HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-08 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting February 8, 1999 1. Appointment of Donna Rogers as City Clerk.............87-484 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission.........................87-484 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................87-484 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ......................................87-486 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Empire Equipment Company for Heavy Equipment Repairs...................87-486 5. Conference with City Attorney-Existing Litigation.....87-486 6. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation re Proposed Additions and Modifications to Electric Utility Public Benefit Programs..............................................87-486 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 22.04.035 to Title 22 (Parks) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize Enforcement by Park Rangers87-490 8. Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO)..................87-491 9. Response to Council Request Regarding Potential Cost Recovery Options for a One-Stop Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue................................................87-491 10. Council Members Mossar and Eakins re Wood Smoke.......87-495 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-497 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:20 p.m.......................................................87-498 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.......87-498
02/08/99 87-482
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 7:13 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Rosenbaum SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment of Donna Rogers as City Clerk MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7831 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. 7811 and Amended by Resolution No. 7825 to Amend the Salary and Benefits for the
Position of City Clerk≅ Mayor Fazzino welcomed Donna Rogers and announced that she came from the City of Brentwood where she has City Clerk since 1995. Donna Rogers thanked the Council and said she looked forward to serving the Council and public of Palo Alto.
Mayor Fazzino said Donna=s first day of work would be February 16, 1999. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Utilities Advisory Commission Interim City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Richard (Rick) Ferguson, Gerald (Jerry) Meek, David Morman, and Charles Powars received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, February 22, 1999. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Collier, 753 Alma Street, Apt. 325, spoke regarding housing. Jane Glauz, 152 Ely Place, spoke regarding affordable housing. Julie Cockroft, 930 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding affordable housing/PAMF. Glenna Violett, 95 Crescent Drive, spoke regarding housing. 02/08/99 87-483
Nancy Samelson, 841 Esplanda, Stanford, spoke regarding affordable housing. Mary E. VanPatten, 905 Van Auken Circle, spoke regarding affordable housing. June Pratt, 2901 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding affordable housing. Dr. Lee Helena Lawrence, 2241 Princeton Street, Mid-Peninsula N.O.W., spoke regarding affordable housing for families. Ruth Lacey, 2340 Cowper Street, League of Women Voters, spoke regarding affordable housing. Janet Owens, 850 Webster Street, spoke regarding housing. Jean McFadden, 407 Ferne Avenue, spoke regarding affordable housing. Joel Waldman, 753 Alma Place, #107, spoke regarding housing. Christina Conklin, 103 Amherst Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding housing. George L. Vizvary, 753 Alma Street, #321, spoke regarding affordable housing. Jeff Rensch, 741 Chimalus Drive, spoke regarding affordable housing. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, spoke regarding housing. Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, spoke regarding SOFA draft plan. Diana Steeples, 3198 Ramona Drive, spoke regarding PAMF/SOFA Plan. Dave Chambers, 148 Lois Lane, spoke regarding Palo Alto Model Railroad Club. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding fiscal responsibility. T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding 11 things Gregg Case might do to change society.
Kathleen Coakley, P.O. Box 598, spoke regarding Αspecial elections≅ in Palo Alto.
02/08/99 87-484
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of December 7, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Αabstained,≅ Rosenbaum absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 3, with Item No. 4 removed at the request of staff. 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Empire Equipment Company for Heavy Equipment Repairs 4. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $5,699 Grant from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $5,699 MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. CLOSED SESSION 5. Conference with City Attorney-Existing Litigation Subject: Chung Tang v. City of Palo Alto, et al. SCC# CV777417 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 6. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation re Proposed Additions and Modifications to Electric Utility Public Benefit Programs Paul Johnston, Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), said the staff report (CMR:136:99) addressed additions to the Electric Utility public benefit program. AB 1890 required that municipal utilities spend a percentage of utility revenues on certain types of programs which amounted to approximately $1.77 million per year. The issue was how the money should be spent. The staff report mentioned six programs: (1) Residential Resource Efficiency Program - $125,000; (2) Residential Online Energy Audits - $30,000; (3) Commercial Online Energy Audits - $30,000; (4) Business Retrofit Program - $421,000; (5) Photovoltaics for Palo Alto Incentive Programs - $100,000; and (6) Investment in Remote Renewable Generation Facilities - $250,000. Items (2) through (6) had UAC unanimous approval. The UAC did not believe item (1) was effective in terms of the energy savings benefit. Staff wanted to go forward on item
