HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-28 City Council Summary Minutes 04/28/97 83-77
Special Meeting April 28, 1997
1. Interviews for Public Art Commission...................83-79
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................83-80
1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dames & Moore for Consultant Services for Seismic Analysis of the Municipal
Service Center Buildings...............................83-80 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Kelly Services, Inc. for Extension of Temporary Staffing Service Contracts83-80
3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and NEC Business Communication for Automatic Call Distributer (ACD) Phone System.................................................83-80
4. Consultant Service Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Talavera & Richardson for Updating Sewer System Planner Hydraulic Modeling Software with New Flow Rates........83-81 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley
Construction for Electric Conduit at Alma Substation...83-81
6. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the Council legislative positions compiled as the 1997 City of Palo Alto Legislative Platform, with
additional modifications...............................83-81
7. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance which reflected midyear adjustments to the 1996-97
budgets................................................83-81
8. Final Approval of the Black and White Ball Settlement..83-81 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................83-81
13. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Eakins re Interim
Regulation Prohibiting Garage Doors on Carports........83-81
04/28/97 83-78
9. Proposition 208 Campaign Financing Implementation......83-81 10. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Bay Area Action
for Stewardship of the Arastradero Preserve............83-95
11. Arastradero Facility Gateway - Approval of Scope of Work for Facilitator/Architect..................................83-99
12. Organizational Study of the Planning Division.........83-109
12A. Status Report and Request for Approval and Policy Direction on SB 682 Regarding 60-Day Notice for Rental Tenancy Changes83-111
14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........83-115
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. in memory of the lives lost in the April 26, 1997, East Palo Alto fire.83-115
04/28/97 83-79
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 6:18 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss (arrived at 6:22 p.m.),
Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 6:22 p.m.), Wheeler
ABSENT: Andersen
SPECIAL MEETINGS
1. Interviews for Public Art Commission ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
04/28/97 83-80
Regular Meeting
April 28, 1997 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Yo Wong, 3766 Redwood Circle, spoke regarding overnight parking. T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding rationalized conduct.
Yoriko Kishimoto, representing the Palo Alto Civic League and the
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, 251 Embarcadero Road, spoke regarding campaign financing for initiative/referenda. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding Downtown Park.
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 8.
1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dames & Moore for Consultant Services for Seismic Analysis of the Municipal Service Center Buildings 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Kelly Services,
Inc. for Extension of Temporary Staffing Service Contracts
Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Roberta Enterprises, Inc. for Extension of Temporary Staffing Service Contracts
Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Wollborg/Michelson
Personnel Services, Inc. for Extension of Temporary Staffing Service Contracts
3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and NEC Business Communication for Automatic Call Distributer (ACD) Phone
System 4. Consultant Service Contract between the City of Palo Alto and
Talavera & Richardson for Updating Sewer System Planner Hydraulic Modeling Software with New Flow Rates
04/28/97 83-81
5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley
Construction for Electric Conduit at Alma Substation 6. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City
Council approval of the Council legislative positions compiled as the 1997 City of Palo Alto Legislative Platform, with
additional modifications. 7. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval
of the staff recommendation to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance which reflected midyear adjustments to the 1996-97
budgets.
Ordinance 4413 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance
with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report≅ 8. Final Approval of the Black and White Ball Settlement
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Schneider, to move Item No. 13 forward ahead of Item No. 9 for the purpose of continuance. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
13. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Eakins re Interim
Regulation Prohibiting Garage Doors on Carports MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by
Schneider, to continue Item No. 13 to the May 12, 1997, City Council Meeting.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
9. Proposition 208 Campaign Financing Implementation City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City Attorney report dated April 24, 1997, described some of the new rules that would affect candidates and campaigns. He and the City Clerk were not comfortable giving advice about campaign or candidate obligations
and thus would adhere to the provision that affected the City which was whether the Council wanted to direct preparation of an
04/28/97 83-82
ordinance that would establish a local expenditure ceiling for the
Council elections. City Clerk Gloria Young referred to an attachment, Expenditure by
Candidate and Year, to the City Attorney=s report. She said the total campaign expenditures were $73,893 for 1991, $19,622 for 1993, and $33,768 for 1995. She also noted the individual candidate expenditures for each Council Member for 1991, 1993, and 1995. The report showed the average expenditures during those
years.
Council Member Schneider clarified that the expenditures depicted the amount of money raised and did not necessarily mean that 100 percent of the monies was spent on campaigns. Some of the money
could have been given to charitable organizations.
Ms. Young said that could be true if the candidate=s account was closed out during that year.
Mr. Calonne said the reason for the background was that the policy choice under Proposition 208 (Prop 208) was to establish a
voluntary local expenditure ceiling. He referred to the City
Attorney=s report dated May 9, 1991, to remind the Council that the constitutional law in the area put tremendous burdens on government
agencies trying to establish expenditure limits in the absence of public matching funds. Prop 208 stated that by ordinance a limit could be established not to exceed $1 per resident per candidate. That limit or ceiling was voluntary; and while it was voluntary, there were certain incentives to encourage candidates to accept
whatever expenditure ceiling the Council might choose. Those incentives were that the contribution limit per person under Prop
208 was $100. If the Council adopted a voluntary local ceiling, that contribution would rise to $250 which would more than double
the contribution limit. Although, a Candidate=s Statement was
provided free of charge, state law would use that as another incentive for accepting a voluntary expenditure limitation. Finally, if a candidate did not accept the local campaign
expenditure limit and then proceeded to raise three-quarters of that limit, all of the other candidates would then have their limit
tripled. The measure tried to put some significant pressure on candidates to accept a local expenditure limit. While
theoretically it was somewhere between $55,000 and $60,000 per candidate in Palo Alto, the actual spending in 1991, 1993, and 1995 did not exceed $13,000 or $14,000.
Council Member Kniss asked what Αceiling≅ meant.
04/28/97 83-83
Mr. Calonne replied that Αceiling≅ was the expenditure limit. The measure referred to it as a ceiling. Council Member Kniss asked if the ceiling were $12,000, whether a
candidate could raise $15,000 or whether monies collected beyond that would have to be returned to the contributor. Mr. Calonne said for the purpose of discussion, if the Council set a $15,000 expenditure limit, funds in excess of that or unspent
funds would have to be returned pro rata to the contributors, given to a political party, or turned over to the General Fund of the
City. Contributions to charities such as Urban Ministry were no longer permitted.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether provision for setting up an
officeholder=s account could be done with those excess proceeds and used for defined purposes. Mr. Calonne replied successful candidates could transfer up to
$10,000 of the surplus funds into an officeholders account which was used for communicating with the constituents and other related
activities. He was not aware of any significant officeholder type
activities happening at Council Members= personal expense, so that would be a new process.
Council Member Wheeler clarified that when an account was finished, the same three options still would be the same with the proceeds of that account.
Mr. Calonne said he could not say with any certainty. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was working on a variety of
regulations that would try to make more sense of it. Council Member Kniss said not being able to contribute to a charity
was peculiar, especially when a candidate was not running as part of a party.
Mr. Calonne said he did not know the policy motivation behind the rule.
Council Member Fazzino said unfortunately, the State of California had a direct initiative process, not an indirect initiative process
which would give the Council the opportunity to correct otherwise well-meaning ballot measures. He hoped the state would someday follow the lead of states like Massachusetts and establish the
indirect initiative process. He had been a supporter of Prop 208 but recognized there were some quirky provisions primarily directed
at state candidates that also applied to local candidates. He referred to Limits on Members of Appointed Boards and Commissions
on page 7 of the City Attorney=s report dated April 24, 1997. The
04/28/97 83-84
City Attorney had indicated that members of boards and commissions
could not participate financially in campaigns, and he asked whether boards and commissions could participate otherwise in campaigns, e.g., being members of committees or being treasurers.
Mr. Calonne said Αparticipate≅ could be limited since it was fairly
broad. It provided Αthat >no person= appointed to a public board
or commission shall, during tenure of the appointment, donate to or
solicit or accept funds for, the person who made the appointment.≅
The ambiguities there were legion. Until there was better clarification, the City would take the position that appointed board and commission members would be barred from donating,
soliciting, or accepting funds on behalf of a member of the City Council.
