HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-08 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 8, 1999
1. Proclamation Calling Upon Palo Altans to Honor Palo Alto=s War
Veterans on Veterans= Day 1999 ........................89-161 2. Proclamation Welcoming Andre Casalis to Palo Alto During This
Week of Veterans= Day 1999 ............................89-161 3. NOVA Private Industry Council Regarding the Helen Putnam Award......................................................89-161
4. Resolution 7899 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to Be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to Their Proposed Destruction or
Removal≅ ..............................................89-162 5. Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Harris and Associates in the Amount of $96,500 for Consulting Services for Storm Drainage Fee Election and Public Outreach and Storm Drainage and Street Sweeping Fee Analysis...89-162 6. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................89-162 6A. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation............................................89-162 7. Human Relations Commission Regarding Proposed Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Request......................89-162 8. Approval of Resolutions Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointees, Classified Employees, Police Employees, Fire Employees and Fire Chief's Association Management Personnel.........89-170 8A. (Old Item No. 5) Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Harris and Associates in the Amount of $96,500 for Consulting Services for Storm Drainage Fee Election and Public Outreach and Storm Drainage and Street Sweeping Fee Analysis ......................................................89-171
11/08/99 89-159
9. Council Members Huber and Eakins re Art in City Projects89-172 10. Mayor Fazzino and Vice Mayor Wheeler re Formation of a City Manager Recruiting Committee..........................89-172 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........89-174 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 9:15 p.m.......................................................89-174 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m......89-174
11/08/99 89-160
11/08/99 89-161
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconference at 7:10 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Proclamation Calling Upon Palo Altans to Honor Palo Alto=s War
Veterans on Veterans= Day 1999 2. Proclamation Welcoming Andre Casalis to Palo Alto During This
Week of Veterans= Day 1999 3. NOVA Private Industry Council Regarding the Helen Putnam Award ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tom MacFadyen, 1225-380 Vienna Drive, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding ERUV. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding suburban politics. Nonette Hanko, 3172 Emerson Street, spoke regarding the Bressler property. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding a special exemption in residential zoning codes. Karen Cotter, 120 Alma Street, #4, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Bressler property. Jeb Eddy, 2579 Cowper Street, spoke regarding local transportation. Kathleen Coakley, P.O. Box 598, spoke regarding the Bressler Property and the Boy Scouts. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of September 27, 1999, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve
11/08/99 89-162
Consent Calendar Item No. 4.
4. Resolution 7899 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to Be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to Their Proposed Destruction or
Removal≅ 5. Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Harris and Associates in the Amount of $96,500 for Consulting Services for Storm Drainage Fee Election and Public Outreach and Storm Drainage and Street Sweeping Fee Analysis MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Council Member Rosenbaum requested the removal of Agenda Item No. 5 from the Consent Calendar. City Manager June Fleming announced that Consent Calendar Item No. 5 would become Item No. 8A. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and Jay Rounds Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 6A. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation Subject: Potential initiation of litigation on one separate matter Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(c) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 7. Human Relations Commission Regarding Proposed Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Request City Manager June Fleming said staff had forwarded the Human Relations Commission (HRC) proposed anti-discrimination ordinance request as an information-only item.
