HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-09 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting August 9, 1999 1. Joint Meeting with Public Art Commission re Public Art Slide Show..................................................88-469 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.............88-469 1. Drawing of the Ballot Order - General Municipal Election - November 2, 1999......................................88-470
2. Resolution 7887 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Thomas James
Rice≅ .................................................88-470 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................88-471 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................88-471 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Winzler & Kelly in the Amount of $72,400 for Consulting Services Related to Parking Structure Assessment and Downtown Maintenance Special Tax...................................................88-472
4. Resolution 7888 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Execution of First Amendment to the Open Space Easement Grant Deed of 1978 for Alta Mesa
Improvement Company (Alta Mesa Cemetery)≅ .............88-472 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of Item Nos. 1-8 of the City Auditor's Annual 1999-00, Audit
Plan, and that Item No. 9, ΑEffective Use of Managed
Competition,≅ return to the July 20, 1999, Finance Committee meeting for further discussion and recommendations about the focus of the audit. ..................................88-472 6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Shelton Roofing Company in the Amount of $72,084 for Cubberley Community Center Wings E and F Reroofing and Repair of Water-Damaged Plaster, CIP Project No. 19018........................88-472
08/09/99 88-466
7. Ordinance 4580 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for $432,200 for Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1999 for
Management and Confidential Employees≅ ................88-472
8. Resolution 7892 entitled ΑResolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto (Exclusion of Certain Hourly Classifications from PERS
Membership)≅ ..........................................88-473 9. Ratification of Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and California Land Management in the Amount of $73,500 for Park Ranger Services in Refuse Area, Byxbee Park, and Baylands Nature Preserve.......................................88-473 10. Request for City Council Authorization to Retain Search Firm for City Manager Recruitment..........................88-473 10A. Amendment No. Two to Special Counsel Services Agreement No. C7081794 Between the City of Palo Alto and Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Penbroke for Legal Services in Accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.070..................88-473 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ..................88-473 11. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation............................................88-474 12. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of buildout of Lot S/L for a Teen Center and office space, and direction on design appearance and massing for parking structures.........88-474 11A. (Old Item No. 14) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $265,000 for the Start-up Cost of the Residential Mix Paper Curbside Recycling Program...............................................88-474 11B. (Old Item No. 13) Referendum Petition Regarding Historic Preservation Ordinance No. 4571 - Amending in Full Chapter 16.49 PAMC (Historic Preservation Ordinance) and, Amending Section 16.52.040 (Flood Hazard Regs), Adding Chapter 18.18 (Special Standards for Single-Family and Two-Family Uses on the Palo Alto Register) and Amending Section 18.90.050 (Variances, Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits)..............................................88-480
08/09/99 88-467
15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........88-485 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m............88-485
08/09/99 88-468
08/09/99 88-469
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Ojakian Public Art Commission PRESENT: Barton, Brett, Eppstein, Langevin, Levin, Wasserman ABSENT: Dunlevie SPECIAL MEETING 1. Joint Meeting with Public Art Commission re Public Art Slide Show No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
08/09/99 88-470
Regular Meeting August 9, 1999 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, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Drawing of the Ballot Order - General Municipal Election - November 2, 1999 City Clerk Donna Rogers introduced Ann Addala, Youth Commission, who would be drawing the names for the ballot order. FULL-TERM 1. Judy Kleinberg 2. Mike Cobb 3. Edmund Power 4. Victor Frost 5. Nancy Lytle 6. Dena Mossar 7. Mark Heyer 8. Bern Beecham SHORT-TERM 1. Craig Woods 2. Bob Moss 3. Jim Burch 4. Phyllis Cassel
2. Resolution 7887 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Thomas James
Rice≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent. Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva honored Captain Rice for his accomplishments. Captain Rice was well respected and admired throughout the department. He carried out his responsibilities in a personal manner and was a mentor to many firefighters as a