Council Member Schneider clarified that meant a Council Member should not appoint a board or commission member as his/her
treasurer, but a board or commission member could hold any other position as long as he/she was not physically taking in money,
soliciting funds, or contributing. Mr. Calonne would not speculate; the statement was donate, solicit, or accept. He expected FPPC guidance. He and the City Clerk were cautious because Prop 208 put back into the political reform
something that had been worked out with the FPPC a few years prior, namely, personal liability for people who negligently caused someone to violate the law. For example, if he negligently advised the Council, he could face a $5,000 rather than a $2,000 fine from the FPPC. One other legal provision was that the FPPC appeared to
be empowered to initiate criminal prosecutions on its own as a prosecuting agency.
Ms. Young said the FPPC was earnestly looking at legislation to deal with the issue because it affected the FPPC as well as local
responsible people in that role. Mr. Calonne mentioned that even though Prop 208 was passed by the voters, that did not mean it met the constitutional standards discussed in Buckley v. Valeo. It was not clear whether the
voluntary limitations would work in the absence of public matching funds which had been the prerequisite for expenditure limitations
under the case discussed in his City Attorney=s report dated May 9, 1991. Prop 208 was far from clear. Taken in isolation, that would be a reason not to enact voluntary expenditure limits and would
avoid that kind of challenge. It was not highlighted because he felt the measure represented a good faith attempt to have a voluntary ceiling system that was consistent with what the Supreme Court was saying, even though it did not have public matching funds.
04/28/97 83-85
Council Member Schneider asked whether Mr. Calonne expected to have information or have some of the issues resolved by the time of the November election.
Mr. Calonne said it would be a body of practice, but he did not
expect to have the issues finally resolved in that time frame. Vice Mayor Andersen said as he studied the trends of the current
Council over the past several years, he was not sure if the data received reflected some of the more wide open campaigns that had
been in the past. He asked whether there were any totals from 1989.
Ms. Young said staff only went back the last three elections, but that information was available and could be brought back to the
Council. Vice Mayor Andersen recalled the Council had a rather dramatic range of campaign funds contributed to some of the various candidates in the 1989 race. He asked in the last 15 years what
year had the highest expenditures. Ms. Young recalled it to be either 1987 or 1989 when campaign funds were an issue. The amount raised was approximately $38,00 to $40,000 by Jonathan Schink. Around six or seven years prior to
that, she recalled a high contribution campaign expenditure for Cassandra Moore which was in the $20,000 to $25,000 range. Vice Mayor Andersen asked Council Member Fazzino what he recalled for past elections.
Council Member Fazzino said one candidate, Jonathan Schink, in 1989
set the all-time record for amounts spent in a City Council campaign which was close to $40,000. In 1983, Cassandra Moore spent around $20,000 to $21,000 on her race. More was spent in
1989 than in any other City Council election up to that time. The previous record had actually been set back in 1973, and prior to
that the record was 1967 which was the recall election. If one looked back over the elections of the 1970s and 1980s, which were far more competitive than the elections in the 1990s. Except for
the occasional outlier such as Moore in 1983 and Schink in 1989, most of the serious candidates were within a couple of thousand
dollars of each other in terms of total spending. Vice Mayor Andersen asked what other cities had put in a voluntary
limit.
04/28/97 83-86
Mr. Calonne said he only knew of Beverly Hills, but the City Clerk
had advised him there were five or six cities. Ms. Young understood that Milpitas had recently adopted a voluntary
limit.
Vice Mayor asked what amount Milpitas had adopted. Ms. Young said she did not know the resident population of Milpitas
but believed the amount to be 50 cents per resident.
Mr. Calonne said the issue was before the Council that evening in order for the Council to have an opportunity to do something in a time frame meaningful for the fall election. It was appropriate if
the Council wished to send the item to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee for further discussion, particularly on items
regarding the amount. Staff had discussed it but believed it was unnecessary. Council Member McCown said Yoriko Kishimoto had spoken under Oral Communications and clarified there had been no change in the law
concerning Prop 208 with respect to ballot or limitations in ballot elections. Mr. Calonne did not believe so. He said Ms. Kishimoto was asking
for a voluntary good faith action rather than the Council=s
enacting an ordinance on it. What he said in 1991 was that ceilings on ballot measures had been ruled unconstitutional, and he believed that was still the law. Council Member McCown clarified that at minimum, there was nothing
in Prop 208 which specifically addressed ballot measures. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked whether a voluntary program related to
ballot measures would in any way be considered to be a chilling of
an organization or an individual=s first amendment rights.
Mr. Calonne thought it was simply a policy statement. Prop 208 called its program for candidates voluntary but then added some arm
twisting to encourage. If there were strictly a voluntary statement of policy that requested candidates not spend more than a specific amount, he did not see a legal issue arising out of that. The flip side was it would not have any mandatory impact.
Council Member Fazzino clarified that the Supreme Court decision on the issue was very definitive andstated there should not be any limits.
04/28/97 83-87
Mr. Calonne said yes. The underlying rationale was the opportunity for political corruption was not viewed to be present on a ballot measure the same way it was with individual candidates. A Berkeley
rent control case was the one that went to the California and United States Supreme Court on ballot measures.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said setting an expenditure limit was a bad idea for many reasons. One of the purposes of Prop 208
was to address the concern of potential political corruption and, as mentioned earlier, a situation whereby setting a limit would
increase the amount of money that an individual could contribute to a campaign from $100 to $250. He did not have a concern with people spending a large amount of money if the money were collected
in small amounts. If possible, he supported the City=s setting a lower limit than the $100. He opposed setting a limit. Second, was setting a limit would be an incumbent protection act. He recalled a previous election when incumbents attempted to reach an agreement for voluntary contributions with a lower limit for incumbents and a
higher limit for nonincumbents. Third was the Supreme Court case mentioned earlier by the City Attorney. Fourth was that such a
limit could only be set by ordinance which was subject to referendum. The limits set in Prop 208 could not be set for candidates using their own money so the situation in 1989 when Jon
Schink spent $40,000 of his own money would not be affected. There were 17 candidates in 1989, and the only records readily available
were those for the current Council Members elected in 1989. He believed all the Council Members spent more than Mayor Huber in 1991. Expenditures ranged from $13,767 to $18,606 for other Council Members. Prop 208 in Government Code section 85706 indicated that the Political Reform Act (PRA) did not affect the
lower limit set by municipalities. It was unclear whether that referred to existing law or whether the City could actually set lower limits. He encouraged the Council to divide the limit in the PRA by half, if possible, which would total a maximum of $50 rather than $100 that an individual could contribute to a campaign. A
candidate could collect enough small contributions to total $20,000 by getting out and meeting the voters which he believed to be a good idea. He also encouraged the Council to do what the City of Menlo Park had done in its last election which was to lower the reporting threshold to $25. Currently, Palo Alto required
disclosure of contributions amounting to $50. That reporting threshold would also apply to ballot measures. The Supreme Court
decision prohibited setting limits on expenditures on ballot measures, but limits on individual contributions and disclosure requirements for those could be set.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said after reviewing the reports from the City Attorney and City Clerk, he was confused about some of the
04/28/97 83-88
mechanisms and the intent of the initiative which denoted Council
Member Fazzino=s comment about getting measures on the ballot by popular initiative which was sometimes counterproductive if not confusing. He supported adopting voluntary contribution limits for
several reasons. First, the City had had a number of elections in which the candidates generally agreed to adhere to voluntary expenditure limits in some elections and had not agreed in others.
The City=s making an explicit statement that voluntary limits were desired would be beneficial. He also felt $1 per resident was
excessive and thought $0.50 was more appropriate. Historically in Palo Alto, campaigns had raised and spent between $5,000 and $15,000. There had been a few outliers such as Jon Schink, but there had also been incumbents who had spent as little as $2,000 or $3,000. Second, if the Council adopted a voluntary ceiling for
candidates, it would have a rationale for requesting voluntary limits on other issues such as ballot measures, both referenda and initiatives. Even though it could not be enforced, the Council would have some moral persuasion because it would be done for candidates and should be an across-the-board point for all
elections in Palo Alto. It might also dissuade people in some organizations from raising and spending excessive amounts of money
as had been done in the past on ballot measures. Finally, it would be a trigger for the outlier. If a candidate spent a large amount of his/her own money, it would allow the other candidates who had
voluntarily agreed to a limit to spend far more money than he/she would normally. It would allow a little more freedom and slightly larger contributions. Unlike Mr. Borock, he did not believe that $250 was an unreasonable amount to raise from an individual. However, he did agree with Mr. Borock that it would be useful to
have the reporting limit lowered. As a charter city, Palo Alto could do that. The City was currently at $50, which was lower than
the state law and could be lowered to $25. It would also provide some incentive for candidates to get more money from more people rather than trying to raise it all in $200 to $250 lump segments.
