Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-23 City Council Summary Minutes4 CITY i COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTOCITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU FREOUENGY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting March 23, 1987 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of February 23, 1987 1. Appointment of Human Relations Commissioners to Fill Two Terms Expiring March 31, 1987 Consent Calendar 2. Contract with McGuire and Hester for Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation, Basin B07 3. Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.16.020 by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 30 4. Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 3705 (Golden Triangle Floor Area Ratio Moratorium) for Structures of Less than 1/000 Square Feet 5. Discussion re Waiver of Liability and Indemnity Agreement Forms Adjournment to Study Session re Infrastructure at 9:00 p.4. Final Ad jou,nment at 10145 p.m. P A G E- 57-16 57-16 57-x:.6 57-17 57-18 57-18 57-18 57-18 57-26 57.26 57-15 3/23/87 Regular Meeting Monday, March 23, 1987 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, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Woolley announced that upon conclusion of the meeting, the Council would immediately adjourn to a Study Session re Infrastructure in the Council Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1, 2, and 3. Beverly Wood -Smith, 202 Sequoia Avenue; Howard Chang, 157 California Avenue; and Jean -Francois Drageon, 2119 El Camino. Real spoke to the Oxford barrier. 4. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett Street, spoke in regard to Palo Alto Police Department complaints. 5. Sally Schwerin, 993 Embarcadero, spoke in regard to the Oxford barrier and suggested at least two parking spots could be saved if the barrier was made flat across. 6. Sophia Dhrymes, 486 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding her missing mother. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23. 1987 Council Member Renzel had the following correction Pa a 8100, third paragraph, line 10, "dikes and seasonal wetlands* shou d read "diked and historic baylands." MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Minutes of February 23, 1987, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously* 1. APPOINTMENT OF. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSIONERS TO FILL TWO TgRMS EXPIRING MARCH 31, 1987 (7O d Mayor Woolley intended to vote for the two incumbents, Mary t4.inkus and Allan Sidle, in alphabetical order. 57-16 3/23/87 Vice Mayor Sutorius said he would cast his ballot in the same man- ner and order as Mayor Woolley; however, previously when an incum- bent was not standing for reappointment, he voted for Shelley Taylor. She -was a very qualified candidate who indicated she was still willing to serve, and he hoped they would have the oppor- tunity to have her service on the Human Relations Commission (HRC) at a near term. While he intended .to recognize the capable ser- vices Council received on its boards and commissions, he believed in fairness to the talent present in the community and to the sub- jects dealt with, two consecutive terms would be the maximum he would support in future appointments. Council Member Cobb agreed with Vice Mayor Sutorius with regard to Shelley Taylor. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING City Clerk Gloria Young announced the results of the first bal- lot: VOTING FOR MItIKUS: Patitucci, Fletcher, Cobb, Klein,, Woolley, Sutorius, Bechtel, Levy, Renzel Ms. Young said Ms. Minkus received ninevotes and was appointed. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING Ms. Young announced the results of the second ballot: VOTING FOR SIDLE: Patitucci, Fletcher, Cobb, Klein, Woolley, Sutorius, Bechtel, Levy, Renzel Ms. Young said Mr. Sidle received nine votes and was appointed. Mayor Woolley congratulated Ms. Minkus and Mr. Sidle and joined with Vice Mayor Sutorius and Council Member Cobb in thanking the new ,applicants and encouraging them to apply again. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTIO - Vico Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar, Council Member Patitucci asked to be shown as not participating :in Item 31 Ordinance amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Pa1c Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility Distict No. 30. 57-17 3/23/87 As s corrected 4/20/87 2. CONTRACT WITH MCGUIRE AND HESTER FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION, BASIN 807 (CMR:175:7) (1122) Staff was also authorized to execute change orders to the con- struction contract in the amount of $60,000 to be used for portions of the work not yet determined, but which will become evident as to extent and cost during the course of the work. 3. ORDINANCE 3745 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 12.16.020 OF CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 30" (1st Reading 3/9/87, PASSED 3--0, Patitucci "not participating.") (1130) 4. ORDINANCE 3746 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3705 (GULDEN TRIANGLE FLOOR AREA RATIO MORATORIUM) FOR STRUCTURES OF SQUARE FEET" (1st Reading 3/9/87, PASSED 9-0) (242) LESS THAN 1 00 