02/08/99 87-485
(1) because many surrounding utilities had such programs. There was a split vote on item (6) because, although staff felt the investment was a good thing to do, there were no specific benefits to Palo Alto. Director of Utilities Ed Mrizek said the Residential Resource Efficiency Program might not be the most efficient program; however, when AB 1890 was approved by the legislators, the municipal utilities had an opportunity to collect and spend funds at home. The City was trying to spend as much of the money as possible and to reach the residential class of customer. There was mention that some of the money be spent on Fiber to the Home (FTTH) but after conferring with the Legal Department, FTTH would not be authorized for the funds. Council Member Eakins said several years prior, former Mayor Jack
Sutorius had an idea that such funds could be used for Palo Alto=s retreeing efforts. Council Member Schneider referred to item (1) Residential Resource Efficiency Program and asked about incentives. Public Relations Manager Linda Clerkson said a variety of options were considered. A number of programs used by other cities were in place. Some of the utilities used rebates, performance contracting,
and finance replacement. The City=s plan was to have the incentives be customer driven, find out what the customers wanted and needed, and put together a package for the customer. Council Member Schneider asked how energy efficiency would be documented. Ms. Clerkson said in prior years the City had an appliance rebate program and used an organization called Electric and Gas Industry Association. The Association worked with other utilities and tracked levels of efficiency. Council Member Schneider recalled several years prior that photovoltaic cells were popular as tax dodges. She questioned whether photovoltaic cells were being considered as replacement for solar energy. Marketing Engineer Lindsay Joye said the program would offer incentives to residents and businesses interested in installing systems. The program was similar to what the state was running, and the program was available to all communities with the exception of municipal utility territories. The photovoltaic cells would generate and provide electricity to the home. Council Member Schneider noted that the staff report (CMR:136:99) said the Residential Resource Efficiency Program would take beyond
02/08/99 87-486
one year to reach the overall spending level that was budgeted. She asked whether the money accumulated each year. Mr. Mrizek explained the City received $1.77 million each year which was placed into a separate account. Money not spent in the current year would stay in the public benefit reserve until the money was spent. Assistant Director of Utilities Randy Baldschun pointed out that the utility bill statement listed a component called Public Benefits Charge. Council Member Schneider asked how much money was in the account. Mr. Baldschun said there was approximately $2 million in the account. One of the challenges of staff was to spend the money in a timely fashion, but developing, modifying, and expanding programs for customers took time. Council Member Kniss asked what the cost was to administer the program and who administered the program. Mr. Baldschun said there were administrative costs which were paid for out of the public benefit fund. When AB 1890 passed, staff looked at administrative costs and did not want to raise rates to do the programs. Council Member Kniss clarified that the costs to administer the program were included within the money collected. Mr. Baldschun said that was correct. Council Member Kniss asked what the cost was to administer the program. Mr. Baldschun referred to page 1 of Attachment A to the staff report (CMR:136:99) and said the Fixed Expenses amount was $326,000. Council Member Kniss asked how Palo Alto compared with other municipal utilities. Mr. Mrizek said other municipal utilities were studying the programs and putting similar programs together, and Palo Alto would do some comparisons along the way. Council Member Huber was surprised by the state mandate that money not spent was accumulated and said that was an unusual state legislative act. Mr. Mrizek said when the legislators approved AB 1890 deregulation, the legislators were concerned that investor-owned utilities would
02/08/99 87-487
try to lower their rates to be competitive when competition hit the State of California. The utilities were fearful that much of the research and programs that benefitted the public would disappear.
AB 1890 included a clause which said Αyou must collect this money
and you must spend it in this fashion.≅ Council Member Huber asked whether there was a timeframe for spending the money. Mr. Mrizek said Palo Alto would continue to accumulate $1.77 million per year; however, people would be looking at how Palo Alto was spending the money, and that was why the City wanted to put the program together and move forward. Council Member Huber said the $125,000 Residential Resource Efficiency Program appeared to be the biggest stumbling block for
the UAC. He asked whether that was for spending in one year=s time. Mr. Mrizek said the budget for one year was $125,000. Council Member Huber asked whether the Utilities Department, after Council approval, would be in a position to bring the results of the program back to the UAC at the end of the year. Mr. Mrizek said staff would continue to update the UAC on the results of the programs. Council Member Schneider asked whether AB 1890 required that there be a specific number of programs. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council approve the multi-year public benefit package as follows: 1. Public benefit programs with proposed modifications as described in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:136:99) 2. New public benefit programs as described in Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:136:99) 3. The resolution revising Rate Schedule C-4 to increase the Residential Rate Assistance Program discount from 15 percent to 20 percent.
