HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-14 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting September 14, 1998 1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Deepest Appreciation to Gloria Young for Her Years of Service to the City of Palo Alto as the City Clerk and Employee..............................................87-144 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-146 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................87-147
2. Ordinance 4519 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (Military Service Credit
for Local Fire Fighter Members≅ .......................87-147
3. Ordinance 4520 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940"..........................................87-147
4. Ordinance 4521 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.321 of Chapter 22.04 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Use of the
Skateboard Facility in John Lucas Greer Park≅ .........87-147
5. Resolution 7792 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. 7713, and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7729, 7744, 7751 and 7771, to Add Two Planning
Classifications≅ ......................................87-148
6. Resolution 7793 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers'
Association≅ ..........................................87-148 09/14/98 87-142
7. Resolution 7794 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Commencing Cable Franchise Renewal Proceedings under the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as Amended, and Confirming Authority to Conduct Cable Franchise Renewal Proceedings and to Take Such Actions as Are Appropriate to Collect Information and Otherwise Comply with the Requirements of the Federal Cable Communications Policy
Act of 1984, as Amended≅ ..............................87-148 8. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 to
Change the Definition of ΑMinor Project≅ .............87-148 9. Endorsement of Approach for and Status of Work on Historic Inventory.............................................87-150 10. Increase in Change Order Authority for Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and McGuire and Hester for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvement Project, CIP 47712 and Status Report87-155 11. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Appointing Kathleen Hamilton as the Interim City Clerk...........87-162 12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-162 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.............87-162
09/14/98 87-143
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Deepest Appreciation to Gloria Young for Her Years of Service to the City of Palo Alto as the City Clerk and Employee
Mayor Rosenbaum said it was a special day to say Αgoodbye≅ to long-term City Clerk Gloria Young. Her warm smile and calm competence with which she undertook the many and varied tasks of her office would be missed. He congratulated her on achieving the very pinnacle of the city clerk profession in Northern California which was the position of Clerk of the Board for the City and County of San Francisco. The City took pride in the fact that everything she knew about the job of city clerk she learned in Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Schneider said it had been her privilege and honor to know Ms. Young for the past seven years. It was an understatement to say that she and the community would miss Ms. Young. She had served the Council well and had been an inspiration for the people who worked for and with her. She thanked Ms. Young for her many years of service. Council Member Fazzino said it was a sad day for him and his colleagues. Ms. Young had been an outstanding City Clerk. What
was most noteworthy about Ms. Young=s years as City Clerk was her efforts in improving public communications. Many people were
impressed at the responsiveness and helpfulness of the City Clerk=s
office. Another outstanding element of the City Clerk=s office was to bring school children to the Council Chambers and show them how a City Council operated. Ms. Young also contributed to the community in the way she conducted elections. She did an outstanding job of involving the public in elections and was paramount in convincing the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters office to allow Palo Alto to count ballots at City Hall at its previous general municipal election. He thanked Ms. Young for all her contributions. He felt she had been instrumental in increasing the involvement of Palo Altans in the public process. Council Member Wheeler said in some ways it was easier working for nine bosses since they were not on-site unless they had the distinct privilege of being Mayor. As Mayor, a great deal of time
was spent in the City Clerk=s office which gave one a great deal of intimate knowledge on how the office functioned on a day-to-day
basis. Council Member Fazzino=s comments relating to the City
09/14/98 87-144
Clerk=s office were true and very much appreciated, not only by the Mayors but also by the Council and the community. She had heard remarks many times that Ms. Young and her staff were the pictures of fairness. There had been a couple of emotional issues in the past few general municipal elections where the Council, took a strong and unanimous position on one side of those ballot measures.
The Clerk=s office had been seen as very neutral on the issues and
helpful to those taking opposition to the City=s positions which spoke remarkably well to the professionalism of Ms. Young and her organization. She also had the opportunity to know Ms. Young on a personal level serving on a statewide policy committee for the League of California Cities. Council Member Eakins said Ms. Young had always been a friendly presence which meant much to citizens, newcomers, etc., for what seemed like formidable government rules and processes. A friendly person leading a friendly staff made a tremendous difference. Ms. Young was a dedicated employee and had a wonderful spirit.