supervisor and trainer. He oversaw the Fire Department=s physical fitness program for many years. There was no issue too great or too difficult to give to Tom Rice to tackle, from sensitive 08/09/99 88-471
personnel matters to the position of Acting Battalion Chief. As Acting Battalion Chief, Tom Rice had instant respect from the troops. He had experience, was reliable, and exhibited thoughtfulness and compassion in his decision making. He was an asset to the Fire Department for 30 years and would be greatly missed. Fire Captain Thomas Rice thanked the City Council for recognizing his memorable career. In the history of the Palo Alto Fire Department, only a few firefighters had the luxury of serving in the City in which they grew up. Because of living in Palo Alto, every day was special to him. Mayor Fazzino thanked Captain Rice for his outstanding public service and wished him well in his retirement. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Harold Justman, 836 Ramona Street, spoke regarding the design of the proposed daycare center on Ramona Street. Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the change of title from City Manager to Chief Executive Officer. Terry Trumbull, Santa Clara County Planning Commissioner, spoke regarding land use plans at Stanford. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. Daniel Moos, 925 Clara Drive, spoke regarding zoning violation. Murray Suid, 1111 Greenwood Avenue, spoke regarding democracy. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the August 11, 1999, City Council meeting. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, #701, spoke regarding Cable Co-op. John Lovas, 650 Coleridge Avenue, spoke about the City Manager selection process. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the minutes of June 15, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0-2, Huber, Schneider Αabstaining,≅ Ojakian absent. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the minutes of June 21, 1999, as submitted.
08/09/99 88-472
MOTION PASSED 4-0-4, Kniss, Huber, Rosenbaum, Schneider
Αabstaining,≅ Ojakian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 9 and 10A. Item No. 10 was continued to the August 11, 1999, Council meeting. 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Winzler & Kelly in the Amount of $72,400 for Consulting Services Related to Parking Structure Assessment and Downtown Maintenance Special Tax
4. Resolution 7888 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Execution of First Amendment to the Open Space Easement Grant Deed of 1978 for Alta Mesa
Improvement Company (Alta Mesa Cemetery)≅ 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of Item Nos. 1-8 of the City Auditor's Annual 1999-00, Audit
Plan, and that Item No. 9, ΑEffective Use of Managed
Competition,≅ return to the July 20, 1999, Finance Committee meeting for further discussion and recommendations about the focus of the audit. 6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Shelton Roofing Company in the Amount of $72,084 for Cubberley Community Center Wings E and F Reroofing and Repair of Water-Damaged Plaster, CIP Project No. 19018
7. Ordinance 4580 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for $432,200 for Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1999 for
Management and Confidential Employees≅
Resolution 7889 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1701 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations≅
Resolution 7890 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 7825, 7831, 7836 and 7873"
Resolution 7891 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 7813"
08/09/99 88-473
8. Resolution 7892 entitled ΑResolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto (Exclusion of Certain Hourly Classifications from PERS
Membership)≅ 1st Reading - Ordinance 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 (Exclusion of Certain Hourly Classifications from PERS Membership) Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to Add the Exclusions of Project Professional, Project Manager, Project Technician, Project Assistant, Project Laborer, Landscape Maintenance Trainee, Library Page, Recreation Leader, Water Safety Instructor/Lifeguard, and
Pool Manager from Membership in the Public Employees= Retirement System (PERS) 9. Ratification of Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and California Land Management in the Amount of $73,500 for Park Ranger Services in Refuse Area, Byxbee Park, and Baylands Nature Preserve Ratification of Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and California Land Management in the Amount of $38,000 for Park Ranger Services in Palo Alto's Urban Parks 10. Request for City Council Authorization to Retain Search Firm for City Manager Recruitment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $26,000 for Executive Recruitment Services 10A. Amendment No. Two to Special Counsel Services Agreement No. C7081794 Between the City of Palo Alto and Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Penbroke for Legal Services in Accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.070 MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Ojakian absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue Item No. 10 to the meeting of August 11, 1999. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent.
