HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-15 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
imwmai a PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZ3U- FREQUENCY 90.1 ON FM DL L
Regular Meeting
August 15, 1988
ITEM
Oral Communications
Approval of Minutes
Consent Calendar
1, Appointment of Sue Case
Assistant City Attorney
as
Senior
2. Agreement with EA Engineering, Science &
Technology, Inc. for the First Portion of
tile Effluent Toxicity Characterization
Program for the Water Quality Control
Plant
PAGE
60-246
60-246
60-246
60--246
60-246
3. Ccntract with Bay Area Cab Leasing Company 60-246
for Project Mobility Taxicab Service
4. Contract with St. Clair Transportation,
Inc. for Project Mobility Wheelchair
Accessible Van Service
5. Contract with Cal Clay Corporation for
Tennis Court Resurfacing
6. Contract with 2ongar Johnson Construction
for Park Equipment Maintenance and Repair
7. Contract with Sanchez Construction Company
for Sidewalk Replacement
8. Contract with Wh .tmore, Kay & Stevens fez
Labor Relations Legal Services
9 Resolution Adopting a Compensation Plan
for Management and Confidential Personnel
and Council -Appointed Officers and
Rescinding Resolution Moe. 6553, 6554,
6623, 6635, 6645 and 6725
60-247
60.247
60-247
60-247
60-247
60.247
60-244
8/15/88
ITEM PAGE
10. Resolution Adopting a Compensation Plan
for Hourly Personnal and Rescinding
Resolution No. 6672
11. Resolution Amending the Compensation Plan
for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by
R=isolution No. 6610 as Amended by
Lesolution Nos. 6624, 6641, 6685 and 6726
6;;-247
60-241
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance and Resolution 60-247
re Water Conservation
13. Levee Adj cent to the Palo Alto Airport 60-251
14. Tank Remuval Project CIP 18803 - Request 60-252
for Additional Construction Contract
Change Order Authority and Amendment to
Contract C-4504
15. Council Member Bechtel re Auto Painting 60-253
Adjacent to Residental Areas
Adjournment a.t 9:25 p.m.
60-256
60-245
8/15/88
Regular Meeting
Monday, August 15, 1988
The City Council .of the City of Palo Alto met on this date
in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci
(arrived at 7:39 p.m.), Sutorius
ABSENT: Klein, Renzel, Woolley
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding his right to
know how many complaints re,.eived by the Police
Department resulted in disciplinary actions.
2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding
BCDC and the Palc Alto Yacht Harbor plan and the
government's responsibility.
3. Virginia Williams, 835 Thornwood Drive, spoke regarding
budget cuts, specifically the Volunteer Coordinator in
the Police Department.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
?1OTION x council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the Minutes of July 11, 1988, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein, Renzel, Woolley absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
1. Appointment of Sue Case as Senior. Aesistant City
Attorney (107)
2. Agreement with EA Engineering, Science & Technology,
Inc. for the First Portion of the Effluent Toxicity
Characterization Program for the Water Quality Control
Plant (CMR:425x8) (720--06/1520)
3. Contract with Bay Area Cab Leasing Company for Project
Mobility Taxicab Service .(CI R:427:8) (720-06/1165-01)
60-246
8/15/88
4. Contract with St. Clair Transportation, Inc. for Project
Mobility Wheelchair Accessible Van Service (CMR:427:8)
5. Contract with Cal Clay Corporation for Tennis Court
Resurfacing (CMR:407:8) (720-06/810-06)
6. Contract with Zongar Johnson Construction for Park
Equipment Maintenance and Repair (CMR:420:8)
(720-06/810-04)
7. Contract with Sanchez Construction Company for Sidewalk
Replacement (CMR:419:8) (720-06/1011)
8. Contract with Whitmore, Kay & Stevens for Labor
Relations Legal Services (720-06/720)
9. RESOLUTION 6728 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL
APPOINTED OFFICERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 6553,
6554, 6623, 6635, 6645 AND 6725" (CMR:428:8)
(701-04/501)
10. RESOLUTION 6729 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR
HOURLY PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6672"
(CMR:428:8) (701-04/501)
11. RESOLUTION 6730 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR
CLASSIFIED PEA SONNEL (SEIU) ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO.