Council Member Kniss used an old adage, ΑIf you give a person a fish, they get a meal; but if you teach them to fish, they eat on a
permanent basis.≅ Ms. Young had spent much time working with other city clerks and with state and local governments teaching them how
to fish, and she believed ΑCity Clerkdom≅ was better off for that. San Francisco would be pleased with what Ms. Young would bring with her. She extended a heartfelt thank you from her and her colleagues for all her achievements. Council Member Huber said Ms. Young had done well and he had enjoyed working with her over the years. Her accomplishments had been well spoken of by his colleagues. Anne Ream representing Congresswoman Anna Eshoo presented Ms. Young with a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition and
extended Ms. Eschoo=s thanks and best wishes. Mike Potter, representing Senator Byron Sher, said Senator Sher
sent his best to Ms. Young, his Α1989 Woman of the Year,≅ who he and his staff had relied much on for advice over the years. He wished her luck in her new position in San Francisco. Michelle Poche, representing Supervisor Joe Simitian, said Supervisor Simitian wanted to be there in person but was presently in Bosnia. She presented Ms. Young with a proclamation of appreciation. Mayor Rosenbaum said that State Assemblyman Ted Lempert, who had been there earlier and could not stay, left a Certificate of Recognition for Ms. Young.
09/14/98 87-145
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Resolution.
Resolution 7791 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Deepest Appreciation to Gloria Young for Her Years of Service to the City of Palo Alto as the City Clerk and
Employee≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Rosenbaum presented Ms. Young with a framed Resolution of Appreciation, a gift from former Mayor Mike Cobb, and a gift from the City Council. Former City Clerk Gloria Young thanked the present and past Councils, the Council Appointed Officers, her colleagues, friends,
the City Clerk=s Office, staff members, and citizens of Palo Alto for their support. It had been her pleasure to serve the City. She owed much to her family and her many friends in the City. Palo Alto was a successful City due to the many dedicated people who had contributed to its success. She urged everyone to treat each other with due respect and honor themselves, and the City would continue to shine. Her memories from the past 25 years sustained her well and provided her with a strong foundation as she began her new journey. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that former Mayor Leland Levy, also a well-known lyricist around town, had written a song for the occasion which would be sung by the Palo Alto Council Chorus. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Marvin Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, representing Community Center Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding traffic safety. Mark Stillman, P.O. Box 1527, Campbell, spoke regarding social issues/homeless population. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, spoke regarding Stanford housing. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding a grocery store party. Council Member Fazzino commented that when J. J. and F. Market opened 50 years prior, it was E. J. Bollander who ran the market who was a long-time member of the Palo Alto City Council in the 1940s through the early 1950s. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding Terman Specific Plan.
09/14/98 87-146
City Manager June Fleming replied that the use was temporary to accommodate various needs as articulated by Mr. Moss. The primary use that was temporarily dislocated was the site for the Friends of the Library book sale who were being compensated for the loss. The City was responding to an emergency which the community experienced with the flood. The use was temporary with her approval and would be left there unless directed otherwise by the Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of May 18, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of May 26, 1998, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of June 8, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider Αabstaining.≅ MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of June 22, 1998, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-7.
2. Ordinance 4519 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (Military Service Credit
for Local Fire Fighter Members≅ (1st Reading, 7/27/98, 8-0, Schneider absent)
3. Ordinance 4520 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940" (1st Reading 8/10/98, PASSED 7-0, Huber, Schneider absent)
4. Ordinance 4521 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.321 of Chapter 22.04 of
09/14/98 87-147
Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Use of the
Skateboard Facility in John Lucas Greer Park≅ (1st Reading 8/10/98, PASSED 7-0 Huber, Schneider absent)
5. Resolution 7792 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. 7713, and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7729, 7744, 7751 and 7771, to Add Two Planning
Classifications≅
Ordinance 4522 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $7,400 for the Reclassification of the CDBG Coordinator Position to the
Senior Planner Position≅
6. Resolution 7793 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers'
Association≅
7. Resolution 7794 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Commencing Cable Franchise Renewal Proceedings under the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as Amended, and Confirming Authority to Conduct Cable Franchise Renewal Proceedings and to Take Such Actions as Are Appropriate to Collect Information and Otherwise Comply with the Requirements of the Federal Cable Communications Policy
Act of 1984, as Amended≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 5-7. MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 3 and 4, Huber, Schneider
Αabstaining.≅ ORDINANCES 8. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 to
Change the Definition of ΑMinor Project≅ Council Member Huber said he would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Anne Moore said staff had identified some additional procedural changes and
09/14/98 87-148