08/09/99 88-474
Mayor Fazzino announced that Agenda Item Nos. 12, 13, and 14 would be heard in reverse order. City Manager Fleming announced that Agenda Item Nos. 14 and 13 would become Item Nos. 11A and 11B. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) and (b)(3)(a) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 11. Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 11. 12. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of buildout of Lot S/L for a Teen Center and office space, and direction on design appearance and massing for parking structures Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $70,000 for Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study Capital Project Number 19530 MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to move Item No. 12 to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 11A. (Old Item No. 14) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $265,000 for the Start-up Cost of the Residential Mix Paper Curbside Recycling Program Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-1-FA, R-2, R-3, and R-4 Pertaining to Refuse Collection Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and PASCO for Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Handling Services
08/09/99 88-475
Amendment No. 13 to Contract No. 4688 Between the City of Palo Alto and PASCO in the for Refuse Collection and Recycling Amendment No. 3 Lease Between the City of Palo Alto and PASCO in for the Geng Road Facility City Manager June Fleming said when staff made the Council aware of the change in ownership in the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO), the Council gave staff helpful guidelines and suggestions as to the type of service the Council wanted to see continued in the City. The Council placed emphasis on the parts of the service that were important to the City. Staff kept the goals in sight during the negotiations, and the goals were achieved. Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said the contract was effective September 1, 1999, for a term of up to ten years. The initial term was seven years and ten months, and the Council had the ability to extend the term provided the performance and cost of service standards were met. The proposed contract provided for a continuation of the programs and services offered by PASCO, including back yard refuse and curbside recycling. Two additional routes would be added for cardboard collection and recyclable materials. A new curbside mixed paper recycling program would be added as well as an annual City-wide clean-up reuse and recycling
program. The programs would further the City=s AB 939 goals and objectives. Palo Alto currently recycled approximately 57 percent of waste stream. The proposed programs would increase that percentage about five or six points. Performance reviews would be performed four times during the term of the agreement and would focus on operational items, cost increases, benchmarking future year costs, and customer satisfaction. The contract recommended a new method of calculating compensation which established compensation based on the relationship between costs and profits. The cost of refuse collection and recycling services for FY 1999-2000 was below the adopted budget. Ms. Fleming said staff worked hard on the issue which was done in a friendly and professional way. She recalled several years prior when a waste collection audit was conducted by City Auditor Bill
Vinson. Mr. Vinson=s comments were taken into consideration, and staff did its best to apply the critiques. She thanked Mr. Vinson for his assistance in the process. Council Member Kniss said Palo Alto was a community that had a good
relationship with Αthe garbage men.≅ She asked if that relationship would change with the new agreement. Mr. Yeats said the relationship should not change because the local control would remain in effect. The appearance of the trucks, the drivers, and the pickup days would stay the same. Action would be taken if customer service standards were not met.
08/09/99 88-476
Council Member Kniss said the interaction and feeling of being a part of the community was critical. Mr. Yeats said communications between the City and PASCO representatives had improved, and the working relationship was better. Council Member Schneider asked whether the Council had the
Auditor=s report.
Ms. Fleming said the Auditor=s report was provided to her as the person in charge of the organization. Council Member Schneider was interested in reviewing the report. City Auditor Bill Vinson received the contract in mid-June and found built-in safeguards related to performance. The City adopted
the operating expense methodology recommended by the City Auditor=s Office in January 1995. The area of concern was in the analysis in coming up with a specific profit percentage. Heavy reliance was placed on the old study that was done by the consultants and the percentages reflected in the study. The information was not updated. The current proposal for the City reflected a 13.6 percent profit which, using the results from the prior study, was
almost the second highest in Santa Clara County. The Auditor=s Office suggested staff do more analysis and benchmarking to obtain more current figures. He was pleased to see a 2 percent band built into the contract but was concerned that 2 percent was too high since it could lead to as much as a 15.6 percent profit which was significantly higher than other Santa Clara cities. The profit methodology consistent with industry standards, the limiting duration in the contract, and the provision for financial adjustments for reported problems and service delivery were important components in the contract that made it a good agreement. Mr. Yeats said staff asked Mr. Vinson to participate in the performance reviews that staff would conduct. Council Member Schneider asked for information about the personal relationship with PASCO that was valued by Palo Alto. Richard Buchner, General Manager, PASCO, said nothing changed and incentive programs were the same. A commitment was received from USA Waste of California (a Waste Management Company) to stay the same. Council Member Schneider said there was recent news about financial problems that Waste Management might have. She asked whether that
would affect Palo Alto=s contract or services. Mr. Buchner said it would not affect the contract.