6610 AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTIONS. NOS P 6624, 6641, 6685 AND
6726" (CMR:428.8) (701-04/501)
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein, Rensel, Woolley absent.
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Restricting Certain Water
Uses and Declaring an Emergency, and Resolution
Authorizing Implementation of Utility Rate Schedule W-6
When Voluntary Conservation Measures of the City's
Supplemental Water Supply are Inadequate to Avoid
Adverse Consequences (701-03/116-01) (701-04/1440-01)
City Manager Bill Zaner advised there would be an item
relating to water usage on each Agenda from now on so
Council could receive an oral weekly update.
60-247
8/15/88
Director of Utilities Rich Young said Palo Alto was getting
about 26 percent of its water supply out of the wells and
was achieving about 15-3/4 percent conservation from a
projected 25 percent conservation. Palo Alto was about 5
percent below its allocation. The City was walking a tight-
rope between the use of the wells and conservation activi-
ties and making the necessary reductions imposed by San
Francisco. Staff was continually concerned about the possi-
bility of the City's balance being disrupted by a mechanical
failure of a well or a long, hot, dry spell which would.
erode the conservation base. San Francisco was applying
penalties to cities which did not meet their allocation.
The Water Department's financial condition was inadequate to
support extensive penalties; consequently, staff proposed an
ordinance restricting nonessential uses of water for immedi-
ate implementation to provide a better impetus toward the
City's conservation target of 25 percent. Also proposed was
a mandatory rationing plan which basically followed the San
Francisco plan, which would be used if necessary. If Palo
Alto experienced any combination of events which could lead
to penalties, the plan would be implemented. The plan was
based on 1986 consumption as was committed to with the cus-
tomers as they started conservation in 1987, and provided
for allocation based on 90 percent of ind=oor use and 50 per-
cent of outdoor use. Penalties would apply to any amounts
in excess of the allocation per Table 4 in the staff report
(CMR:426:8), which would represent multipliers o : two to six
times the hasic rate depending on the percent of overuse.
Manager, Energy Services Mary Dimit made a slide presenta-
tion and said the City was requesting an average water
reduction of 28 percent. The residential class made up
about 50 percent of the demand, the commercial class about
40 percent, and City facilities about 10 percent. Cur-
rently, the commercial/industrial class provided a larger
reduction than the residential class. The customer was
responsible for deciding how to cut back on the use of
water. Hardship provisions would be dealt with on a case -
by -case basis.
Council Member Cobb asked who would review the hardship
cases.
Mr. Young said the residents with hardship c, ees would apply
to Manager, Utilities Financial and Administrative Services,
and appeals would be made to the Director of Utilities. The
matter would be reviewed by the Water Management Committee
to evaluate the level of applicability and how much was done
to greet the requirements ontained with Sc4edule W-6.
Certain criteria must be met before cor. iideration could be
given to a hardship application.
6Q-248
8/15/88
Cou.icil Member Cobb asked when rationing right be lifted.
Mr. Young said a mandatory rationing period would continue
until such time as a better water conservation level was
established and/or the emergency situation was called off by
the San Francisco Water District (SFWD) .
Council Member Bechtel referred to the 1977 rationing
program and queried what provisions were made to handle the
increased number of calls including requests for hardship.
Mr. Young said in 1977 staff was given the authority to hire
additional people in two different phases.
Mr. Zaner did not believe the same procedure was followed.
Council Member Patitucci asked if the City would receive a
credit from the SFWD if it conserved 5 percent more.
Mr. Young said there was a 60 -day operating window and if
the City did not meet the 25 percent in the following
months, the City could call upon the extra percent it
conserved in the previous month. The credit period only
applied to one month.
Council Member Levy questioned whether Council should act as
the board of appeal for the exception procedures since the
public should be allowed to have an appeal process which
eneded with elected officials. He asked how many appeals
were heard in 1977.
Mr. Young said in 1977, the City had approximately 2,Oua
appeals.