text revisions to the Compatibility Review Standards. Staff would bring the text changes forward for Council consideration at the October 5, 1998, City Council meeting. Staff was anxious to shift its attention from continuing work on the interim ordinance and regulations to presenting a revised draft permanent ordinance for public, Historic Resources Board (HRB), and Council review a few months prior to the expiration of the current interim ordinance. At the August 10, 1998, City Council meeting, staff was directed to investigate whether additional modification to the definition of
Αdemolition≅ would assist in reducing the number of projects subject to compatibility review. Staff investigated in two ways:
1) the definitions of Αdemolition≅ currently in use, and 2) what was done in other communities. Staff found that most communities
did not have multiple definitions of Αdemolition≅, and both the Planning Department and Inspectional Services Division staff jointly recommended that such a dual definition system not be instituted in Palo Alto. Consequently, staff would stay with the 50 percent parameter wall removal rule for both building and historic preservation purposes. The only addition for historic preservation purposes regarded changes to the facade which staff
had recommended be relaxed. Instead of Αany change to the facade
constituting a demolition,≅ it would be Αsubstantial change resulting in significant modification of the architectural
character of the building.≅ Staff proposed instead that the
definition of Αminor project≅ be changed. Minor project pertained to merit evaluations and only indirectly as a secondary step to
compatibility review. A change in the definition of Αminor
project≅ would release certain proposed modifications to structures from merit evaluation. The risk of that change might be a few potential landmarks that would be remodeled. The positive aspect was that remodeling would be mostly to the rear of the buildings and there would not be significant changes to the portion of buildings that would be highly visible. The main change proposed in the staff report (CMR:358:98) was the clarification that it really affected the merit screening and evaluation process rather than the Compatibility Review Standards directly.
Council Member Fazzino asked what the purpose of that evening=s meeting was opposed to the meeting of October 5, 1998. The Council discussed several issues at the prior meeting, such as, fees for getting properties off the historic inventory priority list, which were alternatives during the interim ordinance. He clarified that staff recommendations with respect to those issues would return to the Council on October 5, 1998. Ms. Moore said yes. Currently, there was an applicant worksheet and a manual that had been finalized. Also, there were additional modifications to the Compatibility Review Standards which would be reviewed by staff ahead of the usual staff report schedule in order that there be more time for the public to review those changes.
09/14/98 87-149
Regarding ways to get properties off of the historic inventory priority list sooner than through the completion of the inventory, staff would continue to study the issue and would return to Council with conclusions on October 5, 1998. City Manager June Fleming emphasized that one issue which had been heard repeatedly during the process was that the Thursday packet delivery for action on Monday was a burden for the members of the public. Even if staff had pushed to have the item ready for that evening, there would not be sufficient time for public review. There was still work to be done, and staff was committed to
producing the document early enough so that when the Council=s constituents received it, there would be time for review. It was a step staff was taking to make sure the public had access a few days prior to when the item was agendized. Leannah Hunt, 2170 Byron Street, urged the Council to support the staff recommendation regarding the change in the definition of
ΑMinor Project≅ threshold. Having had some personal experience with the issue recently, she realized that all pre-1940 homeowners who went to the City for minor changes resulted in going through merit screening which necessitated what appeared to be an average eight-week delay during prime building periods which put homeowners at a great disadvantage. She felt the staff had reviewed the issue carefully and believed the change was appropriate. She hoped the Council would concur with the staff recommendation. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council introduce the Ordinance amending the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance
to change the definition of ΑMinor Project.≅
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built Before 1940 to
Change the Definition of >Minor Project=≅ Council Member Kniss pointed out that there had been a substantial response from the Council on the issue. Often she had heard from the public that the Council did not listen to what they were saying. She felt the Council listened to the public from both sides of the issue. When the Council was addressing private
property, which in many cases seemed to be the public=s right, the Council broached areas which were very sensitive. She felt the Council was going in the right direction and headed down a path that would result in a good outcome. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber "not participating." REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
09/14/98 87-150
9. Endorsement of Approach for and Status of Work on Historic Inventory Council Member Huber said he would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. City Manager June Fleming said the item was strongly worded and somewhat misleading. The item did not require any action in the endorsement, but staff wanted to be clear and communicate well with the Council and the public. Staff would be receptive to any reaction the Council might have. Council Member Mossar thanked the staff for a well-written staff report (CMR:361:98), which was clear and informative. Vice Mayor Schneider referred to a letter from former Mayor Gail
