HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-03 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting May 3, 1999 1. Leaf Blower Demonstration.............................88-194 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.............88-194 1. Appointments to Public Art Commission.................88-195 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................88-196 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................88-196 2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Paradiso Mechanical for Underground Fuel Storage Tank Upgrades............88-197
3. Ordinance 4557 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Add Section 16.52.165 and to Amend Sections 16.52.020, 16.52.040, 16.52.060, 16.52.100, 16.52.110, 16.52.120, 16.52.130, 16.52.150, 16.52.170, 16.152.180, 16.52.190 and 16.52.200 of Chapter 16.52 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Conform to Current Minimum
Standards of the National Flood Insurance Program≅ ..88-197
4. Ordinance 4558 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 10.04 [Definitions], Chapter 10.36 [Stopping, Standing and Parking - Generally], Chapter 10.40 [Stopping, Standing and Parking - Loading and Unloading], 10.44 [Stopping, Standing and Parking - Prohibited and Restricted] of Title 10 [Vehicles and Traffic] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Vehicle
Parking≅ ..............................................88-197 5. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court on Haggis v. City of Los Angeles........88-197 6. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal on Circle K Ranch Corp. v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County...................88-197 7. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....88-197
05/03/99 88-192
8. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....88-197 9. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation re Financing the Next Phase of Storm Drainage Improvements...........................88-197 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........88-204 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to Closed Session.......................................................88-204 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.......88-204
05/03/99 88-193
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at Rinconada Park at 5:40 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Schneider SPECIAL MEETING 1. Leaf Blower Demonstration ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
05/03/99 88-194
Regular Meeting May 3, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to Public Art Commission Council Member Eakins commented on the numerous candidates with strong backgrounds, which made the selection more difficult. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BRIAN BOLITHO: Fazzino VOTING FOR GERALD BRETT: Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler, Huber, Eakins, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR MICHAEL CHACON: VOTING FOR TONY EPPSTEIN: Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler, Huber, Eakins, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR PATRICE LANGEVIN: Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler, Huber, Eakins, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR DAVID LEVIN: Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler, Huber, Eakins, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR PATRICK FORD: VOTING FOR BAKER MOOREFIELD: VOTING FOR JUDITH MOORMAN: VOTING FOR BARBARA MORTKOWITZ: VOTING FOR JUDITH WASSERMAN: Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler, Huber, Eakins, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR SYBREN (ALEX) WRIGHT: City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Gerald Brett, Patrice Langevin, David Levin, and Judith Wasserman each received seven
05/03/99 88-195
votes and were appointed to three-year terms, and Tony Eppstein received six votes and was appointed to the unexpired term on the first ballot. Mayor Fazzino congratulated the appointees. He was happy to see such a high degree of community interest and high quality candidates. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Drive, spoke regarding politics. City Attorney Calonne spoke about the St. Ann Chapel issue, stating staff concluded that St. Ann Chapel was within Professorville and subject to a one-year demolition moratorium under existing law, which addressed the concern at that time. Mayor Fazzino announced to those who had not attended the State of the City Address, that an agreement was reached between the Catholic Diocese and the Luce Foundation regarding the sale of St. Ann Chapel and preservation of the building as a historic structure. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Ann Elise Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding recycling bins in City-owned parking lots. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of February 22, 1999, as submitted. Council Member Mossar did not participate on Item No. 9 on the February 22, 1999, Council Minutes due to a conflict of interest. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of March 1, 1999, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-6.