He encouraged the Council to refer voluntary expenditure limitations to the P&S Committee for review and to include applying
it across-the-board to all Palo Alto elections, not only Council candidates. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the City Attorney to prepare a local campaign expenditure
limit which establishes a voluntary spending ceiling which would allow a contribution for up to $250 per person with a cap of $12,000. Council Member Fazzino said the question before the Council was
what was more critical to the citizens of Palo Alto--an individual contribution ceiling or a voluntary spending ceiling. He believed a spending limit was far more important. If the Council reviewed
04/28/97 83-89
the past few elections and candidates= personal contributions, it would discover very few contributions above $100 or less. The two cases he had mentioned earlier were the two outlier campaigns in the 1980s when in each of those cases, significant personal
contributions were provided. He did not recall a significant number of large contributions coming from others. As Mr. Moss had indicated, in the past voluntary spending limits between $10,000 and $12,000 had worked very successfully. A $12,000 spending limit in Palo Alto with a population of 57,000 allowed individuals to run
a meaningful campaign. A meaningful campaign meant producing a brochure, running ads in the newspaper, putting up signs, etc.
There was still an emphasis on grass roots campaigns which he felt were important. It might disallow someone from sending a mailing to homes which was a practice employed by state legislative
candidates that he felt was unconscionable at the local level. There was a heavy premium on distributing information door to door.
He believed the $12,000 limit allowed those types of campaigns to be run. He was sensitive to the issues raised by Mr. Borock with respect to nonincumbents. It was very important that a limit be
established which was fair to nonincumbents and would allow them to run meaningful and serious campaigns. A $12,000 limit would do
that. If someone did not abide by the voluntary spending limit, that fact would be made available to the public. He quickly did some historic review in his head and believed that the largest
spenders in City Council elections did not always win in 1971, 1973, 1977, 1983, and 1989. In several other cases, the largest
spender in City Council elections finished in the bottom half of victorious candidates in 1961, 1963, 1975, 1979, and 1981. That history proved that spending the most amount of money in and of itself was not enough to win a City Council campaign. The
Council=s obligation was to establish fair ground rules for all
candidates, incumbents and nonincumbents, and to make sure all candidates could compete fairly and have the option to reach all voters. He believed the voluntary spending limit, of which he was
proposing, allowed all candidates the ability to reach the citizens of Palo Alto and conduct effective grass roots campaigns.
Council Member Kniss said the 1989 election was a wild and woolly election; there were 17 candidates, of which at least 12 or 13 were
very viable. Yet the history showed expenditures to be around $12,000 to $15,000. She believed that amount produced the kind of
campaign Palo Alto was comfortable with. Somehow the sense in Palo Alto was if too much money were raised, regardless of its origin,
it seemed to be somewhat questionable. Another point that needed to be addressed was regardless of what a candidate collected, if it added up to $12,000, she did not believe that candidate would be
likely to get elected because her observation over the years was that unless a candidate had a broad base of support, he/she would not get elected. She preferred the voluntary expenditure limit
04/28/97 83-90
because it made sense in Palo Alto. She believed anything over
$15,000 went beyond what she wanted as a limit, at least in the upcoming election.
Vice Mayor Andersen was delighted to see his colleagues supportive of voluntary expenditure limits. He supported the motion, but he
felt there was incumbent protection. He asked whether there was anything that would prohibit the Council from making a distinction between incumbents and nonincumbents in the amount of money that
would be limited.
Mr. Calonne was inclined to believe the measure was not set up that way and spoke ceiling. If the City were move in that direction, it would have to look to some other authority. As he had mentioned
in his City Attorney=s report dated May 9, 1991, it would turn into a compelling interest test and probably matching funds. He would say no that he did not believe Prop 208 would authorize that kind of differential, but in order to give the Council a firm answer, he would need time to review it.
Vice Mayor Andersen was concerned about several issues. He was
interested in seeing if there were support in making a referral to the P&S Committee. He realized there was a large backlog and a need to act fairly quickly, but he believed if the Committee met
more than once a month, the backlog could be cleared. MOTION TO REFER: Vice Mayor Andersen moved to refer the item to the Policy and Services Committee. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked if a limit were set at $12,000 for the upcoming campaign, whether that was something that would be reviewed for every election or whether that was something that would be in the Charter until changed at a later date.
Mr. Calonne said it would have to be brought up again for review. The determination of the population could be done outside the ordinance in a resolution or some other action. The dollar limit would be put in an ordinance, and the Council would have to review the ordinance in order to change it.
Council Member Rosenbaum said he still had some concerns about the
protection that incumbents received. He clarified that if a nonincumbent wished to spend his/her own money, he/she could go beyond the $12,000.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct.
04/28/97 83-91
Vice Mayor Andersen would support the motion.
Council Member Rosenbaum said as Mr. Borock had indicated, in 1989 many candidates felt comfortable and campaigned with budgets of
$15,000. The identical campaign currently would be more on the order of $20,000 due to inflation, yet the suggestion was to lower
the limit. He asked for a response. Council Member Fazzino replied there could be one less ad in the
newspaper and maybe fewer things done than in 1989. He could not recall all of the specifics associated with his 1989 campaign. He
raised approximately $14,000 or $15,000, but he could have run a meaningful campaign for $10,000. He had produced a brochure and ran four or five ads in the newspaper of which he could have run
only three ads. He believed he could have cut the budget by $4,000 or $5,000 easily and still have run an effective campaign. When he
thought of the basic elements of running a successful campaign in Palo Alto, a candidate needed to include a brochure, a couple of ads in local newspapers, signs, etc., which should add up to approximately $12,000.
Council Member Rosenbaum believed candidates ran campaigns they felt comfortable with and those campaigns cost more than $12,000 in 1989. In 1991, $12,000 to $13,000 was the average spent. He had done it himself, and it was the type of campaign that he felt he needed. With inflation, that would be too small a number. He felt
current comparable campaigns would be in the order of $20,000 which was the number he would be looking to as a maximum limit. Council Member Wheeler supported the $12,000 limit. While she had
a great deal of interest and sympathy with Vice Mayor Andersen=s
point of making a differential between an incumbent and a nonincumbent, there was no way, given the state of the law and the FPPC in interpreting the law, that the Council would have an answer back from the FPPC within a reasonable time to have the P&S Committee or the Council make that determination. She felt the
Council needed to move forward and make a rule for the upcoming election. The Council would certainly have the opportunity to return when the Council knew what questions were being asked of and answered by the in FPPC two years and perhaps do a differential at that time. One of the reasons she supported the $12,000 limit was
she felt it was a number that was achievable and had been achieved by a number of nonincumbents over the period of time the Council
had looked at the issue. If the limit were set at $20,000, that was an achievable number for incumbents but very difficult for nonincumbents to reach. She felt it would be a real struggle for
nonincumbents to raise a greater amount than $12,000. One of the most important things in Palo Alto and always had been was the disclosure issue. People in Palo Alto had a tendency to read all
04/28/97 83-92
of the ads and publicity that appeared in the local press. The
public looked avidly at who received contributions from whom and in what amount. Since that information was disclosed in Palo Alto at a level of over $50, people could look at that information, and if
they were disturbed by the number of contributions that candidates received up to $250, that was a factor the public could take into
account when they cast their ballots. Candidates had not had a great number in excess of $250 or even approaching $250. She
doubted that Palo Alto=s elections would change so that candidates
would receive that many contributions in that amount. In the area of disclosure, one of the items not mentioned that evening but was
contained in the City Attorney=s report dated April 24, 1997, was that if a candidate accepted the voluntary expenditure ceiling, that fact was noted on the sample ballot, in the ballot pamphlet,
and on the ballot itself which was a strong argument for people to accept the limit. It was something that would look good to a number of Palo Alto voters and would give people a great incentive
to Αhold the reins≅ on campaign spending.