Woolley delivered on September 9, 1998. Ms. Woolley=s second request was that the staff give a brief weekly progress report which she felt was important and would keep everyone on the same page. Ms. Fleming understood the intent, but the reason the flood reports were done weekly was because the flood was such an evolving, time-oriented, time-sensitive matter. She would be sensitive and give a report to the Council on a regular basis but asked the Council not to direct her to do it weekly. Council Member Schneider said that would be fine. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa, agreed with Council Member Kniss that the two items on the agenda that evening were going in a much better direction and believed that everyone was coming to some common ground. She did not want it to be discovered when it got to December 1, 1998, that the process had not progressed as far as had been intended. Working with volunteers was somewhat unreliable, and the other difficult problem was there were consultants, staff and volunteers involved. To assure all three parties understood what was transpiring, she felt it was important to have those progress reports. She advised the Council of a meeting in Palo Alto sponsored by the California Preservation Foundation, the State Office of Historic Preservation and Past Heritage regarding the California Register of Historical Resources which was what the inventory was working toward. The idea was that the buildings that were added to the inventory would be placed on the California Register. Council Member Fazzino asked how many hours it typically took to complete an evaluation of a home. Ms. Moore said the amount of time required by the volunteers was about four hours, and the amount of time the Dames and Moore staff
09/14/98 87-151
would spend in addition would vary from two to several hours dependent upon the complexity of the individual property. Council Member Fazzino clarified that the time to do an evaluation if it were a less complicated house situation. Conceivably, there were a number of homes where a simple visual review would be sufficient. He kept returning to the question because he wanted to get as many homes off the list as quickly as possible. Ms. Moore said staff had included in the staff report (CMR:361:98) as an attachment an example of the kind of information that was gathered by the volunteers and reviewed by the Dames and Moore staff. There was much raw data in addition to the original visual survey. The original visual survey was done for approximately 6,600 properties and only half ended up on Priority List 1 or 2. The volunteer work contributed to a further screening where many more properties would be eliminated from the lists, particularly Priority List 2. Council Member Fazzino was impressed with the material in Attachment D. If the City were forced into a position of developing that kind of depth/breadth material for each of the 3,000 homes, the process would not end until the next millennium. There was no question that the material was needed for a number of homes on the list. He returned to the issue he raised in August. There was no historic importance associated with a number of homes on the list, and a large number of homes on the Priority 2 list needed to be eliminated as quickly as possible. In no way would they call for the type of material included in the staff report which represented the work that had been done with several homes with historic importance. Ms. Moore wanted to give credit to Dames and Moore for something special they did during the time of the initial contract with the City which was in recognition of how many Priority 2 properties there were. Dames and Moore met and conferred with the State Historic Preservation Office and developed a new methodology for screening those types of properties. Typically, the research was done on an individual property, but what Dames and Moore proposed instead was that they research people and events and look at the locations that came up in the research. State officials endorsed that approach, it was much more efficient, and it required less time. If an important person or event did not arise in the general Citywide research effort associated with a particular address, the assumption was there was no association. That would significantly cut down on the time per property which made it difficult to come up with a per property basis for Priority List 2. Council Member Fazzino acknowledged the process was valuable; but if staff reviewed the history of an area such as Garland Drive with the neighbors, staff would know quickly whether or not a famous individual lived there. Unless the homes were taken off of
09/14/98 87-152
Priority List 2 as quickly as possible, the City was going to suffer credibility problems with the community. If some common sense were applied and staff worked with the neighborhoods, many of the homes could be eliminated quickly. Ms. Fleming said staff was sympathetic and understanding of what Council Member Fazzino wanted to do, but staff had been successful with Dames and Moore and persuaded them to go to the state and buy into a very altered process. If the Council wanted the endorsement of the state, that step needed to be taken. The process seemed cumbersome, but it was not in comparison to doing an individual home-by-home review. Staff would like the list reduced to a
manageable one. If the Council did not want the state=s endorsement, it could do as it chose; but it would negate valuable work that had already been done. Council Member Wheeler referred to a point made in former Mayor
Woolley=s letter regarding the mathematical ability and the realism of the numbers that had been estimated. The staff report (CMR:361:98) pointed out that there was an authorization from the Council for a contingency of $23,000 to employ temporary help should the progress not be forthcoming, particularly on the research for the Priority List 1 houses. She asked what and when staff would be triggered to utilize the $23,000 because the Council had committed itself not to go beyond the deadlines set. Ms. Moore said staff was conferring with the volunteer coordinators because the question had been how many volunteers would be coming