05/03/99 88-196
2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Paradiso Mechanical for Underground Fuel Storage Tank Upgrades
3. Ordinance 4557 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Add Section 16.52.165 and to Amend Sections 16.52.020, 16.52.040, 16.52.060, 16.52.100, 16.52.110, 16.52.120, 16.52.130, 16.52.150, 16.52.170, 16.152.180, 16.52.190 and 16.52.200 of Chapter 16.52 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Conform to Current Minimum
Standards of the National Flood Insurance Program≅ (1st
Reading 4/19/99, PASSED 8-0, Schneider Αnot participating≅)
4. Ordinance 4558 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 10.04 [Definitions], Chapter 10.36 [Stopping, Standing and Parking - Generally], Chapter 10.40 [Stopping, Standing and Parking - Loading and Unloading], 10.44 [Stopping, Standing and Parking - Prohibited and Restricted] of Title 10 [Vehicles and Traffic] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Vehicle
Parking≅ (1st Reading 4/19/99, PASSED 9-0) 5. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court on Haggis v. City of Los Angeles
6. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal on Circle K Ranch Corp. v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County, No. B124996 MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 7. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Phillip Spalletta v. City of Palo Alto, Case No. C-98-20717PVT Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 8. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Martin v. Fernandez et al., Case No. C-99-1608CW Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 9. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation re Financing the Next Phase of Storm Drainage Improvements
05/03/99 88-197
Council Member Mossar said the Finance Committee reviewed the project and unanimously supported the staff recommendation. The
Committee=s direction was that the project move forward in a timely
manner to take advantage of the public=s interest in flood control issues, that the public understand the benefits of the proposed expenditure, and that staff return to the Council with a report outlining the benefits in more detail. She thanked staff for the work that went into the report which she felt was helpful in reviewing the projects. Public Works Senior Engineer Joe Teresi reflected on the concerns raised by the Finance Committee. The Committee directed staff to
describe the extent and severity of the deficiencies in the City=s storm drainage system and the effectiveness and benefits of staff proposed programs to improve the storm drainage system. The overall picture was for staff to look at the storm drainage system both in terms of engineering studies and real life experience, and
identify what improvements were necessary to bring the City=s system up to a 10-year storm standard. The projects were then prioritized to be implemented over a 30-year period costing $48 million. Implementation required ratepayer approval for a fee increase from the current storm drainage fee of $4.25 per household per month to $10 in 2001, $11, in 2002, and no more than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) thereafter. As a result of Proposition 218 passed by the California voters in 1996, the fee increase would require a majority vote. He discussed the recommended storm drain infrastructure improvements as addressed in the staff report (CMR:227:99) while displaying overhead projections which showed the
storm drainage problems that occurred during the City=s wet winter periods. An inadequate storm drainage system had a negative effect on the community which caused traffic problems, property damage, reduced pavement life, and added development costs to existing land. He referred to the maps attached to the staff report, Attachments A - D, which illustrated drainage service call concentrations from 1994-1998, flood basement locations, storm water pump stations, and proposed improvements to correct drainage deficiencies. The conclusion was that the northern and eastern parts of the City had the most severe problems. Mary Schaefer, 742 DeSoto Drive, reminded the Council that there were many Palo Alto property owners who did not have basements that were devastated by both the storm drains and the flood potential, and basements should not be the only qualifying guideline. She said the problems were with storm drains and floods and hoped in trying to solve one problem, the other would not become more complicated. She said there were about 10 homes at the end of DeSoto Drive that were severely affected by the backup of the storm drain. She did not see those listed with other corrections such as Greer Road and Walter Hayes Drive. Council Member Mossar said the Finance Committee discussed at great length the relationship between the storm drains and flooding and
05/03/99 88-198
what actions the City might take that caused problems for other communities. Staff assured Council that project decisions would be made in the context of the Joint Powers Authority (JPA). She also understood from Public Works Director Glenn Roberts that since storm drains were sized to the 10-year flood, and the creek when completed would be sized to less frequent by definition, the flood took precedence in a serious storm event. Council Member Rosenbaum said staff mentioned in connection to the pump station proposed for San Francisquito Creek, that approvals would be required. Until San Francisquito Creek was repaired, he asked what the probability was of the pump station going into effect since East Palo Alto might react adversely to 200 cubic feet per second additional flow into the creek. Public Works Director Glenn Roberts said he could not give a definitive answer on timing because staff needed to see how the JPA and improvements to the creek progressed. The plan was for 30 years and the time line for Cedar Creek was in the context of 5 to 10 years. The goal was to integrate the two activities without causing harm. Staff would identify some operating parameters for lower frequency events so the drainage from an area and the potential pump station could operate when the creek was at certain levels. It needed to be designed and evaluated through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process and returned to all appropriate bodies for review and approval. Council Member Rosenbaum asked, without the pump station, what the potential was for effecting any significant improvement in storm drainage in the northeast part of Palo Alto. Mr. Roberts said the pump station was necessary to provide the ultimate solution, but there were interim steps that could be taken leading up to the decision to build the pump station such as relocating the 96-inch outfall just downstream of East Bayshore. The siting of the pump station could be considered an interim step to relocate that outfall to the future pump station location: 1) providing a better location to the outfall, 2) operating the pump station under proper parameters, and 3) building a pump station. Council Member Ojakian asked how the ballot process would work. Manager of Investments and Debt Jim Steele said first it would have to be determined that the fee structure was legitimate in terms of charging each property the proportionate share of storm drain costs. Once the rate structure was validated, an educational outreach process would be done and a mail ballot procedure which could be as simple as a utility bill stuffer. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the ballot procedure was Citywide and a majority of people had to return the ballot approving the increase.