11/08/99 89-163
Human Relations Commission Member Andrew Pierce said the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) directed the HRC to be concerned with public and private opportunities including such items as housing, employment, education, and governmental services and benefits. The PAMC further directed that factors of concern to the HRC included socioeconomic class or status, disabilities, marital status, age, sex, sexual preference, race, religion, and philosophical belief. The anti-discrimination ordinance proposed by the HRC for study and adoption went to the heart of the issues of the HRC charter. The issue was first raised when the HRC studied Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action State initiative. The HRC worked in
conjunction with the City Attorney to determine whether the City=s current affirmative action plans should be changed to comply with the law and to ensure that changes were not going beyond what was necessary to comply. In the process, affirmative action and anti-discrimination provisions were found in the area of purchasing but were not explicit in other areas. Another issue was found regarding the renewal of the Boy Scouts and Sea Scouts lease. At that time, the HRC had not taken a position either for or against renewal of the leases. Council Members had privately indicated a desire for the HRC to examine the general policy of the City with regard to leasing of property, so the City Attorney made comments to that effect as well. The HRC formed a subcommittee to study the ordinance, much of which was conducted on-line, and several comprehensive anti-discrimination ordinances were found in other cities. The only discrimination ordinances in Palo Alto were the HRC enabling act, the purchasing provision, and a provision prohibiting discrimination by private landlords against families with children. The PAMC contained no common definitions, no definition of discrimination, no common set of penalties, and
nothing comprehensive of any kind. The City of San Francisco=s
ordinance was very comprehensive, and Cook County=s ordinance covered some of the topics in which the HRC was interested. The HRC came up with and presented a proposal to the Council in January 1999 at its joint meeting. After publicity via newspapers, a public hearing was held on May 13, 1999, at which time several members of the public were able to speak. At the time, the HRC considered exceptions, exemptions, and some modifications both to broaden and narrow the ordinance in light of public comment. The HRC reaffirmed its unanimous adoption of its recommendation. A number of cities in the Bay Area had ordinances, including San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward, and Santa Clara County. Other cities in California with ordinances included Santa Monica, Long Beach, Anaheim, and Los Angeles. Cities with ordinances in the greater United States included Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; Roanoke, Virginia; Galesburg, Illinois; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Aspen, Colorado. The question of whether Palo Alto should have an ordinance affirming nondiscrimination could be answered based on a survey of nonprofit organizations in Palo Alto conducted by the Kiwanis Club. The Kiwanis Club asked organizations to rank five
11/08/99 89-164
major needs in the community in order of importance. The result of the survey indicated 62 percent of respondents said neighborhood perceptions of differences were a problem in the community and 64 percent said discrimination was a problem in the community. The proposed ordinance was comprehensive, providing common definitions for terms, exceptions as appropriate, common prohibitions and remedies, sought to avoid preemption by State law, and in some ways went beyond State law in areas where cities were allowed to legislate in areas such as sexual preference and housing status. The proposed ordinance would also help the City by avoiding potential liability for claims. The trend under the Federal discrimination law looked toward broad policies and did not impose strict liability on cities or employers who had taken steps to enact an anti-discrimination policy. The proposed ordinance should be adopted because it was the right thing to do, either as written or modified in some way. The media seemed obsessed with the Boy Scout aspect of the proposed ordinance. The HRC heard from a number of groups and modifications were made. No one from the Boy Scouts appeared at the meeting regarding modifications. Most of the people who came to testify supported the ordinance with few exceptions or modifications. Much testimony indicated the local Boy Scout troops did not discriminate and could abide by the proposed ordinance. The national policies of the Boy Scouts were currently under review, indicating the time was not right to send a
message that Palo Alto did not care about the Boy Scouts= decisions. The City should not be afraid of doing something because it feared opposition from an organization that had never come forward to oppose the proposed ordinance. The City of Redding had experienced real problems with hate crimes and was seeking to adopt policies and plans to fight hate crimes and discrimination.
He hoped other cities in the future looked to Palo Alto=s ordinance as a model. Human Relations Commission Member Eve Agiewich spoke in support of the proposed ordinance and urged the Council to refer the item to
the City Attorney=s Office for prompt action and drafting. Throughout the year, she appeared before the Council in opposition to discriminatory legislation; however, the proposed ordinance sent the opposite message. The proposed ordinance also sent the message that Palo Alto was open, inclusionary, supportive, and tolerant of all groups in its citizenry and would not do business or support any business or agency that discriminated against any of its citizens. The proposed ordinance would not single out any particular group but would simply say that any agency or business that contracted with the City would not discriminate in the delivery of services against a member of any other group. The ordinance would apply to any contractor hired by the City and to the City itself in its employment policies and the provision of programs, facilities, or events.