Council Member Levy clarified the expenses for the program
would come from the Utilities Budget.
Mr. Young said the funds were intended to be kept separate
and the Water Fund would bear its own expenses.
Council Member Cobb asked about the cost effectiveness of
requiring or encouraging the use c f. water restricters, etc.
in homes.
Mr. Young said the ordinance provided a mechanism for
installing water restricters such as low tics; shower heads,
etc. in the homes.
Mayor Sutorius asked whether plastic bottle -type devices and
other conservation devices could be made available for users
to pick up and instal/ independently.
60-249
8/15/88
Mr. Young said yes.
Mayor Sutorius asked whether SFWD's credit for conservation
was granted to retail customers as well as wholesale
customers
Mr. Young said the credit applied to wholesale customers
only probably due to the thousands of individual retail
customers versus the 30 wholesale customers.
Mayor Sutorius asked about the possibility of the Water
Department making the water conservation financially
advantageous for the users.
Mr. Young said a water conservation effort represented a
loss of revenue which was difficult to deal with because the
revenues not only paid for the commodity but also paid to
replace the mains and to operate the system. The Utilities
Department was in a delicate position where it would not
want to have a redesign of rates to accommodate the loss of
sufficient sales.
Mayor Sutorius said SFWD used five months to determine
winter usage and Palo Alto proposed using two months. He
asked whether that was a combination of different weather
situations and that Palo Alto's data showed the January/
February billed uses was a reasonable period on which to
base the determination of interior :use.
Mr. Young said Palo Alto's choice of the two months of
January and February was based on a weather anomaly
particularly in December where the weather was very warm.
Mayor Sutorius noted users would not be penalized if they
practiced good conservation in 1987.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving
no requests frog+ the public to speak, he declared the
Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved. seconded by Cobb.
to adopt kha staff recommendation tos 1) approve the
emergency ordinance restricting certain water uses; and 2)
adopt the resolution granting interim authority to the City
Manager to implement a rater rationing plan which include=
activating Utility Rate Schedule W-6. as necessary for Palo
Alto. to avoid the substantial financial impacts oC the San
lr cisco Water District penalties.
60-250
8/15/88
MOTION CONTINUED
ORDINANCE 3824 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESTRICTING CERTAIN WATER
USES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
RESOLUTION 673.1 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF TAtCITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
W-6 WHEN VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION MEASURES OR THE
CITY'S SUPPL'ENiTAL WATER SUPPLY ARE INADEQUATE TO
AVOID ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES"
AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved that staff be
directed to develop for Council approval an appeals process
to the City Council as a last resort with an appropriate fee
to discourage frivolous appeals.
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Cobb believed the promotional activities
could be much stronger in terms of the emergency. He
encouraged a more direct and high -impact water conservation
program.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein, Renzel, Woolley absent.
13. Levee Adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport (1161-01)
(CMR:422:8)
Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Benr,etti referred to
a sentence in the staff report (CMR:422:8) that seemed to
suggest the Attorney's Office would make Council's decision
about the fence being erected at the levee, when in fact,
their concern was with the liability which could be incurred
by pedestrian traffic across the levee.
Council Member Bechtel suggested delaying a decision on the
matter until the September 12 Council meeting due to the
concerns of Council Member Renzel and the Committee for
Green Foothills.
Council Member Fletcher asked if there were any reason why
Council could not delay this matter until September 12.
City Manager Bill Zaner said no.
60-251
8/15/88
Council Member Patitucci supported continuing the item to
September 12.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by
Fletcher, to continue item 13 to the September 12, 198t City
Council Meeting.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein, Renzel, Woolley absent.
14. Tank Removal Project CIP 18803 - Request for Additional
Construction Contract Change Order Authority and
Amendment to Contract No. C-4504 for Consultant
Services (1161-01) (CMR:422:8)
Council Member Patitucci did not believe Council had many
alternatives. He asked how money became available for the
additional request given the initial contracts were for a
considerably smaller amount. He asked if the funds were
diverted from another Capital Improvement Project (CIP) and
a project not being done or whether more money was
appropriated.