back after the summer to work on the project. Staff=s intent was to hire temporary employees quickly if necessary. Staff would rather expand the contingency plan and get done early with the research than wait another month and make it difficult to get the work done in time. If it was not demonstrated that there were enough volunteers and the pace was not fast enough to ensure that Priority List 1 would be finished, staff would move ahead with the temporary employees. Council Member Wheeler asked whether that was something staff would expect to know on October 5, 1998. Ms. Moore said yes. Council Member Kniss recollected that Council Member Fazzino said previously that a property owner could remove his/her house if it could be proven that it was not on the inventory. She asked whether that remained the case. Ms. Moore said staff had been studying that concept. Staff would like to place responsibility on the property owner or perspective purchaser to furnish all information needed to eliminate a property from the list. Unfortunately, the kind of information that one could possibly bring about a property, i.e., chain of title and
09/14/98 87-153
building records, did not cover all the concerns about events and people. If that type of system were employed, staff needed to find out what the risks were and what percentage of Priority List 2 would end up as significant because of association with people or events. Staff would report back to the Council as to the feasibility and what the risk might be to miss significant landmarks or resources if by strictly relying on property owner/purchaser generated information. Council Member Kniss, using Garland Drive as an example, said given there were a number of original or second or third owners, it should not be complicated to trace the history the houses. Ms. Moore said early on, Dames and Moore did an assessment of how many properties were old enough to be under consideration yet were the newest properties. Dames and Moore was surprised to find there were so few because it was thought that could be used as a screening mechanism to significantly reduce the number of properties. The vast majority of properties under consideration were pre-war and pre-depression properties. Staff would take a new look at the properties that were post-depression to see if there were not another way to screen them out more efficiently. Council Member Kniss said she could trace her house back to 1929 or 1930, and it was hard to believe something could have happened that she was unaware of. Ms. Moore said staff was getting into the territory of items that were being considered for the permanent ordinance, e.g. a residence on a piece of property not on Priority List 1 or deemed to be significant per Criterion C but had integrity and some association with a famous person. The question was what the appropriate action would be for the City to take in such a situation; absolute preservation of the building to a time period associated with the famous person, or the endorsement of the placement of a brass plaque in the sidewalk in front of the residence with less concern over whether the property had been or was going to be modified. Once staff received the information from Dames and Moore, the City needed to set its thresholds as to what would be done with that information, what would go on to be a Landmark or a Significant resource, and what were the types of occurrences that needed some recognition but not preservation or special treatment of the structure associated with the property. Staff was exploring those concepts but would not be able to do much relative to the interim ordinance. Staff planned to do much with that information for the permanent ordinance. Council Member Kniss said the public needed to know because it was an uncertain area that raised anxiety. The Council needed to be aware of what that would do for people who were unsure of what was happening, and for purchasers of property that had not been evaluated and might get caught in the dilemma.
09/14/98 87-154
Council Member Mossar recollected that the staff report (CMR:361:98) stated that as the Council proceeded to January 1999, there were points when houses would drop off the list. She asked if one of those points were October 1998. Ms. Moore replied that on October 15, 1998, staff would have materials from Dames and Moore and would bring it to the Council shortly thereafter. Council Member Mossar believed it was important that in October, a paring down of the list could actually be seen. One reason for having a certified historic designation process was that homeowners could receive benefits as incentives and, in some cases, only if there were a legitimate process and program in place. It was also important that what the City did was legitimate and, as she understood it, why Dames and Moore went to the state to get approval for the revised process. She thought the City was headed in the right direction. Mayor Rosenbaum asked Council Member Fazzino if Dames and Moore were able to complete the work as scheduled, would that satisfy his request by January 15, 1999. If the work were completed, would the Council know which homes were considered significant or was Council
Member Fazzino=s point that it was too long and staff should find another alternative other than follow the schedule. Council Member Fazzino said he was happy to keep with the schedule as long as there was an opportunity for individuals to get off the list separately. He recognized that staff was looking into that. It was important to have a mechanism in place to allow people to get their homes off the list. A combination of that plus the January deadline was sufficient. He preferred action, but government did not operate that way. He thought Council Member
Mossar=s point regarding incentives was a valuable one. NO ACTION REQUIRED 10. Increase in Change Order Authority for Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and McGuire and Hester for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvement Project, CIP 47712 and Status Report City Manager June Fleming said the staff wanted to be clear about the limited scope of the request which was before the Council and the reason for the request. Staff asked that the Council understand there was a narrow focus which should not be interpreted as any blanket endorsement of support of the way in which the present contractor had carried out the duties and responsibilities in the Barron Park area. She and the staff had spent much time with the contractor. Staff was as concerned about the quality of the work and as frustrated as the Barron Park neighborhood was.
Staff believed Council=s approval was absolutely essential and would abide by its decision.