11/08/99 89-165
Council Member Mossar said Commissioner Pierce indicated the importance of having an anti-discrimination policy in place, yet the HRC recommended an ordinance. She asked whether the HRC had considered a policy rather than an ordinance. Commissioner Pierce said the HRC proposed a statement of policy or
purpose as well as something with Αteeth≅ in it. The HRC thought a policy alone was not useful. The City already had binding policies in the purchasing area and rental housing. The idea was to expand existing protections, not simply to go on record with something without teeth.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the Purchasing Division=s anti-discrimination was just a policy. Commissioner Pierce said the Purchasing Division partially involved the PAMC in addition to some procedures when bids were issued, that is, the necessity of having statements signed. After Proposition 209 the language was found to be too strong and had to be changed. Mayor Fazzino asked whether it made better sense for the policy issue to be sent to the Policy & Services (P&S) Committee for discussion and action, rather than making a decision at the current meeting. MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to refer the Human Relations Commission proposed anti-discrimination ordinance request to the Policy and Services Committee. Mayor Fazzino said similar major policy issues were always handled through the P&S Committee to allow for discussions. Council Member Kniss said the public should be allowed to speak to the Council about the issue, and indicated the need for parliamentary guidance. She asked why the item had first appeared before the Council rather than the P&S Committee. Ms. Fleming said when boards and commissions had items for the
Council=s attention, staff=s role was to bring the items forward.
She had discussed the issue of having the City Attorney=s involvement in preparing an ordinance with the HRC, which was why the item returned in its current form. Procedurally, items were brought to the Council and referred to committee for consideration. Sometimes the Council acted directly. Staff was simply the transmittal agency. Council Member Kniss said given the importance of the issue and the fact the item had already been on hand for several months, the P&S Committee should address the subject. Normally, such issues were discussed in committee, giving the public an opportunity to address
11/08/99 89-166
issues without time limits. However, she was still interested in hearing public testimony at the current meeting prior to taking a vote. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the vote could be delayed until after public testimony. Council Member Mossar said if the Council was going to hear public testimony prior to taking a vote, she would delay her reaction to the motion. Mayor Fazzino said members of the public should be allowed to speak; however, public discussion of the issue was more appropriate at the P&S Committee. Council Member Mossar said the HRC already held at least two public hearings and the Council might decide the item should be forwarded to the P&S Committee. Such a motion precluded the Council from having a meaningful discussion at the current meeting. Mayor Fazzino disagreed. The public would be given an opportunity to speak. However, the course of action and tradition for the Council was to send any major policy issue to the P&S Committee. Vice Mayor Wheeler said hearing from the public at the current meeting might provide further direction. Council Member Eakins wanted the motion held until after hearing from the public. Council Member Rosenbaum was interested in hearing from the public after which he might offer an amendment to the motion. Ms. Fleming said the current meeting was designed to allow for Council discussion. Staff had not made an outreach effort. One or
two calls came into her office indicating surprise at the item=s potential for action. If forwarded to the P&S Committee, an extensive outreach should be made to obtain more public input. Winter Dellenbach, 859 La Para Avenue, asked whether members of the public would be allowed to speak at the P&S Committee meeting if the item was forwarded. Vice Mayor Wheeler said members of the public who spoke at the current meeting would not be precluded from speaking at the P&S Committee meeting. Emily Thurber, 694 Benvenue Avenue, Los Altos, spoke on behalf of the YWCA of the Midpeninsula in support of the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance. All forms of prejudice were abhorrent to the YWCA. The proposed ordinance gave Palo Alto an additional tool
11/08/99 89-167
to fight discrimination. She hoped the ordinance would be written so local groups who were working to promote nondiscrimination in their national organizations would still be permitted to deliver services to Palo Altans. Liza Loop, 760 Homer Avenue, spoke about the Palo Alto Diversity Network, an organization no longer in existence that had worked to address discrimination issues and promote discussion. Support was given to the proposed ordinance. If Palo Alto wanted to be a forward-thinking community to which other communities looked, it had to protect minorities. James Phillips, 482 Ferne Avenue, spoke in favor of the HRC recommendation for a non-discrimination ordinance for the City. As the member of the Kiwanis Club responsible for the survey and report, under the leadership of June Fleming and Emily Harrison, he could say that Commissioner Pierce accurately represented the report. Palo Alto definitely had racial problems for which the ordinance was needed. Winter Dellenbach, 859 La Para Avenue, spoke as an attorney who had worked for eight years with a civil rights organization in town protecting residents from discrimination in housing. Discrimination was found in many different forms. Civil rights laws worked to protect people from discrimination. The Council was urged to adopt the ordinance, which was not about Boy Scouts, but about the desire to stop discrimination. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke about intent and ramifications rather than doing what was termed by some as the