05/03/99 88-199
Mr. Steele said yes. Council Member Ojakian was concerned about how the procedure would be administered because if the ballot came as a utility stuffer, it might go straight into the trash. He hoped there would be some careful noticing to the citizens. Mr. Steele said that would be part of the public outreach including the timing and packaging of the ballot. Council Member Ojakian asked about the $60,000 for a staff person to deal with the storm drain data and the $85,000 per year for 10 years for a dedicated creek liaison. He asked for an explanation of the two positions in more detail. Mr. Roberts said the first position involved the daily administration of the storm drain fee program, the assessment and collection of the fees, and keeping the data entry correct for the different properties throughout the City. Single-family residential homes had a standardized fee, while the larger parcels needed to be analyzed, reviewed, and calculated for the percentage of impervious area which required proper administration. When the new fee structure went into place, it needed to be administered properly. The second position was an advocacy toward a project as yet to materialize which were improvements to San Francisquito
Creek. Staff=s opinion was that as the project moved forward, it would be crucial for Palo Alto to have the resource in a strong advocacy position for its desires, needs, and environmental concerns about the creek. Currently, that was being handled by the City Manager, Mr. Teresi, and himself, but as that project developed, an additional resource would be necessary for management. The position would not be necessary if the project did not transpire. Council Member Ojakian clarified that the position would take seven to ten years working full-time. Mr. Roberts said yes. Preliminary estimates showed that the project at $50 million to $100 million depended on the alternative selected, the implementation, the EIR process, and construction issues. MOTION: Chairperson Huber for the Finance Committee, recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation re Financing the Next Phase of Storm Drainage Improvements to: 1) Provide for: a) an augmented maintenance repair, and rehabilitation program, estimated at $480,000 annually, beginning in 2000-01, b) funding for San Francisquito Creek liaison work, studies, and minor repairs over the next seven to ten years until a regional flood and erosion control solution can be found for San Francisquito Creek, and c) an annual capital budget funded on a pay-as-you-go basis such that all critical and moderate Storm Drainage Master Plan priorities, totaling $48 million, would be completed in approximately 30 years; 2) Direct staff to work towards the goal of seeking ratepayer 05/03/99 88-200
approval for a Storm Drainage Rate increase in approximately one year; and 3) Direct staff to return to the Finance Committee with a Scope of Services for a Request for Proposal for consulting services to: a) validate the existing storm drainage fee structure for compliance with Proposition 218, and b) work with staff to conduct a public education and awareness effort on the status of the Storm Drainage Fund and the proposed rate increase. Further, that staff be directed to provide the Council with additional information addressing the concerns raised by the Finance Committee, particularly the technical issues.
Council Member Rosenbaum said due to Proposition 218, the City=s role changed from making the decision to making sure the public received correct information upon which to make a decision. He did not know what coordination with Santa Clara County Valley Water District (SCVWD) meant, but the City needed to work with SCVWD to avoid an adverse public relations aspect with regard to either election. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Mossar to amend the Finance Committee recommendation such that the timing of the election with storm drain be coordinated with Santa Clara Valley Water District, information to the public should state that the improvements do not deal with flooding issues relating to creeks, and the concept was to reduce but not prevent street flooding caused by the deficiency in the storm drain system. Council Member Huber asked whether the SCVWD was required to put the issue on the ballot as a bond issue. Council Member Rosenbaum said it would be a mail ballot and asked how that would be coordinated with the SCVWD. Council Member Rosenbaum said the timing would cause more confusion. The public would be faced with two ballot measures relating to the flood. He was not suggesting the measures be on the same ballot or by mail ballot, but the issue was a general issue of coordination. As he mentioned earlier, he did not know what successful coordination would be. Council Member Mossar was concerned that there was a number of proposals which would be going through a similar process with the voters, and as yet the City had not reviewed or coordinated its own
projects, not to mention the SCVWD=s project. If the City was not careful, the voters would be confused or overwhelmed, and because of the sensitivity of the flood issue, staff needed to be sure that
both the City=s ballot initiative and SCVWD=s passed. If the SCVWD ballot initiative did not pass, without creek improvements the City would be unable to do anything to address the issues.