Council Member Schneider supported the $12,000 limit and the $250 per person contribution. In 1993, though it was a small race, the candidates amongst themselves had a voluntary expenditure amount. The candidates were able to keep the expenditures low because there was not a lot of competition for the Council seats. Palo Alto
already had a tradition of setting voluntary expenditures, and that
was why she was so concerned at the beginning of that evening=s presentation that it be known many of the candidates did not reach
close to spending what had been raised on the campaign directly. She had approximately $1,500 left at the end of the race which she
was able at that time to give to two charitable organizations. Unfortunately, the money not spent would either go to a political party or the General Fund. She believed the General Fund would be her choice. She believed that those types of decisions should be made not by those running for election but by those who were still
in the midst of their terms. She felt a slight conflict of interest voting for limits that others in the community might see as excessive.
Council Member Eakins said she had helped people run campaigns and
could recall some things like the newspaper suddenly raising its rates or having a special edition. There were some odd,
unpredictable things associated with an election. She appreciated what Council Member Wheeler said with respect to nonincumbents having a disadvantage in raising money, even though if they could
raise it and spend it, they might tend to overcome some of the disadvantages of being a nonincumbent. She wanted the limit to be $15,000 to give a little more leeway to allow for some surprises as well as the inflation.
04/28/97 83-93
AMENDMENT: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, to
direct the City Attorney to prepare a local campaign expenditure limit which establishes a voluntary spending ceiling which would allow a contribution for up to $250 per person with a cap of
$15,000.
Council Member Kniss recalled that 1989 and 1991 were was very live campaigns and that 1993 and 1995 were different. She did not know currently what an ad would cost but believed the Council needed to
know those things because rates went up very quickly. Listening to Council Member Eakins saying the rest of the Council had already
run a campaign and were clear as to what would happen made her
realize that to make it a real Αhorse race,≅ $15,000 was probably
right. Council Member Rosenbaum=s comments were very good, and the
Council had not looked at the inflation factor for quite some time. Beyond that, it was very quixsotic at the end. If suddenly one of the newspapers decided to put out a special edition, at that point, a candidate might have to put in his/her own money or not be in the race. She was not comfortable with $20,000 but felt $15,000
allowed it to be a good Αhorse race≅ and everyone to participate with an opportunity to equalize it. Vice Mayor Andersen said he arrived at his figures by using a population of $56,000 at $0.25 per person to equal $14,000. His
problem was that Council was not really putting in a limit. Regardless of whether it was $12,000, $13,000 or $14,000, if there were a candidate up to $13,500 and that candidate knew it was a very close race, he/she could go out and use personal funds to come up with the extra $2,000 or $3,000 needed to make sure to spend
what was necessary to accomplish a closer race. The only restraint he saw was whether or not the candidate had the $2,000 or $3,000.
He was not convinced the Council was accomplishing a great deal. All the Council was doing by raising the limit to $15,000 was
simply saying it did not have to come from a candidate=s own
personal pocket. To that extent, he supposed that would be a help to those who were less financially endowed. He would reluctantly support the $15,000 with all of the concerns he had expressed.
Council Member McCown understood what happened if the person did
not accept the voluntary limit but asked if a candidate accepted the voluntary limit and published that in a ballot statement,
whether that candidate could then at the end of the campaign spend his/her own money.
Mr. Calonne said the enforcement was administrative and criminal so the most likely result would be that the candidate would be subject to a FPPC $5,000 fine.
04/28/97 83-94
Council Member McCown clarified that the candidate had to announce
at the beginning of the campaign that he/she would live by those rules, would benefit by the higher contribution limit, and would not be able to change his/her mind halfway through the campaign
without a sanction. Therefore, it did have the potential of working as a limit.
Council Member Fazzino said in 1989, there were penalties associated with violating the law, and he doubted that many would want to do that. He supported a $14,000 limit and would make that
motion based upon Council Member Andersen=s formula. With respect
to Council Member Kniss=s comment about the newspapers changing rates and last minute surprises, the newspapers were going to respond to what the market would bear. If the Council established a $25,000 limit, he was sure the newspapers would be delighted to
charge what was necessary for candidates to spend that amount. That was capitalism. If the limit were somewhere between $12,000 and $15,000, he believed that candidates would be accommodated according to the published rates for the current year. One of the purposes of the limit was to avoid last minute surprises. He
believed it was very important that candidates exercise some discipline.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct the City Attorney to prepare a local campaign expenditure limit which establishes a voluntary spending ceiling which would allow a contribution for up to $250 per person with a cap of $14,000.
AMENDMENT PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum Αno.≅ 10. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Bay Area Action for Stewardship of the Arastradero Preserve
David Smernoff, Council Chair, Bay Area Action, Palo Alto Avenue, Mountain View, said he had been involved in the issue for two and one-half years and was pleased that everyone was in agreement. He looked forward to seeing Bay Area Action work with City staff on
enhancing the Arastradero Preserve (the Preserve). Over the last couple of years, Bay Area Action learned a lot as an organization,
had grown in the process, and appreciated the City staff=s patience. City staff had worked very hard on the process, which had been going on for 20 years. It was good to see that three out
of the original five recommendations in the work plan had been implemented, and the final two steps in the process were before the Council that evening. He thanked everyone involved who had worked very hard on the project, including the Compton Foundation in the dismantling phase. The partnership model was very good and would
04/28/97 83-95
continue. The Gamble Garden Center and the recent management
exchange agreement with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District were two things that had grown out of the process, and he believed more of those types of public/private partnerships would
evolve. He looked forward to accomplishing the goals spelled out in the stewardship agreement. The dismantling phase was proceeding
well and had been successful. That phase should be finished in June, and the stewardship agreement could then begin in July.
Jim Steinmetz, Bay Area Action, 886 Loma Verde, said the agreement was environmentally, socially, and physically responsible. It
would set a new standard on the Preserve, would definitely benefit the ecological health of the Preserve, and enhance the enjoyment possibilities for the general public. He encouraged an affirmative
vote from the Council.
Bill Terry, 925 Laurel Glen, a neighbor of the Preserve, supported the item on behalf of his neighbors. He believed it was a good move on behalf of the City and the Preserve. In the City plan for the Preserve, there was a number of statements regarding fire management and protection. Those were not addressed by Bay Area
Action which he felt was appropriate. However, with increased usage by the public and by volunteers in the Preserve, he encouraged staff to continue to integrate the efforts of the Fire Department for protection in that area. He did not think it was a question of whether there was a fire in the area but a question of
what would be done when there was a fire. The Fire Department had a good plan, but it needed to be continuously updated and integrated with other efforts in the Preserve. He urged the Council to protect what was to be preserved.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was glad to hear that the Native Plant Society was involved. She knew there were some
concerns earlier, but presently there was a cooperative effort. After watching the habitat restoration contract for $20,000 fall apart, she hoped that when the plan for the Preserve was developed,
there would be a quarterly or yearly plan that would actually be based on objective criteria that could be evaluated and the public
could actually see results. She understood Bay Area Action had already been doing a good job of looking over the Preserve, and she hoped the plan would be successful.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, was pleased the City was
implementing the proposal of the Regional Arastradero Advisory Committee to Habitat Restoration from 1984. He recalled back in November 1996 when the proposal was before the Council that both
the staff report (CMR:423:96) and the staff discussion indicated that the yearly budget materials would be included in a yearly
management plan. He did not recall seeing that in the agreement
04/28/97 83-96
between the Steward and the City which would be a plan from the
Open Space section with which the Steward was involved. He expected to see it tied in with the performance review. As he understood the proposal for performance review, it appeared to be
something between the Steward and the staff rather than something open to the public. Since the idea was to have a performance
review and planning process that would be similar to the City=s Mission Driven Budget (MDB), he believed it should be part of the MDB so the information would go along with the yearly plan. It
needed to be open to the public in order that the public could see what the standards were, what the plan was, what the money was
being spent for, and the extent to which that performance had occurred. He also had a concern with regard to volunteer trails currently being created on the Preserve, mostly by bicyclists. He
referred to Chapter 4 of the Management Plan, page 11, third
paragraph under Trails, ΑThe City will work with the Steward to close informal trails as part of the habitat restoration plan for
the Preserve.≅ In the Steward=s proposal, Method of Operation, under Trails, the wording seemed to be vague to that regard by
first stating that an inventory of trails would be done in the first year and later an analysis of what should or should not be closed. It was not clear to him whether the Management Plan would be implemented with respect to the intent to close the informal trails which were currently creating significant erosion. Those
points were important to him but should not detract from the overall quality of the plan before the Council. He felt it was a good thing, and he was glad the Council was moving forward with the implementation of the habitat restoration.