Αright thing.≅ The Boy Scouts had been housed in the Community Center since 1936, when Lucie Stern built the building specifically for its use. Ms. Stern trusted the City to honor its promise and commitment. To break the trust would be unconscionable. Boy Scouts of America was a private organization operating in a building given specifically for its use. The Council was urged not to adopt an inflexible policy that would force it to do something it ultimately would not want to do. Robert A. Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, spoke as a long-time worker for civil rights about City discrimination against the Boy Scouts for discriminating against atheists and homosexuals. The job the Boy Scouts did to develop leadership and character in boys as a unique resource was lauded. If it was not legal for the City to support the Boy Scouts, then one should remember the law was the servant not the master. Many bad laws were changed when compassion and good sense increased. Carl Gillespie, Jr., 4142 Armaranta Court, spoke in support of continuing the Boy Scout lease for the indefinite future. The Boy Scouts of America had high moral standards. America had a history built on Judeo-Christian beliefs in God. Every bill and coin in
11/08/99 89-168
the country stated, ΑIn God We Trust.≅ Boy Scouts were called upon to be morally clean, and both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible stated that sodomy was unclean before God. The Council was urged not to vote for the proposed ordinance. Eric Keller, 1414 Pitman Avenue, said Boy Scouts provided not only leadership, outdoor, and life skill opportunities for boys aged 12 to 18, but also community services including the collection of food for the Second Harvest Food Bank and filling of sandbags during the flood of 1998. Parents of boys in the Boy Scouts worked to include tolerance and diversity as part of the program. As the Council
considered the HRC=s recommendations, it was asked to consider the contributions of all the local scout troops. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, requested that staff examine primary source documents, such as, the Purchasing Manual, City affirmative action requirements, and the Certificate of Nondiscrimination required of contractors of $5,000 or more. The Purchasing Manual referred to a 1964 ordinance that listed a large variety of categories of nondiscrimination restricted to race, creed, and national origin rather than the much larger list currently in the policy. The issue of ongoing leases was questioned because of the difficulty of amendments to add nondiscrimination categories. Bob Smith, 2291 Greer Road, supported the proposed ordinance and
opposed the Boy Scouts of America=s current policy. Lucie Stern donated the center with the understanding that a portion was for the Boy Scouts. Ms. Stern was ahead of her time in support of the handicapped and civil rights. The Stern family was one of the founding families of Levi Strauss of San Francisco, which recently withdrew its long-standing support of the Boy Scouts because of its discriminatory policy. Agreement was voiced with a former speaker regarding a request for an exemption for local organizations
opposed to their own national organization=s discriminatory rules. In particular, he hoped the local Boy Scouts, who currently
supported the Boy Scouts of America=s rules, would stand in
opposition to the national organization=s policies. Council Member Ojakian asked how Mr. Smith reconciled the
difference between the national Boy Scouts of America=s stand with
his own sons= participation in a local troop.
Mr. Smith said the Boy Scouts= best traditions and values were ones of nondiscrimination. In the 1930s, the Boy Scouts incurred the wrath of a great many people by going into the South and organizing troops of African-American boys to become scouts. In 1914 or 1915, the Boy Scouts of America was the first organization to allow boys of different religions to be in the same organization together. The long history of nondiscrimination and inclusion had been broken within the past 20 years. He felt he supported the true traditions
11/08/99 89-169
of the organization. Wynn Hausser, Human Relations Commission Chairperson, acknowledged the hard work of Andrew Pierce and Eve Agiewich who did a tremendous amount of homework on the issue. The proposed ordinance was probably one of the most important things the HRC did in his four or five years on the Commission, impacting the City in meaningful ways. He hoped the broader intent could be the focus. The Council should consider the proposed ordinance in light of prior discussions and statements about what was acceptable and what was not acceptable for the community. The HRC tried to put together the strongest possible ordinance, consistently applied, not singling out any individual group. Not only should the Council keep in mind organizations like the Boy Scouts, but also organizations that might be less rooted in the community, less like-minded with the community, that might come under the same standard. Public discussion was valuable. He hoped the P&S Committee would handle the issue soon, forward it on to the City
Attorney=s Office who would in turn return it to the Council in a timely manner. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth, said although the proposed ordinance had commendable goals, she questioned the local problem the draft ordinance was trying to fix. The HRC claimed the ordinance was not anti-Boy Scouts, yet the newspaper quoted an HRC member as saying,
ΑIf the Scouts can certify they don=t discriminate, then there=s no
problem.≅ The problem was the national organization=s policy; admittedly a misguided policy. No evidence of discrimination was found at the local level. An effort should be made to find out how much discretion local organizations had over their national
organizations= policies. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, that prior to the item being heard by the Policy & Services Committee, to direct the City Manager to prepare a list of existing anti-discrimination policies and ordinances and an explanation of their purposes and to direct the City Attorney to prepare an analysis of the proposed ordinance relative to existing state and federal guidelines. Mr. Calonne said although Mayor Fazzino, the maker of the motion, was absent, the Council could vote on the amendment, since the motion was still on the floor. Council Member Kniss asked whether the amendment referred to a
motion that was still Αalive.≅ Vice Mayor Wheeler said correct parliamentary rules allowed for a separate vote on the amendment.