08/09/99 88-477
Council Member Huber asked for an explanation of the Αband≅ mentioned by Bill Vinson. Mr. Yeats said the band set a limit on how far the compensation could go up or down, based upon the calculated compensation. The Operating Ration (O/R) could drop to 86 percent which would be a benefit to the contractor or rise to 90 percent based upon the effectiveness. If the percentage went above the 90 percent or below the 86 percent level, either party would have the option of reopening and renegotiating. Council Member Rosenbaum noted that the company was listed as USA Waste of California (a Waste Management Company) and asked who owned what and who would be responsible. One item in the Council packet had to do with a $265,000 Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) which indicated that new crates would be provided to the residences. Mr. Yeats said that was correct; bins would be provided for the new mixed paper recycling program. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said new crates would be provided by the City rather than by the contractor. The crate would be a different color than the ones currently used for other recyclable materials. Council Member Rosenbaum said the staff report (CMR:337:99) mentioned the elimination of the dump pass and substituting that with an annual cleanup which he felt might produce adverse public comment. Mr. Roberts said the dump pass was tied directly to the implementation of the new cleanup/reuse/recycle program. It was his understanding that historically the dump passes were provided in lieu of a cleanup program. The new program, yet to be fully defined and structured, would supplant the activity of taking refuse to the dump. Council Member Rosenbaum said he thought the dump passes began as an incentive to encourage recycling and continued after curbside recycling. Ms. Fleming said some staff members thought the dump pass started when the City initially encouraged recycling. People were encouraged to go to the dump. The new program would do more to encourage recycling, but ways were found to give assistance to people who had difficulty. The staff recommendation was to eliminate the dump pass and use the funds for a good citywide program.
08/09/99 88-478
Council Member Mossar noted that the contract included expansion of recycling programs: mixed paper in the first year and No. 2 plastics in following years. Residents were interested in those programs for a long time. She wanted to make sure there was room in the contract and future contracts for further environmental initiatives, improved recycling, and conversion of diesel garbage trucks to alternative fuels. Mr. Roberts said staff was conscious of and looked for opportunities to pursue and would come back to the Council with recommendations for additional programs, subject to renegotiation. He suggested the City look at several issues, including AB939 attainment and the Sunnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer (SMART) station. Council Member Eakins liked the curbside recycling of mixed paper but questioned the white paper program. Mr. Roberts said the white paper program and commercial programs with businesses would continue. Deputy Director of Public Works Michael Jackson said white paper would be added with mixed paper and cardboard. Vice Mayor Wheeler said within the agreement, several performance reviews would be conducted during the initial period of the contract. Her understanding was that if PASCO failed the performance review, the City would be able to terminate the contract within 21 months of notification to PASCO. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the staff report (CMR:337:99) indicated that if the City had to find a replacement, staff estimated it would take at least three years to find a replacement. Mr. Roberts said the three years was an ideal recommendation which was intended to provide for twelve months of overlap. Council Member Kniss was interested in knowing what the incentive program was. Mr. Buchner said there were a number of jobs the employees needed to complete each day, and they received a small bonus for each day they considered a perfect day. The bonus was paid on a monthly basis. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) to provide
08/09/99 88-479
refuse and recycling services within the City of Palo Alto effective September 1, 1999, for a term of up to ten years. 2. Approve Amendment No. 13 to Contract No. 4688, Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and PASCO for Refuse And Recycling Collection, to address issues related to the change in ownership for the 1998-99 fiscal year and for two months of the 1999-00 Fiscal Year. 3. Approve revision to Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-1-FA, R-2, R-3, and R-4 authorizing certain charges for special services provided by PASCO to customers. 4. Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $265,000 to authorize additional expenditures in the Refuse Fund, primarily one-time expenditures for a new residential curbside mixed paper recycling program. The funding also includes the purchase of new crates for residential customers and for a new recycling sorting line, which is required in order to accommodate residential curbside mixed paper recycling. 5. Approve amending the lease for the Geng Road facility utilized by PASCO to recognize the transfer in ownership from Paul Madsen to USA Waste of California (a Waste Management Company).