Assistant Director of Public Works George Begdon said staff
anticipated more work would be required at the Park
Boulevard site when the Capital Improvement Program was
prepared, but after further investigation it turned out to
be ane of the best sites. Since they had a major savings
in the project, staff was able to use the savings for the
contingent authority being requested.
Council Member Patitucci asked Mr. Bagdon if there would be
an additional appropriation request at a later time.
Mr. Bagdon said it depended on what was learned after the
additional investigation.
Coun6 .l Member Patitucci queried Mr. F3agden as to the
balance left in the CIP account after the work was done,
Mr. Bagdon said there might be a need to do more testing and
soil: removal. The balance remaining in the CIP was under
$10,''00.
Cov cil Member Fletcher asked why Palo Alto had to pay for
work at the airport.
City Manager Bill Saner said it was debatable as to whose
responsibility it was, and rather than pursue a lawsuit, it
was agreed the County would do extra landscape work, and the
City would d.o the work on the tank removal.
60-252
8/15/88
NOTION: Council Msarber Cobb coved, seconded by Levy, to
adopt staff recommendation authorizing staff to: 1) execute
change orders to the Tank Removal Contract with Semco, Inc.
for up to $91000; and 2) execute additional amendments to
the Consultant Agrewaent No. C-4504 with ENCON Associates of
up to $60,000.
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein, Renzel, Woolley absent.
15. Council Member Betsy Bechtel regarding Auto Painting in
Areas Adjacent to Residential Areas (1440)
Council Member Bechtel said the item was before the Council
about a year ago, and while no specific action was taken, it
was hoped the situation could be resolved between the owner
of the property and the neighbors. Her desire was to direct
staff to return with an ordinance restricting hours of
operation of auto body painting in locations immediately
adjacent to residential areas. The owner of the auto body
painting facility requested a continuance of the item. .She
opposed a continuance because Council would not be taking
final action for some time, and Mr. Diesel would have
adequate time to comment.
Council Member PaLitucci believed Council's general practice
was to grant a continuance if duly requested. Further, if
staff was directed to prepare an ordinance, it sent the
message that Council would probably act on it.
NOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Patitucci moved,
stconded by Sutorius, to continue the item to September 26,
1989.
Council Member Fletcher agreed with Council Member Bechtel.
Council Member Cobb asked why so much time had passed since
the last status report.
Director ;of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber
said staff understood the parties were working towards an
agreement. Staff had some contact with residents in the
area and it appeared that an informal agreement was reached
and no complaints were received. Based on the most recent
letter, the agreement broke down in the summer.
Council Member Cobb asked about the delays involved if the
item was continued to September 26, and about the
possibilities of enacting an ordinance as an emergency.
60-253
5/15/88
Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti said an
ordinance would be drafted after Council decided what kind
of limitations to impose. The ordinance would :,ecome
effective approximately 45 day after the ordinance was
introduced. In terms of an emergency, there would need to
be a threat to health and safety. Given the length of time
of the problem, it might be difficult for Council to
establish a basis for the emergency.
Council Member Levy opposed the continuance because the
detail of any ordinance would have a lot of discussion. He
reserved complete judgment on the proposed ordinance until
that time.
MOTION TO CONTINUE WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND
Council Member Bechtel clarified Council could not devise an
ordinance to regulate one business. An ordinance would need
to describe auto body painting in locations immediately
adjacent to residential areas. Staff previously suggected
that anything located within 100 feet of residentially zoned
land would limit operations from 7:00 a.m.' to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday. The residents requested the hours
of operation be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and earlier hours
during the summer. The residents' request might provide too
much of a hardship for the operator, and a compromise might
be in order. The issue was whether Saturday hours should be
prohibited.
Eric-- Diesel, 1001 Emerson, owned the auto body painting
operation in question. In his first year of operation, he
received over 400 visits by various government agencies as a
result of. neighborhood complaints, taut he was never cited.