09/14/98 87-155
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts wanted to explain the technical background behind the request for additional contract authority. He referred to a transparency which showed the typical cross section of the streets in the Barron Park area as they existed in the contract along with what the actual conditions turned out to be. The drainage project in Barron Park included new valley gutters which were the pieces of concrete shown on the sides of the streets. The consultant prepared the plans for the City presuming there would be an average two-foot wide separation between the old street pavement and the new valley gutter. Staff discovered when the work was actually done, that the two feet was not adequate and what actually had to be built ranged from three-feet wide to six-feet wide. When the project was originally bid and the specifications plan prepared, the dollar amount and the quantity of work that had to be completed was based upon the two foot wide measurement. The contractor had to build a wider area in order to successfully prepare the street. The contractor needed to be paid for that additional work because the contract was set up on a unit price basis for the paving work to be done. Staff was asking the Council for approval of an increase of $50,000 in the contract authority to pay the contractor for the additional work which was a necessity of the contract. The increase was not
reflective of staff=s opinion of the quality of the overall performance of the contractor or with the overall scope of work. It simply reflected the physical reality whereby the City needed to pay contractually for work performed. Ms. Fleming said if the work had been left undone, by the legal
definition made by the City Attorney, there would not be a Αreal
emergency,≅ but there would have been a hazardous condition existing. The situation was that the money was not in the proper place. Council Member Mossar said it was clear to the Council that the Barron Park residents felt burdened by the project. Before she read some of the correspondence received from the public about the item, her first question was why the City was spending more money on a problematic project. She understood what the money paid for and how that came about, but she wanted reassurances as to how the City was dealing with the contractor. As a resident of the Downtown area, she felt she had been exposed to constant utility and public works construction in and around her neighborhood for at least five years. It was not pleasant, and she had some sympathy for the Barron Park neighborhood. She asked staff to take some time to explain the side of the issue relative to what the City was doing to address the problems that had taken place. Ms. Fleming said staff was reviewing the performance of McGuire and Hester with regard to options, requirements, the original contract, and experiences in an effort to determine what steps could be taken to address the concerns that the staff and the Barron Park
09/14/98 87-156
residents had with the way the contract was executed. The project had not been well managed or organized. Staff had spent many hours talking with the contractor about problems. The public asked that the City not do business with that contractor again, but she needed to get legal advice as to whether that could be a reality. The
way the City=s ordinance read was that the City had to respond to the lowest responsible bidder. Staff was addressing ways to deal with past unacceptable performance. She knew the performance had been unacceptable. Council Member Eakins referred to the overhead projector and asked why the red line was longer on the bottom. She asked whether it was because the valley gutter was deeper with respect to the crown of the street. Mr. Roberts replied that the valley gutter was not built any deeper than intended; it was because at that depth it was consistent with the edge of the existing pavement which the consultant had indicated on the plans. While the valley gutter was relatively constant in its elevation, the pavement varied, and it was necessary to go both wider and longer with the conforms than was originally contemplated. Council Member Eakins clarified that the streets in Barron Park varied in height above sea level, and the consultant that laid out the scope of the project did not understand that or used a sample that did not reveal that information. That was reason for the problems. Mr. Roberts said yes. Council Member Eakins agreed that the concerns of the Barron Park residents had been heartfelt and emotional. The Council received descriptive communications from Mr. Bob Moss regarding his
concerns. She asked if it went back to the consultant=s assessment of what the need was, that there was too much variation in the streets. Mr. Roberts said yes. The issue was that it was more the responsibility of the design consultant than of the contractor. Ms. Fleming said staff was going to go back to the contractor but
would face the immediate need to correct the problem. Mr. Moss=s communications were very descriptive and enabled the Council to get a feel for what was being experienced. Staff had been talking to Mr. Moss and the contractor. Staff understood the problem and was trying to do something about it. Council Member Fazzino said one of the most troubling aspects of the staff report (CMR:363:98) was the realization that the City was obligated to award contracts primarily on the basis of lowest cost. He was concerned because the federal government, particularly the defense department, was criticized for its procurement practices.
09/14/98 87-157
He was troubled to hear lowest cost being used as an excuse for using McGuire and Hester. If a contractor had an inconsistent record of performance, he would hope that regardless of the fact that they offered the lowest bid, the City would award a contract to a contractor which had a better performance record and provided better value over time. Ms. Fleming said the City was required to accept the lowest responsible bidder. If he looked into the Legislative History, he would see times when staff went to the Council with a recommendation to not award the lowest bidder. There was some flexibility. Staff might want to look at that regulation to see whether it needed any strengthening. As far as she and staff could recall, the City did not have a history of poor performance from McGuire and Hester as was now the case which would not go on record and be taken into consideration if McGuire and Hester bid on another project. The City was not totally constrained by low bidder, and staff would look at the procedures to see if it were necessary to change them.