Resolution 7832 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Modification to Utility Rate Schedule C-4 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and
Charges Pertaining to the Residential Rate Assistance Program≅ Council Member Mossar said because the program was new, there was an advantage in trying a number of different programs. She was
02/08/99 87-488
comfortable spending money in areas farther away from Palo Alto due to her belief that everyone benefitted from a healthy environment. Council Member Kniss said the mandate was interesting in that money had to be collected and spent on public benefit. The early part of the program sounded good and needed to be tracked for public benefit. Council Member Ojakian recognized Utilities Advisory Commission
(UAC) Commissioner Sahagian=s remarks about going through the
process of periodic benchmarking and Commissioner Johnston=s comments and influence on redirecting funds to consider the use of electric vehicles in Palo Alto. Council Member Huber had concerns similar to the UAC regarding several of the programs. He supported the motion on the assumption that good reporting would come back to the UAC and the Council. In an effort to spend the money, he expected the City would run into deadends and some of the programs might not work. Council Member Schneider supported the program, noting there would be a learning period. When she opened her business in Palo Alto, a City representative spent time with her on ways to save energy. The programs worked and were beneficial, and she hoped the community would continue to experience the benefits of such programs. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. ORDINANCES 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 22.04.035 to Title 22 (Parks) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize Enforcement by Park Rangers Council Member Schneider clarified the park rangers would not carry weapons. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Schneider asked whether there were more violations in the parks recently than in the past. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to introduce the ordinance.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 22.04.035 to Title 22
02/08/99 87-489
(Parks) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize
Enforcement by Park Rangers≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) Amendment No. 12 to Contract No. 4688 Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said at the November 16, 1998, City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to enter into discussions with Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) to
address the City=s concerns regarding a new refuse and recycling agreement. In addition, the Council directed staff to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with PASCO prior to March 1, 1999, which covered the agreed-upon scope and timeframe for finalizing a new agreement. The Council granted staff the
authority to give notice to PASCO regarding the City=s intent to terminate the existing agreement as of June 30, 2004, which would trigger the City to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit a vendor to provide refuse collection and recycling services. Staff and PASCO came to an agreement on the MOU, and staff recommended the Council 1) approve the MOU; approve Amendment No. 12 to the 1987 Refuse and Recycling Agreement to extend from March 1, 1999, to September 1, 1999, the date by which the City had to give notice of intent to terminate the agreement effective June 30, 2004; and 3) direct staff to continue negotiating a new agreement with PASCO, which would be presented to the Council prior to September 1, 1999. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council: 1) approve the MOU; 2) approve Amendment Number 12 to the 1987 Refuse and Recycling Agreement (1987 Agreement) to extend from March 1, 1999, the date by which the City must give notice of its intent to terminate the agreement effective June 30, 2004; and 3) direct staff to continue negotiating a new agreement with PASCO, which would be presented to Council prior to September 1, 1999. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. 9. Response to Council Request Regarding Potential Cost Recovery Options for a One-Stop Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue
02/08/99 87-490
Mayor Fazzino noted he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said when the City Council approved funding to acquire leased space and pay for associated costs to support a one-stop development center, the Council directed staff to return with an analysis and recommendation regarding full cost recovery for the Development Center. Staff responded to the request and recommended the City Council take several actions as noted in the staff report (CMR:135:99). Council Member Mossar noted there was a big differential among Building, Fire, Planning, and Public Works in terms of cost recovery. Mr. Yeats said overhead charges were allocated by full-time equivalent employees and the costs were based on how much administrative overhead a function used. The Planning Department required more administrative services which resulted in higher overhead charges, whereas the Building Division did not require as
much as the City Attorney=s or City Manager=s time which resulted in lower overhead costs. The disproportionate charge was based on the number of employees in a function. Council Member Mossar asked why Public Works was 378 percent and Planning was 174 percent. Mr. Yeats said the numbers had to do with what was considered cost recovery for the functions; for example, the Building Division was typically at 100 percent cost recovery and the Planning Department was at a lesser amount. Council Member Mossar clarified that historically the City tried to do full cost recovery for the Building Division but not for the Public Works or Planning Departments. Mr. Yeats said that was correct. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said it was not unusual for municipal governments not to have full cost recovery for planning functions. Council Member Schneider noticed that one of the recommendations was to implement an increase for new residential construction. She asked why there was no suggestion that remodels had to also increase. Chief Building Official Fred Herman explained that the increase was for new square footage. The $40 minimum fee would be for a kitchen remodel. A flat rate of five cents a foot would be used for a 2,000 square foot house or a 500 square foot addition.