City Manager June Fleming said the Stewardship agreement was a historic move the City was making and one that she and staff
wholeheartedly endorsed. She assured Mr. Borock regarding the Fire Management Plan issue that it was a valid one and one that staff had not lost sight of. The issue would be going to Council in the
upcoming budget and would be integrated into what was being done by the Steward agreement. The second issue was that the City had only been involved in MDB for a short period of time, but it was a process that staff was 100 percent committed to. Plans such as the one before the Council that evening would have goals and objectives
spelled out in the budget which the public could see. One of the underlying principles of MDB was that everything would be displayed
for everyone to see, review, and comment on not only what was done
with citizens= dollars but also how the impacts were measured with respect to those dollars. She referred to Attachment B of the
staff report (CMR:199:97), under Scope of Services, Item G, which
showed the annual review process. She appreciated Mr. Borock=s raising those issues because it helped staff make sure everything
was being addressed. It had taken two and one-half years, but she
04/28/97 83-97
felt those years were well spent and that staff and Bay Area Action
both learned a lot and were ready to move forward. Council Member Schneider said when the Request for Proposals (RFP)
was sent out, only one group, Bay Area Action, responded to it. She asked when there was typically only one response to an RFP,
whether it was accepted as long as it fit in adequately with
staff=s expectations.
Ms. Fleming said no it was not automatic. Proposals could be rejected whether there was 1 bid or 100. All bids were scrutinized
carefully as was true with Bay Area Action=s bid. The bid was not accepted just because it was the only bid received. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve an agreement with Bay Area Action for the stewardship of the Arastradero Preserve. Council Member McCown was delighted to support the project. Bay
Area Action had demonstrated that it was really committed. It was important to point out to the community in the staff report
(CMR:199:97) what the alternative would be if a public/private
partnership was not entered into. It would result in the City=s ability to maintain the Preserve and try to make it accessible and
available to the public which would be seriously compromised if that type of arrangement could not be worked out. The City would have to take a look at it from a very different vantage point in terms of changing the budget to put in resources. It was a very exciting opportunity. She felt it was a public/public partnership,
not a public/private partnership in truth because the noncity side
of many of those activities was Palo Alto=s own citizens forming nonprofit corporations that would work with the City, and the Bay Area Action proposal was just another example of that. She congratulated Bay Area Action and staff for putting it all
together, and she looked forward to seeing what the impact or non-impact would be in helping make the Preserve what it could be.
Council Member Schneider also congratulated Bay Area Action. She had been on the Chamber of Commerce Board when Bay Area Action
first started which was seven years prior. At that point, she could see Bay Area Action was an organization that was going to go
far. She was delighted to support the project. Council Member Eakins supported the project. She referred to
Attachment A, Bay Area Action Stewardship Proposal, page 1 of 1, Arastradero Preserve Project, under estimated Volunteer Hours, and realized the effort and staffing it would take the City to recruit, train, supervise, and reward that number of volunteers. She felt
04/28/97 83-98
the City was getting a tremendous boost from working with Bay Area
Action. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
11. Arastradero Facility Gateway - Approval of Scope of Work for
Facilitator/Architect Vice Mayor Andersen was unclear as to how Bay Area Action would be
involved in the consultant selection.
Open Space and Sciences Superintendent John Walton said the intent was to include the Steward, Bay Area Action, in the process as one part of a public process for the determination of what that
facility would be like and what it would do.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked when Bay Area Action would have that input. Mr. Walton said the public process would begin in the summer and staff would be prepared to return to the Council at a later date.
Council Member Wheeler referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:225:97), Exhibit A, Scope of Work, under Meetings, and commented that it mentioned not only meetings with the general public but also meetings with the Arastradero Task Force. She
asked whether the Arastradero Task Force was an existing task force, was the same as the Arastradero Advisory Committee referred to in the Stewardship agreement, was staff, was the public or some combination thereof, or was the group she had worked with a year previous on other Arastradero issues.
Mr. Walton said the group Council Member Wheeler had previously
worked with was one component, but that was primarily to address issues related to capital projects for the dam spillway and creek erosion control work. The Arastradero Task Force would be a
slightly different group of people which might include some of those key people but would probably expand beyond that. To try to
bring the stakeholders for interests on the Preserve together, it would take both public and staff to working collaboratively to determine the purpose of the facility.
Council Member Wheeler said there were areas of concern she had in terms of the Scope of Work for the consultant. First, she asked
whether the consultant, the Arastradero Task Force, and other people who came to the public meetings were charged with returning to the Council with some conceptual designs for the new facility.
The Council in prior discussions of the item and in the Stewardship
agreement always referred to the facility as a Αmodest facility,≅ yet nowhere in the Scope of Work was anything mentioned about the
04/28/97 83-99
size, shape, and materials with which the facility was to be
constructed. She would hate to see a good group of people grow out of control and return to the Council; then Council would find it
necessary to be the Αbad guys≅ and reiterate the fact that it was
supposed to be a modest facility. Ms. Fleming said Council Member Wheeler was right on target, and she had had at least one inquiry from Council Member Kniss regarding the same issue. She felt that new language needed to be
added. If the Council were to approve the item, the Council should do so with the addition that the RFP be clear it was to be a modest
facility. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the Planning Commission did
site and design of structures in the Open Space Zone. She believed as part of that, there were some City guidelines for use of certain materials and certain looks to facilities that would be preferred in the Open Space District. She asked whether such language and direction to the consultant could be included as part of the Scope
of Work.
Ms. Fleming could not give a definitive planning statement of chapter and verse, but by general policy, the City did not put certain structures into certain areas of the City, i.e. Foothills
Park and the Baylands, without being sensitive to the concerns articulated in a number of places including the Comprehensive Plan.
It would be appropriate that staff be sensitive to the locale. The City did not do work in an area such as Foothills Park without making sure that it was sensitive to the intent which would be the same with the Preserve. It would be entirely appropriate if Council wanted to have certain language included to make sure that
whatever structure was eventually designed would be consistent with the area and would be brought before the Planning Commission. She believed it would be consistent with the policies of the current Council and administration.
Council Member Fazzino questioned the need for a facilitator at a cost of $40,000. He felt there was a number of intelligent people who would have excellent ideas regarding use of the Preserve. That type of creativity needed to be accommodated, along with bringing neighbors and other affected groups into the process, and that
should be it. With all due respect to those who developed the process, he felt it was a very bureaucratic approach. It was a
sensitive issue but could be resolved by involving several key constituencies and a few meetings. He asked why Mr. Walton or some other staff member could not conduct the meetings and move forward
rather than spending $40,000 for a facilitator.
04/28/97 83-100
Ms. Fleming knew that Council Member Fazzino was really committed
to making government work effectively and efficiently and not have
a lot of ΑPalo Alto process.≅ With regard to the Preserve, she requested that he allow staff to move forward in the manner
recommended for a number of reasons and to give it considerable consideration. Staff had already had a number of initial meetings; there was not unanimity of agreement. There was a need to bring a number of segments together in a cooperative manner to agree to and to get to a place where staff could go before the Council with a
proposal. There was a number of groups that had great interest and dedication to that area, but their views varied greatly. She
believed what the consultant would do was consistent with the commitment staff made to the Council which was that staff would
listen to everyone=s point of view, and it would be beneficial to
have a facilitator there. There were times when the more open government was, the more the need was to have a facilitator assist in the process. Staff did not have that capability. Council Member Fazzino was very supportive of open government, but
that did not necessarily mean spending $40,000 on a professional facilitator.
Ms. Fleming said the $40,000 included both facilitation and design.
Council Member Fazzino wondered if there were an alternative to using a professional facilitator unless it was absolutely necessary to move in that direction. He asked whether someone on staff could possibly facilitate.