Council Member Fazzino referred to Mr. Robert=s comment about being limited in oversight. He was troubled to read that under contract terms, staff could not play a stronger role when it came to issues of scheduling. Mr. Roberts said a practice in the industry was that one specified an end product and bid that product. However, staff could consider doing more in the future on similar types of contracts with regard to adding additional contract requirements for certain milestone scheduled events. That was possible and might have made an improvement with the McGuire and Hester contract but was not the norm. Also important to recognize, was that staff could not go down to the nth degree on scheduling the contractors work for them. Contractors had a number of operational issues with regard to their crews, subcontractors, materials suppliers, etc. There was no way any owning agency could anticipate all those issues in advance. The contractor needed a certain amount of flexibility to take into account those scheduling issues. Also, there were many things that affected construction that needed to be done in a certain sequence. For example, members of the community had suggested that it would have been nicer to complete one whole block before moving on to the next, which was not viable when building underground pipeline. Underground pipeline needed to be built in a continuous fashion in order that the alignment and grade matched up. Council Member Fazzino said staff included a community outreach component with other contracts. Since it had been done in the past, it could be done in the future to make sure the contractors do a better job of communicating with the public in advance, particularly when there were necessary changes to the work being done.
09/14/98 87-158
Mr. Roberts said that was an element of the project and was in the contract specifications. The contractor did not comply with those requirements to the letter of the law and did not always issue the appropriate notices. Ms. Fleming said the project did not go well, and there were a number of unexpected problems. Her opinion was that the contractor did not perform satisfactorily; and as staff looked at the problem in retrospect, there were things that could be done from initiation of contract to execution that would reduce the likelihood of the problem ever occurring again. The specific item before the Council that evening was very limited in scope and one that did not endorse the performance of the contractor but addressed what would have made a horrible situation unbearable. Council Member Kniss was frustrated that the best thing that could be done was for the City to spend more money rather than being able to do something about it. The City had to go with the lowest responsible bid, but decisions had to be made in the future with regard to the type of bidder who had not performed. Additionally, there should be some type of recourse the City could take with a contractor who did not perform as promised. She asked whether the City had those rights. Ms. Fleming said the City had every responsible agency within the
City to see what the City=s options were from the administration of
the contract, the Purchasing Department, the City Attorney=s Office, and the Public Works Department. Staff was looking to see what the options were in response to the poor way staff judged the contract. Council Member Kniss clarified that the City would put more money into the contract, complete it, and the citizens deal with it until completion. Ms. Fleming said the money was for one small piece of the contract and had nothing to do with the final payment for the cost of the contract. Council Member Wheeler understood that the request was a narrow piece of the contract, but she had one additional question about the neighborhood concern raised regarding the list of streets that were to receive treatment as a result of the project. The project specified only certain streets would be repaired or replaced. There were other streets that had taken a significant amount of abuse, due to the duration of the contract and she asked what City staff was doing to evaluate the condition of those streets that were not scheduled for repair or replacement. Also, how was staff going to proceed with a determination of when those other streets would be taken care of.