Resolution 7893 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-1-FA,
R-S, R-3, and R-4 Pertaining to Refuse Collection≅
Ordinance 4581 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $265,000 for the Start-up Cost of the Residential Mix Paper Curbside Recycling
Program≅ Council Member Schneider hoped the relationship between Waste Management and PASCO continued as well as it had. Her service was excellent, and she heard no complaints from the community. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, Fazzino seconded, to continue the dump pass program. Council Member Schneider noted that the staff report (CMR:337:99) mentioned the dump pass was eliminated because it was a way to not fill up the dump too rapidly. She asked whether the dump pass
would affect any of the City=s requirements.
08/09/99 88-480
Mr. Jackson said the number of trips recorded to the dump during the past year was approximately 5,000 which equated to 12,000 cubic yards of material brought to the dump. Council Member Schneider did not support the amendment to include the continuance of the dump pass. Council Member Mossar supported the elimination of the dump pass noting that the City would arrange for an annual event where residents could get rid of extra materials. Additional pickup service could be requested for a fee. The dump pass outlived its need. Council Member Eakins did not support the amendment due to points mentioned in the staff report (CMR:337:99). Council Member Kniss was sympathetic to the desire to have a good pickup once a year, but thought people felt it satisfying to clean their garages and basements and get rid of the materials the same day. She supported the dump pass knowing it was a cultural expectation in the community. Mr. Yeats said staff would have to return to the Council with an amendment to the Municipal Fee Schedule.
Mayor Fazzino supported Council Member Rosenbaum=s amendment to maintain the dump pass program. The City should provide some incentives for people and benefits to the program. Palo Altans did
a great job of responding to the City=s AB 939 goals. AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-5-0, Mossar, Schneider, Wheeler, Huber, Eakins
Αno,≅ Ojakian absent. Mayor Fazzino said both staff and Waste Management/PASCO deserved tremendous credit for producing an outstanding agreement in a relatively short period of time. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent. 11B. (Old Item No. 13) Referendum Petition Regarding Historic Preservation Ordinance No. 4571 - Amending in Full Chapter 16.49 PAMC (Historic Preservation Ordinance) and, Amending Section 16.52.040 (Flood Hazard Regs), Adding Chapter 18.18 (Special Standards for Single-Family and Two-Family Uses on the Palo Alto Register) and Amending Section 18.90.050 (Variances, Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits) Council Member Schneider noted she would not participate in Item No. 11B due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Huber noted he would not participate in Item No. 11B due to a conflict of interest. 08/09/99 88-481
Council Member Kniss noted she would not participate in Item No. 11B due to a conflict of interest. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the referendum petition successfully gathered sufficient signatures to bring the matter back to the Council. The Council had several choices. If the Council had at least five votes to undo the former action, the Council could repeal the ordinance. Alternatively, the issue could go to the ballot for voters to decide whether it should become law. Under the Palo Alto Charter, the City could set the matter for a special election that was at least 88 days away or include it with a regular Council election. Because the regular Council election was scheduled in November as a consolidated election, the deadline for placing a matter on the ballot was the prior Friday. The next consolidated election would be in March of 2000 or the next regular Council election would be in November 2001. Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita Avenue, said several years prior, residents asked the City to place on the ballot an item regarding term limits. Term limits were approved by approximately 80 percent of the voters. The public wanted the historic preservation ordinance issue on the ballot. Repealing it was not an option for the Council. He found City employees who were afraid to sign the petition for fear of retribution within the City. He asked that the Council allow the issue to go to the ballot as quickly as possible. Richard Alexander, 435 Santa Rita Avenue, said the issue could be placed on the November ballot. The time limit had passed to consolidate it with the County election, but the City could pay to place it on the ballot and hold an election concurrent with the City election. Much money had already been spent. He understood the amount was in excess of $1 million. The City Clerk informed him the estimate to place the issue on the ballot in November was $100,000. There were many people who lost more than $100,000 waiting to get their houses renovated because of the interim ordinance. John Lovas, 650 Coleridge Avenue, was confused by the process. The City reached the point where an election was needed, and it made sense to hold the election in November. In response to comments in the Daily News in which Craig Woods wanted the City to stop action in relation to the waiting for the election, he suggested that was not an appropriate action. He did not know how he would vote on the matter, but one way he would decide was to see how the process
handled the next door neighbor=s house. The house was a small cottage with no insulation. He wanted to see how the process would address what he considered a difficult matter. As much information as possible should be provided to the public. The City needed to show a rationale process.
