-345
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.
06/24/96 79-346 79-346