0 MOTION PASSED unanimous/.y, Patitucci "not participating' on Item 3, Ordinance amending Section 12.16.010 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 30. Council Member Levy asked staff to report back to Council regarding the closure at Oxford and El Camino Real. -_jity Manager Bill Zaner said a report would be in Council's packet the next week. 5. DISCUSSION RE WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY. AGREEMENT FORMS (CMR:182:7) (CMR:177:7) (130/1300) City Attorney Diane Northway introduced Ron White who assisted the City in the rewriting of the waiver forms. NOTION TO REFU: Mayor wool l*y moved, seconded by Patitucci, to refer the item to the Policy and Procedures Com=ittee. Mayor Woolley believed it would be useful to have a fuller and less formal discussion of the very important and serious item than was possible with Council's rather formal format. She realized the motion would delay the item for about six weeks --the item would go on the PO Committee agenda for April 7, 1987 --but the form had been used for four months already. Council Member Fletcher said her vote for the motion depended on what would happen in the interim. She was not content to go along with the current form in the interim. 57-18 3/23/87 Mayor Woolley said her thought was to follow the staff recommenda- tion at the end of the staff report (CMR:182:7) where staff said if the matter should be referred to the P&P Committee, unless staff was directed otherwise, they would continue the present policy which was to require the revised waiver for all activities except for the Children's Theatre Outreach Program. Mayor Woolley said the public should only speak to the subject of whether or not to refer the item. council Member Cobb said people had come with a desire td: „ speak to the issue and he believed they should have the opportunity. Mayor Woolley said staff asked for guidance. If Council Members wanted to speak to the motion, she believed it was appropriate to ask any questions so that staff could he prepared to answer at the P&P Committee if the motion was successful. Also, staff would appreciate Council'sp�7 guidance on the two additional alternates on page 5 (CMR:182:7) . Council Member Cobb believed it would be helpful to translate the language --which sounded harsh --into "normal° English, particularly in terms of the questions previously raised by the public. Council Member Klein was in favor of the motion and supported the Chair's position that input from the public regarding motions for continuance had traditionally followed Robert's Rules of Order limited to the item before Council. He did not believe there would be a lack of opportunity for public participation. Council Member Patitucci supported the motion. The issue was suf- ficiently complicated to need a more appropriate forum. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Arts, believed sentiment was that referral wasprobaby a good idea but knew the Children's Theatre people were conceiryed about the plays scheduled to be cast and performed in the next i ew weeks. The issue was important and should be addressed in Council's concern for a referral. Vice Mayor Sutorius had no difficulty with the referral to P&P Coeiaittee but was not prepared. to vote on amotion to refer with- out having giving the opportunity to anyone present that evening to say their piece. He reminded those who heard the report on the 2001 Task Force of the concerns and emphasis placed on communica- tion, accessibility, and responsiveness, and he would be fearful of the type of attitude .Council vas creating if they did not allow people to speak that evening, 5.7-19 3/23/87 Mayor Woolley said it was not her intention to cut off any debate but to allow fuller debate by referring the matter to P&P Committee. Council Member Klein regarded the practice as a significant depar- ture from the past and could not understand the reasons. Council Member Patit•ucci did not believe anybody was being short- changed by the referral because Council would not act until the public was heard in full Council session. The fairly -detailed issue was best dealt with in Committee. Council Member Renzel generally concurred with the idea that some- thing to be heard in Committee should not necessarily be heard 'at the Council level; however, a typical referral at Committee was agendized as such, and the public came knowing a referral would most likely take place. As a courtesy, it was appropriate to hear them since the agenda indicated Council would be considering the item rather than referring it. There was a distinction. Council Member Bechtel wanted to hear the public speak to the issue of what would happen in the interim, if the motion to refer passed. In addition, in order to be most effective in lobbying Council, she encouraged members of the public who planned to speak to be succinct. Council Member Levy said the public would be ill -served if they felt their input would not be needed at the P&P Committee if they spoke that evening because the P&P Committee was where action would be taken that would return to Council. The pu`epose of the referral was so there could be a more informal give and take so members of the public could ,speak several times if appropriate, and it was a much better forum for the reasons stated by Council Member Patitucci. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, .seconded Council Member Cobb's desire for a translation of the waiver into language understand- able to members of the community. There was -a real concern that the procedure was divisive despite the fact they met with the City Manager and learned some of the hard realities of the present system. The art community was concerned with the effect on pro- grams. Parents were conscientious, and concerned for their families' welfare and their children's welfare. i.,me of the alternatives, particularly the second alternative of the pool, seemed good modifications which she would like to see explored more fully. Suzan Stewart, 1550 Middlefield Road, urged Council not to delay an immediate decision about interim provisions. The Children's Theatre did not have the luxury of waiting for a long decision from the P&P Committee because auditions for summer programs were to be held within a few weeks, and many children would be affected. She was on the Futurecast 2000 Committee, and one of the things the Governance Committee said was that it was important that. the City Council express the values of the community and make it clear to staff their policies must reflect those values. She urged Council to recognize the tremendous concern and to waive the form until alternatives were reached. Karen Prosser, 103 Tennyson Avenue, was anxious for Council to move in whatever direction was decided. It seemed the City was saying it was more concerned with protecting the General Fund than in protecting the children and citizens of Palo Alto, and she was truly concerned about that statement that came through loud and clear. She believed City staff cared a great deal but the place- ment of the values of the community had always been on the citi- zens and their participation in City government and services, and the City •government welcomed their participation. The City's con- cern was a direct turn from what Palo Alto had always stood for. She welct?ned the opportunity to participate further. She was told the new form was now in effect for Day Care in Palo Alto. Mr. Zaner said the term "Day Care" might _ be used to mean some other program run by the City, but the City did not run Day Care programs. Susan Hahn, 2619 Waverley Street, was concerned about the quality of life in Palo Alto, about the disintegration of wonderful rec- reational and dramatic programs that had been the lifeblood of the community for many years, and about an error in planning the Council seemed to be taking. Because of the extremes to which the liability extended waiver policy went, she was afraid the City would demolish a major part of the community which initially drew so many citizens to Palo Alto. She found objectionable the degree to which the potentially injured parties became monetarily respon- sible if they sued, and the City's desire not to be held account- able should there be negligence on the part of an employee or should a` facility be in disrepair and cause an accident. The staff report declared all other cities in -the vicinity had the same policies, but she found Sunnyvale specifically spoke to the issue of negligence and did not try to remove themselves from responsibility in their waiver form. Her concern was that so many people would be unwilling tosign the form that effectively they were destroying all the programs that required it. It was ironic that the new waiver form came into being at the same time Council declared the schools --and therefore the children --the number one priority on which to focus. The two alternatives for insurance coverage in the staff report sounded reasonable on the face of them, and she urged Council . to employ one or both programs or find a different solution to the problem of City liability. There was a time pressure because people had to register for the Enjoy Spring recreation program and sign the waiver forms in April. 57--21 3/23/87_ Nancy Sharp, 3070 South Court, spoke as a strony and continuing supporter of Palo Alto City Arts and Science Programs and recrea- tion classes, programs, and events. She was concerned about the possible negative impact on the present successful City programs for children and youth, and the Palo Alto cultural climate. She recommended the new liability indemnity form for minors be referred to the P&P Committee for further study and possible revi- sion, or for clarification. In the interim, she recommended Council discontinue the new waiver form for children and youth. She also urged the City staff be directed by Council to pursue alternate (A), purchasing an insurance policy specifically designed for social, arts, science, and recreation programs for children and youth to be totally absorbed by the City and to con- sult with the P&P Committee on such insurance prior to Council approval. A full discussion by the community at the P&P Committee would be helpful. She urged Council to accept that evening the staff recommendation that the 1986-87 Children's Theatre School Outreach plays, cosponsored by Palo Alto PTA units, be continued without the requirement of the new liability indemnity agreement form as the City and PTA agreements to produce the plays were made prior November 1986. Monica Engel, 951 Bryant Street, Addison School's PTA President, objected to signed the new liability waiver form. To ask her to defend the City against any claim for injury to her child from the negligence or carelessness of City employees was outrageous. Not one of the sample waivers from seven cities in the Council packet stated, "against any claim resulting from the negligence or care- lessness of City employees." In the last seven years, less thai ten claims were filed against the City of Palo Alto and none renal ted in any large loss to the City. She suggested different waivers for low -risk and high -risk activities, and also supported the idea of establishing a special fund for paying claims and raising the money by adding a surcharge to each registration. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett Street, said the form plainly required parents to agree not to sue the City if their child was injured by the City and, .if the child sued the City, to defend the City against their own child aid reimburse the City for any expenses. When he read the form, he wondered what kind of a City he lived in. Don Menn, 243 Webster Street, encouraged Council to reconsider revising the liability waiver. Staff recommendation not to change the form was based on its desire to protect the City's ' General Fund from undue exposure, which was a worthy goal but only part of government's responsibility to the people and especially to _ the. children. The recommendation avoided a basic human ie ue of responsibility through a type of intimidation because it pitted child against parent. It saddened his because the, document seemed to; obscure the law and evade responsibility. 1 57-22 3/23/87, Council Member Levy found the comments made by members cif the pub- lic enlightening. He strongly defended the actions of the City Attorney Nwhose, job was to implement the policy of the City Council, and that had been done. Seeing the implementation, he felt perhaps the policy seeded to be reconsidered; therefore, he endorsed the motion before Council which was to carefully analyze both thepolicy and the implementation of the policy before the P&P Committee, and to thoroughly work out what was in the best interests of the members of the community of Palo Alto whom Council served. Council's concern was the disruptive influence that might take place between the present time and when Council reconsidered and reevaluated the policy. Clearly, the motion included the recommendation of staff that the Children's Theatre program not be involved in the new waiver. He asked staff if there were other programs that involved children where there might be the same outcry from parents as ;.y ey began to. sign up for the summer programs. Mr. Zaner clarified the report (CMR:177:7) referred specifically to the Children's Theatre Outreach Program. The staff recommenda- tion with regard to the Outreach Program could be extended to other programs, but he requested it not be done except where the risk was at a minimum. Some programs, such as off -site camping excursions, were dangerous enough where the exemption should not be waived. If Council desired to broaden the exemption, he recom- nended Council give the direction and leave the discretion to him. Council Member. Levy asked why the outreach program was exempted and the Children's Theatre program per se not exempted. Mr. Zaner said it was essentially a question of timing. The Outreach Program faced the City immediately and was linked to the school year. It was a matter of a day or two and the program would have been lost so it was exempted. Council Member Levy said if Council directed that the exemption be broadened, it would likely include the Children'.s Threatre. Mr. Zaner needed to review it. His first response would be yes, but there might be some activities within the Children's Theatre activity which were more dangerous than the City would like .to. allow without a waiver. AMENDMENT& Council Member Levy moved, seconded . by leanzol, that the City Manager be r equ sted to broaden the exemption of waiver St his diserstion until tip matter was resolved by Council. Council Member Bechtel wanted to ensure "at his discretion' meant the waiver would be "applied only for the high -risk activities. 57-23 3/23/87 Council Member Fletcher asked why the forms were revised. Ms. Northway said the forms were revised because the previous forms were invalid and would not hold up in court. In terms of what would be substituted for the forms in the event Council ulti- mately chose not to uphold them, she could not respond that eve- ning. She understood they were only talking about programs involving minors, Council Member Fletcher felt uncomfortable having the City unpro- tected and believed with a waiver such as the Sunnyvale waiver more programs would be covered, leaving the high risk programs for the revised form. She noticed the Sunnyvale waiver exempted from indemnification where the City or its employees might be respon- sible for negligence. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved that until a final decision was made by Council, the Sunnyvale waiver fore for classes and programs be used In the interim. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Klein preferred the amendment "direct" the City Manager, rather than "request." He also suggested the City Manager report to Council as an information item to show which programs were being included or excluded. Withthose suggestions in mind, he supported the intent of the amendment. The problem was difficult, and he was concerned on both sides and bothered by some of the rhetoric. Of course the City cared about its children and to say to the contrary did not advance the discussion. There needed to be language which the parents would recognize limited the liabilities of the City without being offensive. Council Member Patitucci asked how long before the item returned to Council. Mr. Zaner said five to six weeks. Council Member Patitucci supported the motion and amendment. He suggested it was only necessary to deal with the programs during the period. Mr. Zaner said that would be his desire. Unfortunately, virtually all programs were affected because the City just creme out withthe new recreation guide, and peopleweresigning up for the Beason. AMT PASSED unanimously. Council Member Cobb said it was clear the issue should go to P&P Committee, but he asked for a precise and simple _explanation what the waiver in its present form required of people as they signed it. The public was worried and should not have to wait for the item to return to Council. Ron White, Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appell, explained the reason for the provision in respect to defending a case brought by one's own children was a person, under the age of 18 could not release any type of claim on his \or her own behalf, so no release that called for the signature of the minor would be valid. Normally, a a suit was brought by a minor by the parents of that minor, so in essence the provision whereby the parents agreed to hold the City harmless from a lawsuit brought by a minor was intended to prevent the minor from bringing a lawsuit by basically saying that if the parents bte ght a lawsuit they would 'have to hold the City harm- less or defend that lawsuit on behalf of the City. It was a means of discouraging parents from bringing a lawn t on behalf of an injured minor. Council Member Cobb asked why the release could not simply ask someone to sign a fore that said, "r will not bring a suit on behalf someone, my minor child." Mr. White said then theoretically somebody else suit on behalf of the minor. The Court app inted someone to bring a lawsuit on behalf of a minor, and in 95 percent of the cases that person was the parent, but it could be someone else. If one wasso inclined, an easy way to circumvent that would be to ask the Court to appoint someone other than a parent to bring the law- suit. could bring the Council Member Cobb asked if the form was substantially different from Sunnyvale's. Mr. White said the portion of Sunnyvale's form he saw quoted in the staff materials was probably invalid as written. It was not specific enough nor in the right -sized type, plus a few other problems. It was not as significantly different as many speakers indicated ; and as it appeared at first blush. Basically, the Sunnyvale form said the only circumstance under which Sunnyvale could be sued was if an, injurywas caused by the sole negligence of an employee of Sunnyvale. That meant the injury would have to have occurred solely because . of the act of en employee, not because of the act of the employee combined with, for instance, misconduct . Of the child which was the usual situation. A.leo, under; the . ley one could not release a claim for willful misconduct or.intentional conduct, so if the City of Palo. Alto employee through hie or her willful misconduct caused an injury or nten- tionslly caused an injury, that suit would not. be barred. MOTIONTO :INFER AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. 57-25 3/23/87 ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned to a Study Session re Infrastructure at 9:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION RE INFRASTRUCTURE Staff - preeen ed an overview of the elements of Palo Alto's infra- structure and its current condition. This was the first of a five -point infrastructure review that will eventually include: 1. the current condition ofthe infrastructure; 2. An objective for its condition; 3. The time frame to reach the ,objective at various funding levels (inci.uding the annual cost to sustain the condition once the objective is reached;,/ 4. Financing options; and 5. The priority for repair among the various elements. The current value of the infrastructure is estimated .at more than $1 billion, and annual maintenance and capital improvements at $22 million. This equates to 2 percent annual replacement irate. The infrastructure is generally in good condition; however, a few areas require further attention. Discussion focused on streets, storm drains, . sidewalks and utilities preventive maintenance. Deficiencies in these area's include a 52 -year street repair backlog, an incomplete storm drain infrastructure, and an 11 -year sidewalk repair backlog. Staff will return to Council with specific funding recommendations and alternative financing options. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment at 10:45 p.m. ATTEST; APPROVED: 53-26 3/23/87