08/09/99 88-482
Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, said approximately 100 homeowner volunteers were involved in explaining the petition to friends and neighbors while gathering signatures. The referendum involved the entire community with volunteers from every neighborhood in the City: Crescent Park, College Terrace, Barron Park, Professorville, Green Meadows, Community Center, Old Palo Alto, Downtown North, and Southgate. Due to the July 4 weekend, timing for gathering signatures was short. Because of the outpouring of support from the community, over 4,100 signatures were submitted. That was a tribute to all the volunteers who spent their time and cared about their neighborhoods and the community. If they had a full 30 days, they would have gathered over 6,000 signatures. No referendum in Palo Alto, within memory, generated as much support. The referendum was not on historic preservation but on how the City handled the law. Everyone wanted to preserve the best historic resources but the way it was done should not be imposed against a
community=s will. The homeowners supported historic preservation but were opposed to the way the City imposed the law without offering homeowners reasonable choices. The homeowners of Palo Alto voluntarily restored the homes that the City wanted to take over. Good preservation required homeowner and community participation, consent, education and encouragement. The people of Palo Alto decided overwhelmingly to overturn the City Council decision on the mandatory and punitive law and send it to the ballot. The decision before the Council was how to respond to the petition and what direction to set until the ballot issue returned. The City spent over $1 million on the ordinance which was at a time when other less controversial projects went without necessary staffing or funds. The money did not go into the community, but rather for consultants and staffing. That was not the way historic preservation was done in the past in Palo Alto. With the petition, the community decided to protect its right to decide what was in its future. The historic ordinance was extended at least four times during the prior three years. He asked that, as the Council considered whether to allow the interim ordinance to extend further, the Council clarify for the community what the acceptable costs were. He questioned whether historic preservation should have a higher priority than transportation, traffic, the shuttle, parking, flood prevention and other programs. He asked what were the acceptable priorities for staffing and funding and acceptable programs. This was the time to reconsider how to proceed rather than continue with funding and staffing. He asked the Council to 1) put staffing and funding of historic preservation on the agenda for public discussion; 2) provide a complete accounting of the costs to date and results; 3) address the further extensions to the interim ordinance; and 4) not allow valuable community resources to be wasted before the decisions were made publicly and explained to the community. Kathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, said one of the reasons homeowners signed the petition to referend the historic preservation ordinance was that despite the discern of preservation
08/09/99 88-483
extremists, the democratic process was not followed at many points during the development of the ordinance. She questioned whether it was democratic for a group of handpicked activists to write the original ordinance in closed meetings, for homes to be nominated without notification to homeowners, for the City to hire a
consultant who Αspecializes in minimizing opposition to
controversial land use proposals,≅ for the City to send letters to thousands of homeowners telling them they would not be affected, or for the City to exclude the process from the City Council, Historic Resources Board (HRB), and Planning Commission without clarifying the conflict of interest rules and restructuring the HRB. Many of the HRB members were staunch advocates of the law; they derived income from homeowners affected by the ordinance; and they were allowed to lobby for more power. She asked whether it was democratic to have the interim law made permanent in February 1999 by declaring an emergency, thus avoiding requirements for notifying affected homeowners which made it immune to a referendum. Homeowners wondered whether the same process was continuing as programs and staffing decisions were made without representation from the groups that would be impacted. The head of the Friends of Preservation, which led the effort to defeat the referendum, claimed she was included in the interview process for a new full time preservation officer. It was unthinkable that the City would move forward with the preservation officer position after the petition drive was confirmed. The community spoke out against moving forward with the law. That was the democratic process. Marilyn Bauriedel, 3673 South Court, pleaded with the Council not to repeal the ordinance. She urged the Council to complete the inventory. The money spent on the consultant was not money wasted. The General Plan had a strong Historic Preservation element. A good inventory of the historic resources was a reasonable and professional thing to do for a variety of reasons. She believed