Ms. Fleming said yes there were other ways to do it. She was not prepared to make that recommendation that evening, but she would
proceed with any direction she received from Council. Council Member McCown clarified that she had read the
recommendation in the reverse. What was really needed was a designer to design the facility who could also run some community
meetings. Council Member Fazzino said the recommendation stated 1) leading
group discussions and 2) preparing conceptual architectural drawings. There were two well-defined roles.
Council Member McCown said yes. She referred to Exhibit A of the staff report (CMR:225:97), Scope of Work, under Phase I - Identify Needs and Design Parameters, Task 1: Facilitation, Task 2: Prepare Conceptual Drawings and Cost Estimates for Potential Facility
Types, Task 3: Meetings, Task 4: Facility Report. She understood the need to be more heavily on the design side with a role to
04/28/97 83-101
facilitate the input process so that City staff could give input
and not have to act as a facilitator. Council Member Kniss agreed with Council Member McCown that the
emphasis was on providing architectural services because that was the problem the Council ran into previously with respect to what
the facility would look like. She referred back to Council Member
Wheeler=s earlier comment that the Council had a strong view of what the facility should be which was simple, modest, and possibly
reusing some of the materials in the house but not reconstructing a 5,000-square-foot house. It was not a matter of moving the
existing house to the bottom of the hill and redoing it. Therefore, hopefully, the facilitator would hear what the Council had to say. She asked whether staff was looking to the Council to
give parameters on the size and impact of the modest facility. Ms. Fleming said no. Staff clearly heard what Council wanted. Council Member Kniss had previously given a synopsis of what Council desired which was modest and small, and that the house not
be be relocated which was exactly what staff had in mind.
Council Member Kniss said while the Council might not agree on
square footage, she clarified that Αmodest≅ meant not making a major statement.
Ms. Fleming said that was correct. She trusted that staff heard what the Council desired. She felt having a consultant who could play multiple roles, if such a person existed, was a good idea.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was skeptical of the process after attending meetings of the Habitat Restoration and Midtown
Revitalization in the past when developers proceeded to do as they
pleased regardless of citizens= input. She attended a meeting in August 1996 regarding the Preserve which was an assorted group of
people of which there was no agreement to have a facility on the Preserve. Her understanding of a modest building at that time was about 2,500 square feet which she felt was quite large. She believed there should be some parameters as to what was meant by
Αmodest.≅ One objection was the cost of the maintenance which was
more than the original cost of the building. She wondered whether that would be the responsibility of the City or Bay Area Action.
She was also skeptical about having so many meetings. She urged the Council to cut back the meetings to three and to have ideas for the design work for the facility ready prior to the start-up of the
meetings. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, had attended the meeting in August 1996 at which there was a diverse group of people interested in the Preserve. Bay Area Action presented a fine Stewardship proposal
04/28/97 83-102
and, as he recollected, was the only group interested in a
structure on the Preserve. The consensus was that a Steward could do the work without a structure, and it would be better for the Preserve. There were those people like himself and the direct
neighbors of the Preserve who attended meetings regularly and were involved in the process, but that group was not in attendance, and
a process in which the recommendation was influenced by the people who attended the most meetings and stayed the longest did not seem to be a good idea. He felt that was what was being proposed with
the seven meetings. It came down to what was principal in the process which was the open space nature of the Preserve. The 20-
year history was that progress in restoring the habitat of the Preserve had been blocked by the existence of the structures because some members of the community, including some Council
Members, felt that the existence of the structures might be a reason for selling off part of the Preserve, even though the
structures were in the middle of the Preserve and would be demolished by any person who bought the land the structures were located on. The idea of building a structure that would be in a location more amenable to being undedicated and would contain a modern structure that would have to remain there again would raise
the issue of whether or not a piece of the Preserve should be sold. Raising the issue of replacing the existing 5,000-square-foot house with a 2,500- to 3,000-square-foot structure might seem modest compared to 5,000 square feet, but he did not consider that modest. He referred to page 1, Attachment 1, of the staff report
(CMR:225:97), Scope of Work, Description of Project, first
paragraph, Α...the new facility would serve in-lieu of the existing
structures.≅ He did not believe that was the policy the Council
had set and felt the scope should be clarified. The Arastradero Advisory Committee that originally met about the Preserve did not
need a facilitator because the committee was interested in the Preserve as a whole rather than in a particular item such as a structure. He wondered whether the Advisory Committee was for a
structure or a Preserve. In terms of Phase II, he believed a park improvement ordinance was needed for any kind of structure. It was
possible, dependent upon the size and uses of the structure, whether an EIR would be needed. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) showed an expenditure of $50,000 rather then $40,000 and
indicated that the structure would most likely have modems and telephones. The issue of any kind of structure that would be
comparable to the Foothills Park Interpretative Center or Baylands Interpretive Center would raise the issue of change of use from Open Space to Recreation.
Council Member Kniss asked what Αmodest≅ looked like to Bay Area
Action. She believed there might be a real disconnect between what the Council thought and what Bay Area Action thought.
04/28/97 83-103
Jim Steinmetz, Bay Area Action, 886 Loma Verde, said with respect
to the meeting in August 1996, Bay Area Action was of the understanding that that the meeting was about the Preserve and all the different proposals being put forth. It was not only use of a
facility but also Stewardship of the Preserve itself. Bay Area Action did not contact all the citizens it knew in Palo Alto who
supported Bay Area Action=s efforts for a modest structure on the Preserve for use of Stewardship along with restoration of the Preserve. Bay Area Action did not marshal its forces, and there
was only a few of those people at the meeting. There were others there, not all of whom rejected the idea of a structure, who were
mostly concerned and somewhat skeptical about what was being put forward. Bay Area Action did not have a problem moving forward with the process and educating the public in order to determine how
to best work it out. ΑModest≅ on an open space preserve like the Arastradero Preserve was almost invisible to the naked eye. It
would not at all resemble Lynn Chiapella=s 1,200- to 1,400-square-
foot cottage or bungalow. If built with the state-of-the-art techniques that were available currently, it would hardly be
visible and could be landscaped with native plants such as live oak and grasses. If it were designed and built correctly, 2,000 to 3,000 square feet was modest and almost invisible to the naked eye. Bay Area Action wamted the opportunity to work with the architects to present that not only to the Council and staff but also to the
general public. Council Member Kniss asked what would go on inside the facility if it were built up to 3,000 square feet.
Mr. Steinmetz said much of the habitat restoration would be staged from the site which would be the primary use, including staging
habitat restoration, educating people regarding habitat restoration, and organization. There would also be some research, administration, organization of volunteers, etc. Bay Area Action
envisioned having all the native plants in the Preserve or surrounding ecosystem identified and displayed in cases in order to educate people on how to maintain and preserve open space. Regarding the dismantling of the barn, groups of over 40 or 50 people approached Bay Area Action who needed to be addressed at one
time. Having that type of interaction along with the restoration of the Preserve and surrounding lands and the opportunity to work
with that amount of people effectively was important to Bay Area Action.
Ms. Fleming said that architecturally it was possible to build a structure that was 5,000 or 6,000 square feet and be invisible.
When she addressed the Council and staff about Αmodest≅ being invisible, it was because a good architect working in an environment such as the Preserve could make a huge structure blend
04/28/97 83-104
in. She and staff had continuously focused on a small facility
which meant limited square footage for 1,000 plus square feet. She had not heard any direction from Council to staff to pursue a structure from which a great deal of displays, exhibits, housing,
etc., could be observed. The facility was not to replace the structures that had been removed which was language she had removed
from Exhibit A of the Scope of Work and which Mr. Borock had referenced earlier. It was acceptable if the Council would feel more comfortable in giving staff some limitations on square
footage. She reiterated that she was not thinking in terms of 2,000 to 3,000 square feet.
Mr. Walton said the public meeting held in August was not specifically designed to discuss the potential for a new facility.
The meeting intent was to discuss the proposed Management Plan for the Preserve and to try to bring local community people into a
process in which staff could work with the community and get feedback on the entire Management Plan. There was a discussion about the facility, but he recollected that staff tried to defer all the substantive discussions about what the facility would be, what purpose it would serve, and what design it would entail to a
later process which was the process staff had brought before Council that evening. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said seven meetings seemed like a lot, but one of the reasons staff wanted to allow for that number of meetings with the community happened as a result of the
August meeting. Staff received feedback that the summer was not a good time to plan ahead and to attend meetings, and people who could have attended did not because there was only one meeting. For weeks after the August meeting, the City received written comments from people who wanted to attend but were unable to.