11/08/99 89-170
Mr. Calonne said the motion to refer was debatable only as to the propriety of the referral. Council Member Mossar asked about the reference made to pieces of
the City=s policy and ordinance no longer in compliance with Proposition 209. Mr. Calonne said more information could be given to the Council. The pieces of policy that raised questions under Proposition 209 had been changed. The PAMC provisions still existed in the Purchasing chapter. Council Member Mossar wanted to make sure the issue was handled. MOTION TO AMEND PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Approval of Resolutions Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointees, Classified Employees, Police Employees, Fire Employees and Fire Chief's Association Management Personnel
Resolution 7900 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire
Chiefs= Association Management Personnel Adopted by Resolution
No. 7848 to Revise Commute Incentives and Parking Provisions≅
Resolution 7901 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire Department Personnel (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 7730 and Amended by Resolution No. 7772 to Revise Commute Incentives
and Parking Provisions≅
Resolution 7902 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. 7890 and Amended by Resolution No. 7897 to Revise Commute Incentives and Parking
Provisions≅
Resolution 7903 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Police Non-management Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 7788 to
Revise Commute Incentives and Parking Provisions≅
Resolution 7904 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
11/08/99 89-171
City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 7782 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7812, 7837 and 7872 to Revise
Commute Incentives and Parking Provisions≅ City Manager June Fleming said staff made an effort to address the various commute problems and were proud of the significant, although small, steps it had been able to accomplish. Human Resources Director Jay Rounds said Kathy Lee had been in
charge of the City=s commute program for five years. Council Member Mossar asked how the City handled the taxable benefit issues for both the carpool and vanpool, which were considered taxable benefits. Commute Coordinator Kathy Lee, said the City reported taxable items quarterly. Subsidies were given in the form of commuter checks for the specific vanpool, which were allowable because they were considered a highway vehicle and qualified for subsidy in the form of commuter checks, which were non-taxable. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the resolutions and amendments to the compensation plans for all City employee groups (Classified, Management and
Confidential, Police, Fire, and Fire Chief=s Association) to increase Employee Commute Alternatives subsidies for public transit users and carpoolers; and to approve implementation of a pilot Employee Vanpool Program for two employee groups: Classified, and Management and Confidential. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Rosenbaum, Schneider absent. 8A. (Old Item No. 5) Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Harris and Associates in the Amount of $96,500 for Consulting Services for Storm Drainage Fee Election and Public Outreach and Storm Drainage and Street Sweeping Fee Analysis Council Member Rosenbaum said the Finance Committee generally agreed that the brochure under the task regarding public education was to return to the Council for approval or review but was inadvertently omitted from the schedule. Exhibit A, attached to the staff report (CMR:409:99), provided a new schedule with a line item for distributing the brochure to the Council for review. With that change, he supported the staff recommendation. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, second by Huber, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Harris and Associates in the amount of $96,500 for
11/08/99 89-172
consulting services related to the storm drainage fee election and public outreach; and storm drainage and street sweeping fee analysis; 2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Harris and Associates for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the storm drainage fee analysis or if additional public outreach is needed, the total value of which shall not exceed $14,475 or 15 percent of the contract; and 3. Include Council review of an educational brochure that will eventually be distributed to voters on storm drain fees. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Council Members Huber and Eakins re Art in City Projects
Council Member Huber said the ΑArt in City Projects≅ memorandum was presented to the Council principally at the request of the Public Art Commission (PAC). The policy statement would cause the City to
Αwalk the walk,≅ directing that public art be integrated into any significant project. In the 2000-01 Budget, staff would indicate how to implement the policy. Council Member Eakins was pleased to be part of the project, thanking Council Member Huber for taking the initiative along with the PAC. The policy was the logical next step. The phrase
Αintegrate art as a part of the project proposal≅ was the operative phrase. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve
the policy statement, ΑAll Significant City capital construction/ renovation projects should include an art element. This policy is to be directed to all projects which meet the criteria for Public