Kathy Woods= comments regarding the advisory committee were not true. She was on the advisory committee and it did not write the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO). That committee sat through
consultant reports, looked at other cities= ordinance, and made a report to the City in February 1998. The draft ordinance was written in May 1998 by the City Attorney. Elsie Begle, 501 Forest Avenue, attended the HRB meeting the prior day and was appalled with the discussion involving a homeowner with a home on a 40 foot lot, riddled with termites and dry rot. The homeowner wanted to demolish the house but it was considered historic. One of the members of the HRB informed the homeowner that he would have advantages if he retained the house. She felt it was unethical for the HRB to tout the new ordinance when it had not got to the public. The HRB was in limbo and should put off any further meetings until the matter was discussed. It was not fair for people to be given permission or no permission on the basis of an ordinance that might be overturned. The people of Palo Alto saw
08/09/99 88-484
that historic was not necessarily 50 year old houses that had little character. Hiring another historic architect concerned her. People should be able to do things to their houses without having to go through the onerous planning process. Ms. Furth responded to the suggestion that the City hold a special election in November. That was not possible because the State had a black out period for special elections which applied to charter cities unless their charter was in conflict with State Code. The Palo Alto Charter states the Council will observe general laws regarding elections. The first available date would be March 2000. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said he would prepare a report on the status of the interim ordinance, what staff was doing in the management of it, and the work performed by Dames & Moore which was to identify and clarify which properties should be on the Resource List or Register. The hiring of the Historic Preservation Officer did not involve a consultant but would be a staff member and the money for salaries was set aside in the current budget. The hiring process began with an oral board interviewing potential candidates. The oral board consisted of three staff members and three people from outside staff which included members from Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST), the HRB,
and the Board of Realtors. The oral board=s recommendation went to the Director of Planning and Community Environment who made the final decision. City Manager June Fleming said the issue was that the position was budgeted in the budget. As staff reviewed the compensation table, there might be a need to clarify the title of the position. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to give direction to the City Clerk to place the referendum on the ballot of a Special Election to be held at the time of the March 7, 2000, Primary Election. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the Council spent much time to pass an ordinance, there were a number of people in the community who questioned the wisdom of the ordinance, and others who expressed in writing that they wished to have the community express its opinion on the ordinance. She respected the referendum process and the fact that the larger community wanted to have a say in whether or
not the ordinance became law. It was the Council=s duty to let the democratic process proceed. Council Member Eakins concurred it was time to place the issue on the ballot. There was no reason to postpone the action. Mayor Fazzino said it would have been good to get the measure on the November 1999 ballot but that was not possible. The reality was that March 2000 was a time to place the measure on the ballot. He concurred with Vice Mayor Wheeler that the democratic process
08/09/99 88-485
was working. The City Council addressed a legitimate concern and spent several years developing an ordinance. Compromises were made, but certain segments of the community felt the Council had not compromised enough. The campaign would be spirited given the interest and rhetoric to date. He hoped that all sides of the measure would focus on the public policy issues and not attack
people=s motives. He did not want to have a bitterly divided community as a result of the measure. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider Αnot participating,≅ Ojakian absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to Wednesday, August 11, 1999, at 7 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.
08/09/99 88-486