02/08/99 87-491
Council Member Kniss recalled there was a desire to have the one-stop development center for several reasons. Comments regarding awkwardness and length of time required to obtain a permit were heard from people who attempted to build in the City. The City had not addressed that issue. She was interested in knowing what the response was from people doing development in the City and asked whether on-line processing would be incorporated into the program. Ms. Fleming said staff spent time justifying the permit development center item prior to bringing it to the Council. Comments were heard from the public regarding basic information as to automation and organization among departments. Staff came to the conclusion that one center would be more convenient and functional. Concerns raised by the Council included excessive costs and square footage. Ms. Harrison said members of the Permit Advisory Committee and Chamber of Commerce advocated for the Center and were supportive. The challenge for staff was to make the fees worthwhile so that
people would get their money=s worth when the center opened. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the lease was agreed to on the property the City was considering. Ms. Harrison said the lease was signed and tenant improvements were in the process of construction. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the Building Inspection Division was currently at full cost recovery prior to moving into the new facility. Ms. Harrison said the Building Inspection Division was not at full cost recovery. The City had not revised fees with each update to the budget, and staff was waiting to revise fees based on updates to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which left a gap of time that the City was not at full cost recovery. The City would institute an interim process to update the fees with each budget rather than waiting for the UBC updates. Council Member Ojakian asked whether overhead costs under the Mission Driven Budget (MDB) would be targeted to where they belong. Mr. Yeats said the conflict was the fact that the user fee study was done prior to the implementation of MDB which staff intended to update in order to have a more correct allocation of cost under MDB. Council Member Ojakian clarified the City had been allocating too much overhead to the Building Inspection Division which resulted in the same actual dollars somewhere in City Hall. Lowering the overhead dollars that went to the Building Inspection Division, which was at 100 percent cost recovery, and placing that money
02/08/99 87-492
somewhere else, might cause the dollars to be paid to areas that were not at full cost recovery. Mr. Yeats said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian said the City could end up with an expense back to the City. He asked whether that was limited to $63,000 which were the fees that would be raised to run the operation, minus expenses. Mr. Yeats said the study would be done on a citywide basis and would change how the City allocated overhead costs to each department. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the overhead dollar cost was known. Budget Manager Gigi Harrington said the total citywide overhead was approximately $12 million, a portion between the General Funds and Utility Funds. She did not expect the amount would change between the Funds but would change within the General Funds. Council Member Ojakian asked what the dollar amount was that would no longer go to the Building Inspection Division but would come back to the General Fund. Ms. Harrington said the total allocation to the General Fund was about $7 million with slightly more than $5 million allocated to the Enterprise Funds. A portion of the $7 million overhead factor would reallocate from Building to another function. Mr. Yeats did not know the exact number that would be reallocated because the formula had not been determined. Council Member Huber clarified $294,000 would be recovered, and full recovery of the one-stop center was short $63,000. Mr. Yeats said that was correct. Council Member Huber clarified staff proposed a citywide study of overhead. Mr. Yeats said that was correct. Staff recommended a portion of the study be conducted at the present time and a full analysis conducted during the next year. Vice Mayor Wheeler expressed concern when the item was originally before the Council. The business and professional building community supported and expressed willingness to pay fees for the Development Center in order for the City to approach full cost recovery. She was concerned about the potential impact of full
02/08/99 87-493
cost recovery on the homeowner who wanted to replace a heating system or remodel a kitchen. Mr. Yeats said the minimum permit fee increased from $25 to $40 and would cover an average repair or remodel. The fees for new construction would be adjusted. Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:135:99) provided an example of a new construction of 2,256 square feet with a $325 increase in fees, and the new fees for a commercial structure of 8,066 square feet would be $1,469. The burden would be on the commercial or large developer rather than on residential. Mr. Herman pointed out that a variety of options were considered. Staff had to consider what would be onerous and what the homeowner would be willing to pay and still get an inspection. Council Member Eakins referred to Item 3 on page 2 of the staff
report (CMR:135:99) ΑDirect staff to revisit the issue of cost
recovery levels.≅ She asked whether staff could study the issue with respect to the one-stop center without having Item 3 included at the present time. Ms. Fleming recommended Item 3, but the Council could choose to direct staff to include the item as part of the budget process. Council Member Kniss asked for a report in the future on the electronic ability to communicate with City Hall for permits. Ms. Harrison said the staff was at the forefront of the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Smart Permitting. Palo Alto was leading the effort with Sheila Lee of the Building Inspection Division, and she would be pleased to provide the Council with an update. Council Member Kniss was pleased to hear that the City was working with Joint Venture on the process which, long term, could make a dramatic difference in how a permit was obtained and substantially lower the cost in due time. Council Member Schneider was curious to find out how many square feet of residential remodeling took place in a given year, such as the prior year, and what the additional charge would be to the homeowner if the five cents a square foot was charged. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Eakins, to refer the citywide cost recovery item to the Finance Committee for analysis including cost. Further, to direct staff to return to the Finance Committee with the Midyear Report with a plan to recover the $63,000 in costs that are not currently recommended to be recovered through fees. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent.