Art≅ and direct the City Manager to implement it in the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and return a plan to the Council. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 10. Mayor Fazzino and Vice Mayor Wheeler re Formation of a City Manager Recruiting Committee Mayor Fazzino said the memorandum proposed a method by which the four new members of the Council taking office in January 2000 could be immediately involved in selection of the new City Manager, the
11/08/99 89-173
appropriate course of action pursuant to both the City Attorney and the public. The process allowed the Council Members-Elect to interview candidates, obtain as much data as possible, and assist in the decision of selection of City Manager. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke in favor of allowing Council Members-Elect to be involved in the process but was surprised at the method chosen. He had assumed the Council had the authority under the Brown Act to include individuals in closed sessions. Concern was expressed about having less than a quorum involved in something in which the entire Council was clearly participatory. Although closed sessions, the provisions of the Brown Act would require opening and starting an open meeting. However, if simply a means by which to allow the Council Members-Elect involved, another way could be found. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the City Attorney was comfortable with his recommendation and was comfortable with his knowledge of the State law, suggesting the proposed method. The object was to allow the larger group to meet together and go forward. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
authorize formation of a ΑCity Manager Recruiting Committee≅ consisting of four Council Members-Elect to be given the task of interviewing potential candidates in closed session with (or separately) from the City Council, and thereafter participating in deliberations with the City Council during the candidate selection process. Council Member Mossar supported the concept but questioned how it would work in practice. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City Manager Recruiting Committee would be able to meet jointly with the Council in closed session to conduct the public employee appointment activities. The regular meeting should be established as the fourth Monday of each month, falling on November 22, 1999, a date the Council already had scheduled. The Recruiting Committee was a preferable option to trying to find a way to have the Council Members-Elect come into a closed session. The Brown Act indicated the Council Members-Elect were to be treated as Council Members for the purpose of communications and legal meetings. The Attorney General specifically authorized the committee approach. The idea was to conduct special meetings as closed sessions with the Council to handle the business and participate by way of recommendations to the Council. It would not be appropriate for Council Members-Elect to have a direct vote except Council Member Mossar who was a Council Member already and not a Council Member-Elect. A recommendation could be made as a group. Council Member Mossar asked whether the body could meet on its own
11/08/99 89-174
in a private meeting. Mr. Calonne said the individuals could meet in open session separately. Whether the Council would support the group by giving any reason to meet privately was the question. In order to do so lawfully under the Brown Act, authorization would have to be given by the Council. He suggested the group meet in closed session only in conjunction with the Council. Vice Mayor Wheeler said adoption of the motion would include the regular meeting date of the fourth Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m. In addition, the City Clerk was asked to notify members of the committee and Council Members of a special meeting and to prepare the special meeting notice for Thursday, November 11, 1999, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Eakins spoke regarding the Residential Eco-pass Program enacted by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), an annual pass for riding all forms of transit operated by the VTA such as light rail, buses, para-transit, and shuttles. The program was a major step, and many developers indicated passes would be purchased as part of mitigation for potential traffic impacts. She asked whether staff would be able to explore the program and return with an initial report on how it might work. City Manager June Fleming said staff would explore the report but was unsure about the timeline. Council Member Ojakian spoke regarding the all-day session held by the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) on what had been heard from the public on the Library Master Plan. Council Member Kniss spoke regarding community concerns with respect to running red lights in the City, requesting staff to report on efforts to stop the practice through signs indicating major fines for running red lights. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 9:15 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential Initiation of Litigation and Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 6A. Vice Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 6A. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
11/08/99 89-175
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.
11/08/99 89-176