09/14/98 87-159
Mr. Roberts said three streets were completely reconstructed with new pavement, and the remaining streets were being partially replaced. The work being done was to restore the full structural integrity of the pavement, removing and replacing those failed areas and repaving areas which had broken down. The work did not restore the full visual integrity and appearance of a new street surface. Staff was looking beyond the scope of work of that contract for additional measures to be taken to provide that new surface on those other streets. He did not want to include that in the current contract, and staff was looking for alternative methods by which that could be accomplished. Staff was evaluating two possible techniques. First, was to add the streets to some work
being done on the City=s street maintenance contract currently underway and do a slurry seal on those streets. Time and weather conditions were getting tight to be 100 percent positive to
accomplish that by the fall. That was staff=s goal, and if it became unviable due to weather conditions, that work would be added to the contracts to be performed in the summer of 1999 instead. Inevitably, the streets would receive an additional surface coating. Council Member Wheeler asked whether that related to the streets where work was actually done or did it also include streets used for truck routes which received more than their normal wear and tear. Mr. Roberts said it related to the streets where work was actually done and where the pavement repair work was being done so there would be a solid structural base with which to work to apply the surface coating. Staff could agree to look at the streets that were used for haul routes for potential inclusion into the
following year=s street maintenance work. He would not recommend adding that to the current contract. Council Member Ojakian asked whether a contingency fee to be paid at the end of a project based on performance had been put into the contract. From past experience with the City, it sounded like McGuire and Hester had done a good job. He asked whether there was a reason the problem occurred. Mr. Roberts replied construction contracts were set up with a retention; and with any work completed and progress payments made, 10 percent of the amount due the contractor was withheld in the retention and accrued to the end of the job. The retention was used as a guarantee of successful completion of the work and was only released to the contractor when the project was completed and accepted. The use and withholding of that retention was subject to stipulations of state law but was there to settle issues at the end of a job. With regard to McGuire and Hester, there was no history of problems, and they had been in business for approximately 40 years in the Bay Area. Also, he had worked with them previously in another city and always had a good experience with them. The
09/14/98 87-160
project was an aberration, and he was not certain of the reasons for it. He believed it might have something to with the tremendous volume of work in the private sector and the fact that they were somewhat overbooked and overextended. Senior Engineer Joe Teresi said low bidders were evaluated by staff contacting the State Contractors License Board to make sure the license was current, whether there were any complaints on file, and references were checked from past work. All of that had been done for the project, and staff received no indication of anything to be concerned about with regard to performance of the contract. All of the fault could not be placed on McGuire and Hester. The job was not simply placing pipe in the ground, but that and the combination of the valley gutters and the resurfacing of the streets extended how long it took to complete the streets. Council Member Ojakian said the reason he asked the second question was because he imagined it had something to do with how busy construction was currently, and staff needed to keep that in mind while moving forward with other projects. He was not sure it was an aberration. Mayor Rosenbaum asked what the green lines on the visual chart meant. Mr. Roberts said the green lines represented grading, smoothing, and conforming of the dirt and gravel areas on the opposite side of the valley gutter up to the private property in order to create a smooth transition rather than leaving an abrupt drop off or edge. Mr. Teresi said much paving had to be done to conform to private driveways. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether that was part of the additional $50,000. Mr. Teresi said yes. The additional $50,000 was a combination of paving done on both sides of the valley gutter that extended beyond what was originally estimated because of the relative depth of the valley gutter in comparison to the pavement. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified that for the most part the work consisted of grading dirt except where it connected to a private driveway. Mr. Teresi said what was there was returned to its original condition. In some cases, people paved along the frontage of their homes to use as extra parking area. If that were the case, it had to be extended as well. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said one of the reasons for his e-mail was to establish a record of the nonperformance and unsatisfactory performance of McGuire and Hester. McGuire and Hester rarely gave
09/14/98 87-161
notice to the neighborhood. They did not give notice when they tore the street up but did when they paved it. The street was paved in early August and that morning, the City was tearing it up again. He commented on the bad workmanship and felt it could partly be due to being overextended. He displayed photos and
discussed several instances of McGuire and Hester=s lack of notice and unsatisfactory performance. In response to the question about how to contract, there was a process called C-Spec done by the Air Force which had specific milestones, payment apportionments, and ways of establishing how much and how well a job was done. Council Member Kniss asked if the Barron Park area had organized in some way to speak with one voice. Mr. Moss was surprised that the Barron Park Association had been silent on the issue. In talking to the neighbors, people were
livid. Everyone=s expectation was that when McGuire and Hester finished the project, Barron Park would be left with an incomplete project that would not stand the test of time. It might not be true, but it was the perception. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council increase the City
Manager=s or her designee=s authority to negotiate and execute one or more additional change orders to Contract No. C8098199 with McGuire and Hester, the total value of which change orders shall
not exceed $310,000. This represents an increase in staff=s authority from $260,000 to $310,000 for all change orders. Council Member Kniss said she understood from the City Manager that the change order was a very small piece of a large problem. She did not know how the problem could be prevented, but she felt that Barron Park residents needed an apology, and she could understand their frustration. The Barron Park area looked like many areas did after the flood, which must be frustrating, especially if there were another rainy winter. She hoped staff, with whatever means was available, could make it easier for the Barron Park residents and to somehow shorten the amount of time to complete the project. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Appointing Kathleen Hamilton as the Interim City Clerk MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Resolution.
Resolution 7795 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Appointing Kathleen Hamilton as the Interim City Clerk≅
09/14/98 87-162
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. 12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kniss noted the Utilities Department was soliciting participants for a Citywide Fiber to the Home trial. Each household received a flier with its utility bill, and she encouraged interested parties to respond by telephone, mail, or e-mail. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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.
09/14/98 87-163