05/03/99 88-201
Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the SCVWD knew, within some parameters, when the issue would go to the electorate on a bond issue. Council Member Rosenbaum said it would be on the same order as Palo
Alto=s, within the next 12 months. Mr. Roberts said in recent discussions, the SCVWD was focused on March 2000, but as yet had not finalized the date. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that would be about the same timing as
Palo Alto=s. If the Council took action that evening, it would take about 12 months from Council direction to ballot. She would not support the amendment if Council Member Rosenbaum meant the two should be simultaneous. Council Member Rosenbaum said he did not mean for the measures to be simultaneous. Coordination meant communicating with the SCVWD
about its plans, fitting in Palo Alto=s plans with the SCVWD=s, and making sure it was understood that the City would be going to the public with something almost identical in magnitude. Council Member Ojakian opposed the amendment. He was not sure whether staff was being provided with clear direction by using the
word Αcoordinate.≅ He believed staff got the general idea and would talk with the SCVWD to accomplish the best for both the City and the County. He assumed staff would do what was correct. Council Member Huber believed the community needed to be advised that what the City was proposing was not a flood control issue and assumed that would happen. He felt timing was more important than coordination, but he did not know how that would to be done. He opposed the amendment. Council Member Rosenbaum withdrew the portion of the amendment regarding coordination. He further clarified that staff include in the information to the electorate two points: 1) the City had no intention to deal with flooding creeks, and 2) improvements would not prevent street flooding associated with an event of the magnitude of the February 1998 event. Council Member Mossar said included in the staff recommendation was to hire a consultant to ensure that the rates set were consistent with Proposition 218 and to help with the public outreach and put the campaign together. She believed both pieces related to direction to the consultant: 1) to consider what the SCVWD was doing as it related to Palo Alto, and 2) to ensure the public outreach campaign included explicit wording about the benefit to the community and its relationship to flooding. She asked whether it would be useful to clarify that direction to the consultant as
part of the consultant=s work. She supported the amendment.
05/03/99 88-202
Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats restated that it would
be a public outreach effort, and once the Engineer=s Report and rate structure on what the storm drainage system would do, that information would return to the Council before the ballots were sent out. All of that information would be clearly laid out as to what the capability of the system would be at the time of the ballot. Council Member Huber asked whether the proposed ballot language with assigned numbers would return to the Council before being mailed, in case the Council did not like the way the wording was framed. Ms. Fleming understood that City Clerk Donna Rogers had experience with Proposition 218, and that the ballot would return to Council in some form before being finalized. Mayor Fazzino would not support the amendment. He appreciated the need to coordinate with the SCVWD and felt staff understood.
Council Member Rosenbaum=s last two items were reasonable conclusions, but it was premature for the Council to adopt those as policy statements until it could review the ballot measure proposals. It would be responsible for the Council as public officials to make that an important part of the campaign and preferred to wait until that juncture came about. A campaign could then be put together based upon the facts and objectives of the Storm Drainage program. If the Council were not honest with the constituency, they would not support what was put before them.
Council Member Eakins echoed Mayor Fazzino=s comments and would not support the amendment. AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Rosenbaum, seconded by Mossar, that information to the public should state that the improvements would not deal with flooding issues relating to creeks, and the concept was to reduce but not prevent street flooding caused by the deficiency in the storm drain system associated with an event of the magnitude of the February 1998 event. AMENDMENT FAILED 3-4, Rosenbaum, Ojakian, Mossar Αyes≅, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. Mayor Fazzino thanked the Finance Committee and staff for their fine work. It was unfortunate that an issue with such significant ramifications attracted such little attention from the public. Putting into place an adequate storm drainage system for the citizens of Palo Alto was one of the most important decisions the Council would make during the course of the year, and it would be a challenge to get approval from the citizenry. The issues Council Member Rosenbaum raised would be important, and it was also
05/03/99 88-203
important that the Council play a real leadership role in making the effort a reality. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8 Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 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.
05/03/99 88-204