Seven meetings might be too much, but staff was trying to respond to what was an enormous level of input to the Management Plan.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to authorize staff to solicit consultant proposals to provide
facilitation and architectural services related to a new facility in the Arastradero Preserve with a requirement that the facility be
a modest one and shall be no more than 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Council Member Kniss said the facility was beginning to sound like
a base of operations rather than simply a location for some information and a modest restroom of some kind which was how she
had envisioned it from the beginning.
Council Member Wheeler thought Αmodest≅ also went with gateway. As
she heard the comments, particularly from the public, it sounded as if there had been some discussion of leaving the site of the facility much more open than she had envisioned. She clarified it
04/28/97 83-105
would still be a gateway facility located someplace very close to
Arastradero Road. Ms. Fleming said staff was still talking about a gateway facility.
Council Member Wheeler said she wanted to include language in terms
of a general location and define it as a gateway facility. Further, language should be added to the Scope of Work that the
design of the facility would be consistent with the City=s
guidelines for building design in the open space zone. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the new facility be considered and defined as the gateway facility, and that the scope of work be consistent with the
City=s design guidelines for development in the Open Space zone which would include a referral to the Planning Commission. Council Member Wheeler said she understood and shared some of the frustration after attending the Midtown Planning meetings. She
felt the situation was different in that instead of having 11
property owners, there was one sole property ownerΧthe City. The Council had ultimate control as to what happened at the Preserve, and what the Council was looking for as the sole property owner was to have the very best thought and attention the project could be
given by a variety of people who were interested in what happened on the Preserve. She believed it would take some time to work out some of the issues. She knew in the end the City would end up with a product that would happen. It was supported by at least a majority of the Council who would take the information received
from the public who used the Preserve very seriously in a variety of ways. She thought it was worth taking some time to think and
talk about the issues. It was clear there were several issues to be worked through, and because the structure would be there for a number of years, it should be done well. She supported the motion.
Vice Mayor Andersen opposed the motion. He felt the amendments that had been added were contradictory to what the consultant was being asked to be involved in. If the Council were going to have an opportunity to see what some of the potential was, more
flexibility needed to be given to the process. The Council could always turn it down. The Council had given enough indication that
it would not accept a large structure, but he felt the creativity of the process was being hampered by the amendments. He hoped the amendments would be defeated and Council would simply allow for the
staff recommendation to go forth with the understanding that Council would not agree to anything beyond the scope. It was not a
recreational facility, but it was also recognized that it was an educational facility. There was going to be educational process there, and the scope of that was being limited by supporting the
04/28/97 83-106
amendments. He hoped more consideration could be given to the
motion. Council Member McCown supported the motion. She believed the
original phrase Αmodest gateway facility≅ was what the Council was trying to emphasize. It was a facility to introduce the public to what the Perserve was, and she did not think that contemplated teaching classrooms. She was comfortable with the order of
magnitude, and the only limitation Council Member Kniss=s motion
gave was to suggest the concept of size. Given what input was
received, if in an architect=s opinion valid consensus and uses came out of a process which could not be done in 1,500 square feet,
a good architect would return to the Council stating that as part of his/her report. The Council needed to set the parameters of
what its target and expectations were as well as ultimately setting a budget as to how much should be spent on such a facility. As she again read through the tasks, the seven meetings with community
participation spread on either side of the work the designer was going to do to attain some concrete concepts as to how something
might look. It did not specify how many meetings were at the front or back end. There would be some meetings for input, a set of four concepts laid out, follow-up meetings for response, meetings with City staff, and then a presentation to the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission, and the Council. She found it
extremely unlikely that all of that could be accomplished with less than seven meetings. While seven meetings sounded like a lot, that was the reality of what it would take to work with design input and then to take through the official bodies that needed to review it. She felt seven meetings were realistic. It was appropriate to
give some guidance which Council Member Kniss=s designation did, and the process should move forward. Council Member Eakins asked the approximate size of the Baylands Nature Preserve and Foothills Park Interpretive Center.
Mr. Walton said the Baylands Nature Preserve, including the decking, was approximately 3,000 square feet.
Council Member Eakins asked what the square footage was under the
roof or within the walls.
Mr. Walton said it was approximately 2,000 square feet. He could not remember what the square footage was for Foothills Park, but it was much larger.
Council Member Eakins asked whether there were any modest facilities which the Council could use as a reference.
04/28/97 83-107
Mr. Walton said not in the City=s operation, but there were facilities available in other open space preserves and areas that staff would look at in order to get some ideas.
Council Member Eakins supported the motion. She thought having a size parameter as a guideline was a good idea to inspire the most creativity within a limited area. If the Council wanted something modest, it needed to be made clear.
Council Member Rosenbaum said the difficulty in specifying the size was that the functions to be accomplished in the building had not
been defined which was the first thing a designer would do. He would support the motion if the Council kept in mind that if the proposal came back because not much could be done with 2,000 square
feet, it could be reviewed again. Council Member Schneider supported the motion, although she was
unhappy with 1,500 or 2,000 square feet and would prefer 500 to 1,000 square feet. She had envisioned a gateway. She understood
Bay Area Action=s desire for more of a grand facility because of
the amount of work it wanted to do. What Bay Area Action wanted to accomplish and what the Council had in mind were two different
things. She also knew that designing an efficient gateway in the 1,000- to 1,500-square-foot area might be more difficult to achieve than building something grand at 2,500 or 3,000 square feet. She
also believed the meetings were absolutely called for.
Council Member Fazzino supported the motion but was still not satisfied with the costs. He felt less could be spent to get the job done, both with facilitation and design. Although
philosophically he supported what Council Members Kniss and Wheeler said with respect to gateway and square footage issues, he was
concerned with ignoring those guidelines if a better proposal were returned. If the Council felt strongly about the parameters, it needed to make them de rigueur. Otherwise, the parameters should
not be included in the motion.
Mayor Huber wanted to separate out the square footage limitation. It did not make sense to go through an entire proposal which asked for what the facility should be, how big it should be, and where it
should be and then limit it. MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE MOTION to authorize staff to solicit consultant proposals to provide facilitation and architectural services related to a new facility in the Arastradero Preserve; that the new
facility be considered and defined as the gateway facility; and
that the scope of work be consistent with the City=s design
04/28/97 83-108
guidelines for development in the Open Space zone which would
include a referral to the Planning Commission. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
SECOND PART OF THE MOTION that the facility shall be no more than
1,200 to 1,500 square feet. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Andersen, Huber Αno.≅
12. Organizational Study of the Planning Division
City Manager June Fleming said as Council was aware, the Planning Division had a number of vacancies, and staff was on track to fill
those vacancies in May. She felt it was time to take an in-depth study of the Planning Division and look at a number of issues as outlined in her memorandum dated April 28, 1997. Timing was essential because if job offers were going to be made, she needed to be clear with the applicants that such a study was underway.
Historically, the work fluctuation within the Planning Division depended upon the economy in which the City functioned, and the
City had developed a pattern of consistently using contract planners. It was an opportunity to conduct a review of the Planning Division and focus on areas such as how contract planners
would be managed and administered, how best contract planners could be used, and what assignments contract planners should be given.
It was imperative to initiate a study because of the number of current vacancies within the Planning Division, but she did not want to ask staff to do a lot of work on a Request for Proposal (RFP) if the Council were not in agreement. She asked for
Council=s approval of the concept only. Then staff would return
with an RFP and, if needed, the budget amendments. Council Member Fazzino assumed that such a study would inform as to
whether current practices of the Planning Division were appropriate or needed to be changed. He asked whether the study would address
issues of morale and management or whether the issue of bad management would rest with the City Manager rather than an independent contractor.
Ms. Fleming said one of the reasons she did not want the study done
by the Planning Department itself was that it needed to be done by someone with an unbiased view and with a keen ability to look at management styles, techniques, and what was needed to make a Planning Division. All interrelated reporting relationships needed to be reviewed, along with having the ability to advise staff as to
what the style should be, whether the functions were properly delineated, whether the contract planners should be placed
04/28/97 83-109
somewhere else and if not, how they should be managed, organized,
and supervised. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the study would assess the
performance of the current management.