He was required to shut town his business 40 times to run
various tests for noise, pollution, etc., at his own
expense. All testing showed no detectable levels of chemi-
cals. He complied with all government suggestions with the
intent of improved neighborhood relations. He hired an
attorney to prepare an agreement with the neighbors whereby
he would restrict his painting hours and the neighbors would
stop harassing him. The agreement was rejected because the
agreement required the parties to attempt to maintain rea-
sonable communications during. the period of the agreement,
to constructively discuss methods to resolve perceived prob-
lems, and to not unreasonably harass him. He had already
cut back on his hours of operation to 40 hours a week.
Council Member Patitucci clarified the use permit would be
amortized out by. November 1990, and the property would
return to residential" status at that time.
60-254
8/15/88
Council Member Fletcher queried whether a hardship would be
presented if painting was prohibited on Saturdays.
Mr. Diesel said no. However, it would present a problem to
stop work at a given time. He explained the hardships
involved with having to stop work in the middle of a job.
He did not allow painting on a large job to begin after 4:00
p.m., or after 5:00 p.m. on a small paint job. He had not
received any complaints from the neighbors.
Council Member Cobb asked Mr. Diesel about his plans after
the property reverted back to residential.
Mr. Diesel hoped his revenues would be sufficient to move
his business into a vacant site on El Camino Real in 1990.
Council Member Bechtel clarified painting did not begin
until 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Diesel said that was correct and it was done at the
request of a next door neighbor.
Tim White, 1040 Emerson, lived about one-half block away
from, the auto body shop. He and his wife complained four or
five times to the Bay Area Air Quality Control because he
did not get a good response from Mr. Diesel. His quality of
life was impacted by the occasional fumes, and an ordinance
might help.
Council Member Patitucci queried why there was no verifica-
tion of the significant fumes.
Fire Chief Bob Wall said in some instances, Mr. Diesel's
operators were required to discharge paint into the exhaust,
and technicians from the Air. Quality Board took readings
outside, on the roof, across the street, and near the neigh-
borhoods. The results indicated the level of fumes were
very low and in some cases not detectable.
Dena Mossar, 1024 Emerson., lived across the street from the
auto body shop. She clarified the auto body shop was in
business for two years during which time she complained.
During the previous 35 years as an auto body shop, no com-
plaints about fumes were registered. The fumes were intol-
erable, and she was concerned about future health impacts
from the fumes. She presented letters from other neighbors
who were concerned about tee health effects.
1
NOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy,
that staff be directed to prepare an ordinance restricting
the hours of operation of auto body painting in locations
within 100 feet of residentially zoned areas from 8:00 a.s
to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Council Member Bechtel understood Mr. Diesel's concerns, and
said he would have sufficient opportunity to respond to the
proposed ordinance. There were two other auto body repair
shops relatively close to residential areas which needed to
be notified of the propoeed ordinance.
Council Member Patitucci did not believe an ordinance should
be drafted until the other operators were notified and had
an opportunity to speak.
Council Member Cobb was concerned the request for continu-
ance was Lreated differently than for other items. He sup-
ported the motion but urged that other operators be con-
tacted early on in order to get input as quickly as pos-
sible. He suggested Chief Wall investigate whether there
was a substantive difference in the pres:.it operation versus
the previous operation which caused the perceived problem.
Mr. Schreiber clarified no objections were received from
other operators to the previous suggestion that the hours of
operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday.
Council Member Patitucci believed Council would have heard
more about the problem when the negotiations broke down if
there was an urgency to the problem. He was concerned about
promising the neighbors that certain hours of operation
would occur. If Council was going to direct that an
ordinance be prepared, it should have done all of its
deliberations and negotiations and arrived at specifics so
when it returned, the approval would be routine not another
round of discussions and hearings.
Mayor Sutoriva agreed with Council Member Patitucci.
NOTION PASSED by a vote of 4-2, Patitucci, Sutoraus voting
°no,° Klein, Reizel, Woolley absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
60-256
8/15/88
ATTEST:
Clerk
APPROVED:
TE: Sense tes (s ' opsis) are prepared in accordance
with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City
Cov Icil meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's
Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the
Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures
Committee meetings tapes are retained for six months.
Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular
office hours.
ixtr" -257
8/15/88