02/08/99 87-494
COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Members Mossar and Eakins re Wood Smoke Council Member Mossar said wood smoke was a significant public health issue in the Bay Area and in Santa Clara County specifically. In the winter months, estimates of up to 50 percent of the pollution people were breathing were the result of wood smoke in Santa Clara County. As a health hazard, wood smoke affected primarily children, the elderly, and people with cardiac and respiratory conditions. The Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD) presented a model ordinance to cities in the nine-county Bay Area region for consideration in the hopes the cities would adopt their own ordinances to allow cities to participate in controlling pollution created by wood smoke. The
Colleague=s memo, dated February 8, 1999, requested the issue be referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney for consideration. Council Member Eakins received a post card in December from a young Barron Park resident, Sharon Fender, indicating she was struggling with the quality of air when wood burning devices were used. Ms. Fender had asthma and was unable to rake leaves or play basketball outside. She recalled that the Council had spent much time on the issue of wood smoke during the Comprehensive Plan studies. Page N-
20, Natural Environment 20, Policy N-27 stated, ΑReduce emissions of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity,
automobiles and other sources.≅ Program N-42 required all new wood burning stoves or fireplace inserts to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved standards. Another program dealt with homeowner education and public information programs. The Council had done major policy work on the issue. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, that the City Council recommend that the City Manager and City Attorney be directed to investigate the feasibility of a local ordinance designed to protect Palo Altans from the health risks of wood smoke pollution, report back with information on similar ordinances from other communities, and recommend to Council an ordinance which will reduce wood smoke pollution. Council Member Huber asked about a model ordinance drafted by the BAAQMD. Council Member Mossar would distribute copies to the Council Members. Martin Bernstein, P.O. Box 1739, said the Council was wise to consider legislation that could affect the air quality. He spoke about Rumford fireplaces which were mentioned specifically in the Uniform Building Code because of their inherent proportions that created an efficiency in wood burning. When Rumfords were
02/08/99 87-495
originally introduced in the United States, there was no option of forced air heating systems which resulted in the need for efficient fireplaces. He requested the Council direct staff to consider exempting Rumford fireplaces from any ban on new construction, to allow existing Rumfords to be repaired and replaced if they were damaged, and to allow Rumfords to be constructed on historic properties. The EPA had not specifically tested Rumford fireplaces but had a provision in its standard that 100 year old buildings with Rumfords were allowed to be exempt from regulation. The EPA normally only tested fireplaces that were brought about through legal requests to do so. Council Member Kniss said Council Member Mossar indicated that Los Gatos and Saratoga had adopted ordinances. She would like those to come back to the Council with a report on how the ordinances were measured and enforced. Council Member Schneider said Oregon had an ordinance in place regarding wood burning that covered the entire state. Businesses were not allowed to sell fireplaces that did not meet the Oregon standards. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kniss asked staff to respond to a letter regarding a home located on Tevis Place and Center Drive thought to be a Birge Clark adobe. She clarified the home was not a Birge Clark, nor an adobe, and had been impossible to retrofit. Further, she asked staff to prepare an information report regarding the Lucky Store expansion and redevelopment of the plaza. Council Member Mossar noted she had also received inquiries regarding the redevelopment. People were under the impression the redevelopment was not proceeding because of the City. Council Member Schneider thanked her colleagues for their understanding of her recent absences and noted she would be absent on February 22 and 23 for a buying trip. Mayor Fazzino noted the Council was scheduled to discuss the Historic Preservation Ordinance on February 16 and 17, 1999. On February 16, the City Manager and Planning Director would comment on the following: 1) the need to recirculate the Environmental Impact Report; 2) request direction from Council on a new Interim Historic Ordinance beginning April 1, 1999; and 3) review a draft of the proposed Permanent Historic Ordinance. He also noted that the February 16, 1999, Council meeting would be cablecast live on Channel 77, and the February 17, 1999, Council meeting would be cablecast live on Channel 16. The overflow crowd would be
02/08/99 87-496
accommodated at City Hall in the Council Conference Room and Lobby, and a shuttle would be provided between the two sites. Council Member Ojakian, on behalf of the Council, thanked Kathi Hamilton for her help during the past months as Interim City Clerk. Mayor Fazzino also thanked Ms. Hamilton and welcomed new City Clerk Donna Rogers to Palo Alto. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:20 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 5. Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 5. FINAL ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 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.
02/08/99 87-497