Ms. Fleming said it was not an individual performance review, but the study would look at what needed to be done and give staff the ability to find out whether or not the existing Planning Division
staff was capable of doing that. She would be prepared to make any necessary changes.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked City Auditor William Vinson where that would put his plan to audit the contract planners.
City Auditor William Vinson said the audit of contract planners was
originally scheduled for the 1996-97 fiscal year but had been rescheduled to start in July or August of the next fiscal year. He had not yet had a chance to review it with the City Manager, but his guess would be that it would probably put off the audit.
Council Member Wheeler concurred with the decision that the study should not be done by the Planning Department. She asked whether staff examined the alternative of having the City Auditor coordinate the contract.
Ms. Fleming said she had considered that when going through the options, and she decided it was not an audit. If it were, she would have conferred with the City Auditor. She saw it as a management review, not an audit. She did see it being managed, budgeted, and controlled by the Human Resources Department her. It
was a responsibility she needed to be deeply involved in. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the concept of the study of the Planning Division and the development of a Request for Proposals.
Council Member Eakins supported the motion. It would enhance the
opportunity to look at different models for the department including use of contract planners. It was too hard to find other models when things were being looked at from within.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
12A. Status Report and Request for Approval and Policy Direction on SB 682 Regarding 60-Day Notice for Rental Tenancy Changes
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said adjunct to former Mayor Wheeler=s Escalating Rents Task Force from the previous year, in January the
04/28/97 83-110
Council authorized City sponsorship of legislation proposed by
Senator Sher. It was very similar to the legislation the City sponsored in 1990 after the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) was amended to take out a 60-day notice provision. The bill was set
for hearing on May 6, 1997, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and there was a number of interest groups that were following the
bill. The interest groups that would be in opposition were real estate and housing entities. There had been some significant discussion with other people who were possibly situated in support
of the bill. Senator Sher had called the previous week and wanted to know how Palo Alto as a sponsor would feel about some possible
amendments which were listed on page 2 of the the City Attorney=s report dated April 24, 1997. The amendments being discussed would exempt cities with rent control, add a three-year sunset clause, and
possibly exempt owner-occupied multiple-family buildings with one to three or one to four units. All of the amendments had the effect of somewhat minimizing the impact of the bill in terms of benefiting tenants. The owner-occupied exemption looked like the
City=s single-family residence exemption. The reality was it was
going to be a difficult bill to sell, and the amendments might have the beneficial effect of bringing in support from significant real
estate or housing interest groups which could be very positive.
Vice Mayor Andersen was reasonably comfortable with exempting cities from rent control and the sunset clause, but he would not encourage an exemption that would affect the smaller property owners. It appeared to him that it would be more confusing for
property owners if some tenants were on a 30-day and others on a 60-day notice period. There might be some political issues in
terms of whether or not the real estate people were behind it, but the fact of the matter was that people needed more time to adjust to some of the increases. He was not in favor of including in the
bill an exemption for owner-occupied multiple-family buildings with one to three or one to four units. He could possibly go along with
an owner-occupied single unit but still did not understand the rationale.
Betsy Shotwell, Field Coordinator for Senator Byron Sher, 2601 Main Street, No. 201, Menlo Park, said since the beginning of the year
when Palo Alto supported the concept, Senator Sher and the Sacramento staff had been in negotiations with the various parties interested in the bill. On behalf of Senator Sher, she commented that there were elements of the proposals that were difficult, and the political reality of Sacramento was the reason they had
surfaced. Senator Sher was resisting the one to four unit exemption, and the issue was left to be resolved. Senator Sher was very interested in where Palo Alto stood on the proposals.
04/28/97 83-111
Council Member Wheeler said the area of concern to the Council was
the exemption for owner-occupied multiple-family buildings. She asked Ms. Shotwell whether Senator Sher had a feel for where the breaking point on that exemption might be in terms of getting
support from the industry.
Ms. Shotwell said the first hearing of the bill would be before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, May 6, 1997, with Senator Burton presiding. She thought much of the information would be out
by the following Friday. As the staff and the consultants were putting the reports together for the Judiciary Committee hearing,
staff would have a better feel for where it was at that stage. Mr. Calonne said one to three units was where things were headed.
What it came down to was whether it was worth having with one to three units. He thought it was difficult legislation which had
been obvious in 1990. He was impressed with the efforts of Senator
Sher=s office and the other interest groups in even finding a common ground. He was not successful in finding any kind of common
ground with the local apartment people. He was very encouraged by the form of the amendment. Staff brought it to the Council because
it seemed to make the most sense given that Council Members were expected to testify at the hearing. That kind of amendment could happen regardless. If the Council could arrive at some policy
direction even if the Council might not like the amendment, leaving some room to work with would be the best of all worlds. Senator
Sher=s office was being extremely solicitous in looking for the
Council=s direction on the bill, but when it got to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he knew Senator Burton would have strong
feelings about some issues himself. He was not sure as to what control anyone would end up having other than through giving good
testimony and making the policy arguments. If Council wanted to give staff some basic direction without getting too locked into it, particularly, Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Wheeler who
had committed to make the trip to Sacramento for the hearing, direction to their colleagues in terms of where to go with the bill might be most helpful. Council Member Wheeler preferred to see the legislation as the
glass being half full. The Council had been trying for a number of years to get a 60-day notice into legislation. She was not sure
she could fathom what the big deal was. It seemed to her, particularly in the kind of housing market in California or many portions of it at the present time, that it was really little more
than common courtesy and good human relations to give people in a zero vacancy rate climate a little more time to drastically change
lifestyles and look into a market which was impossible to find decent living accommodations within financial means. The bill potentially, as weak as it was and with the one to four units
04/28/97 83-112
exempting out as many as 40 percent of the rental units in
California, was still 60 percent better than it was currently. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to
approve potential amendments that would change SB 682 as follows:
1. Exempt cities with rent control; 2. Exempt owner-occupied multiple-family buildings with one to three or one to four units; and
3. Add a three-year sunset clause.
Further, with the understanding that the City Council=s preference would be to not support Amendment No. 2 if there were any possibility.
Vice Mayor Andersen agreed with Council Member Wheeler; there were political realities that had to be faced. He asked his colleagues that he be given the latitude to speak as a property owner who personally did not think it was necessary to go ahead with the one
to four exemption while attending the Judiciary hearing on May 6, 1997, along with Council Member Wheeler. He wanted to speak his
mind, although he would represent the Council=s wishes.
Mr. Calonne said he understood the Council=s struggle with the
exemption, but what was significant was the fact that Senator Sher and the City Council was doing it. It was an extraordinary step to take, and he did not think the Council should take too much responsibility on itself for the rest of the state which might not have the same housing crisis as Palo Alto. He wanted to keep it
positive because between Senator Sher and the Council, something was being done that was desperately needed.
Vice Mayor Andersen said one of the issues was the flexibility that cities had with regard to setting the times. He asked Ms. Shotwell
whether a back-up might be that local jurisdications could be allowed to determine whether it be a 30-day or 60-day notice or whether that was virtually impossible. Ms. Shotwell said it repeated history back to 1990. In addition to
having nonrenewals in the bill, that was a hurdle that could not be crossed over.
Council Member Fazzino invited his colleagues to spend some time with him in Sacramento, and they would recognize very quickly how
unique and isolated Palo Alto was from the rest of the state. Legislators from San Bernardino and Riverside had very different
points of view about such issues. He was always amazed that Republican leaders on the issue of local control generally supported the principle except when it came to local taxation,
04/28/97 83-113
rent, or housing kinds of issues. He concurred with the City
Attorney=s thanks to Betsy Shotwell and Senator Sher=s office for their fine efforts on the legislation, but they faced long odds to get any of the provisions incorporated into state law.
MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS
14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Council Member McCown asked the City Attorney for a response to the request from Mr. Jim Burch offering the City Council a helicopter ride over the Sand Hill Road area.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied that if a majority of the City Council took the ride, it might be considered a meeting, and the Stanford Sand Hill Road Project was a quasi-judicial issue before the City Council.
Council Member Kniss said she might be interested in taking
advantage of the ride. Vice Mayor Andersen noted the Women of Vision Award Banquet that he
attended on Thursday, April 24, 1997, which honored City Manager June Fleming and said it was a splendid event and that Ms. Fleming
had received a standing ovation. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. in memory of the lives lost in the April 26, 1997, East Palo Alto fire.
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.