Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-18 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting January 18, 2000 1. Resolution 7923 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Kathryn Carleton for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission≅ ................................89-299 2. Resolution 7924 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Natalie Wells for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission≅ ...........................................89-299 3. Resolution 7925 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bruce Arthur Hallberg Upon His Retirement≅ .........................89-300 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................89-300 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................89-301 5. Ordinance 4606 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending 2.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Planning Commission to Redefine the Planning Commission=s Powers to Rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission≅ ............................89-302 6. Ordinance 4607 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Increase the Management Fee Paid to Brad Lozares for Services Provided at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Offset by Increase in Revenue Resulting in an Estimated Net Return to the General Fund Reserves of $69,800".......89-302 7. Amendment to the Lease for El Camino Park Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the Assignment and Assumption of Subleases for the Red Cross, Sheraton Hotel and MacArthur Park Restaurant............................................89-302 9. Annual Status Report on Developers' Fees..............89-302 01/18/00 89-297 10. Resolution 7925 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement at 4087 Orme Avenue, Palo Alto≅ ....89-302 11. Request for Conflict of Interest Waiver by Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich to Permit Representation of CombiChem.....89-302 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ..................89-302 11A. Public Employee Appointment...........................89-302 12. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.45 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety) to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Solicitation in Streets, Commercial Parking Areas, and in and Adjacent to Driveway Entrances.............................................89-303 13. Ordinance 4608 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 $28,000 to Capital Improvement Program Project Number 9173 System Rehabilitation/ Augmentation for the Purchase of the Rights-of-Way for the Amarillo Avenue and Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project≅ 89-309 14. 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.210 and Section 22.04.290 and Adding Section 22.04.215 of Chapter 22.04 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to the Parking of Vehicles in Parks During Times of Closure, Damage to City Property in Parks and Open Space Lands and the Launching and Takeout of Boats at Ramps and Docks in Parks and Open Space Lands≅89-309 14A. (Old Item No. 4) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 445 Bryant Street (Parking Lots S/L) from PF and CD- C(P)to PC≅ ...........................................89-309 14B. (Old Item No. 8) Amendment No. 5 to Option Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. to Provide for Interim Use of the Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Road..................................................89-315 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........89-320 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m............89-320 01/18/00 89-298 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Beecham, Fazzino SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution 7923 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Kathryn Carleton for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. Mayor Kniss presented the proclamation to Kathryn Carleton. Vice Mayor Eakins served on the Public Art Commission (PAC) with Kathryn Carleton and Natalie Wells. Kathryn was new to public service when she joined the Public Art Commission and later became Chair. Her artistic talents influenced the PAC in its choices and direction. Kathryn Carleton said she was introduced to the PAC by Vice Chairman Eakins and served for five years, which was an honor and a privilege. She thanked the City Manager and the City Council for increasing the PAC budget. The PAC=s dedication and belief proved to be an invaluable asset to the City. She applauded the Council for adopting a resolution requiring public art in City projects. 2. Resolution 7924 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Natalie Wells for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission≅ MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. Mayor Kniss presented the proclamation to Kathryn Carleton. Vice Mayor Eakins stated that Natalie Wells= librarian background and public service training kept an even keel on the process. She provided stability to the PAC. 01/18/00 89-299 Natalie Wells thanked the Council for the recognition and for the Council=s contributions to the success of the Public Arts program. She acknowledged the assistance of Arts and Culture Director Leon Kaplan and Secretary Darlene Katsanes. Highlights of her three terms on the PAC included the working on ΑForeign Friends≅ statue, the opening of Byxbee Park, the challenge of developers bringing art to the City via the public benefit process, and working with local artists. 3. Resolution 7925 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bruce Arthur Hallberg Upon His Retirement≅ MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. Mayor Kniss presented the Resolution to Bruce Hallburg. Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva said Bruce Hallberg found different ways of doing things during the 30 years of his career and did them well. During the current year, the Palo Alto Fire Department would celebrate the 25th Anniversary of providing paramedic service to the citizens of Palo Alto. Mr. Hallberg was one of the original 12 paramedics and continued his commitment to the paramedic program throughout his entire career. He showed drive, motivation, positive attitude, and innovation expected of people in leadership positions with the Fire Department. He was the lead in many technology projects, served as an EMS Chief and Acting Battalion Chief, and demonstrated compassion throughout his career. He was a model for others to emulate especially with regard to his work ethic and to his loyalty. Bruce Hallberg said he was proud to have been a part of the Palo Alto Fire Department for 30 years. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, greeted the new Council. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, #201, spoke regarding the new members of the Council. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding University South Neighborhood Group general meeting. Linda Jolley, 3757 Haven Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding landscaping. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government. 01/18/00 89-300 Ray Witt, 769 Allen Court, spoke regarding golfer representation on the new Parks and Recreation Commission. Karen Cotter, 120 Alma Street, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the Arastradero Preserve report. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, spoke regarding the Council process. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Kniss asked City Attorney Ariel Calonne to speak to the issue of new Council Members= ability to vote on the minutes. Mr. Calonne said the question was raised as to whether or not the newly-elected Council Members could vote to approve minutes. The answer was yes. The City Clerk was responsible for assuring the accuracy of the minutes, and it was appropriate for a newly-elected Council Member to accept the City Clerk=s recommendation and vote to approve the minutes. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of November 8, 1999, December 6, 1999, and December 7, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Lytle Αnot participating,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of November 15 and 22, 1999, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Lytle Αnot participating,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Kniss noted that the Council received requests for the removal of Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 8. Item 4 was more problematic to remove from the Consent Calendar. The Council could remove the item from the Consent Calender, vote in public, but could not have a discussion. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council could not substantively change the Planned Community (PC) zone without renoticing a public hearing and continuing the matter for that purpose. The Council could discuss continuing the item, whether to vote yes or no on the second reading, but substantive changes to the approval would take another public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 5-7 and 9-11 with Item Nos. 4 and 8 removed at the request of the Mayor. 01/18/00 89-301 5. Ordinance 4606 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending 2.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Planning Commission to Redefine the Planning Commission=s Powers to Rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission≅ (1st Reading 12/14/99, PASSED 6-0, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian absent) 6. Ordinance 4607 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Increase the Management Fee Paid to Brad Lozares for Services Provided at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Offset by Increase in Revenue Resulting in an Estimated Net Return to the General Fund Reserves of $69,800" Amendment No. 2 to the Management Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Brad Lozares for Golf Professional Services at 1875 Embarcadero Road to Extend the Term of the Agreement and Increase the Management Fee 7. Amendment to the Lease for El Camino Park Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the Assignment and Assumption of Subleases for the Red Cross, Sheraton Hotel and MacArthur Park Restaurant 9. Annual Status Report on Developers' Fees 10. Resolution 7925 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement at 4087 Orme Avenue, Palo Alto≅ 11. Request for Conflict of Interest Waiver by Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich to Permit Representation of CombiChem MOTION PASSED 7-0, for Item Nos. 5-6 and 9-11, Beecham, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 6-0, for Item No. 7, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 4 would become Item No. 14A, and Item No. 8 would become Item No. 14B. CLOSED SESSION This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11A. Public Employee Appointment Title: City Manager 01/18/00 89-302 Authority: Government code section 54957 ORDINANCES 12. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.45 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety) to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Solicitation in Streets, Commercial Parking Areas, and in and Adjacent to Driveway Entrances Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Designating Street and Driveway Entrance Locations Where Solicitation of Employment, Business or Contribution is Prohibited City Manager June Fleming said the Council received at places a correction to the staff report (CMR:112:00), and staff recommended the Council adopt the ordinance and resolution. Police Chief Pat Dwyer said in January 1999, the Council asked the Police Department and City Attorney=s Office to develop a policy and draft an ordinance regulating solicitation on medians. The draft policy was presented to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee in April 1999 and approved. In July 1999, the Council listened to public testimony on the matter and referred it to staff to answer specific questions regarding restricting the enforcement of the ordinance only to specified areas and to require posting of the areas. Staff recommended the Council approve the resolution. Cities to the immediate south of Palo Alto, such as San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View had similar ordinances which regulated solicitation on medians. Staff reviewed those ordinances and several from southern California. He complimented the City Attorney=s Office on deliberately crafting an ordinance that was restrictive to address only the matter of traffic safety. The City did not attempt to regulate free speech, take away peoples= right of assembly, or take away the right to solicit business or contributions anywhere that did not constitute a traffic hazard which was specifically listed in the resolution. The prior discussion was restricted to only a few streets and only at intersections that were posted. At the request of the Council, the proposed resolution included private parking lots which 1) had to be posted; and 2) the business that posted the parking lot must provide a public access area for people to solicit. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the City had the ability to control the solicitation activities in privately-owned commercial parking lots. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bill Mayfield referenced the City of Agoura Hills ordinance which was reviewed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeals upheld the solicitation activities in privately-owned commercial areas. The section of the ordinance would be upheld under the traditional police power of the City 89-303 which was the ability of the City to regulate private property for purposes that were consistent with the public need. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the ordinance asked the private property owner to make a request of staff before enforcement occurred on private property. Council Member Kleinberg said if a private property owner of a commercial parking lot was in compliance with the ordinance, the owner was supposed to post city-provided statements about the ordinance and provide another area around the property for legal solicitations. She asked whether staff considered having the notice indicate there was an area for legal solicitation. Mr. Dwyer said the private property signs should indicate the location of the designated permitted solicitation area. Council Member Kleinberg said the signs would be customized for the area they were placed in. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance did not require the type of posting suggested by Council Member Kleinberg, and the Council would need to take affirmative action to add appropriate language. Council Member Kleinberg asked how the ordinance would affect Girl Scouts selling cookies or Boy Scouts selling Christmas wreaths. Mr. Dwyer said in the locations that were regulated and posted, the enforcement would be equal and apply to everyone. That did not prohibit any nonprofit group from soliciting in all the nondesignated areas of the City. The areas of the City that were regulated were specific and named in the resolution. The ordinance would not be enforced in other areas of the City. Vice Mayor Eakins asked how one of the designations might be removed if it was found to be inappropriate. Mr. Dwyer said the Police Department staff would prepare a City Manager=s Report (CMR) and bring it back to the Council because the resolution would have to be changed by Council. Mr. Calonne said Chief Dwyer=s statement about traffic safety was the driving force in identifying the areas to be designated. The Council could designate as many places at one time, but he was unaware of any plan to investigate additional locations. Mr. Dwyer said with regard to the private property lots, the owner would have to initiate the action. The ordinance required that the owner have an agreement in place guaranteeing that the signs were in place and that there was an alternate location to do solicitation. 89-304 Vice Mayor Eakins clarified that additional resolutions were only for public domain. Mr. Dwyer said yes. Council Member Burch said the Police Department did an excellent job doing what the Council asked and making the case. When he looked at the list of cities the Police Department staff talked to, each one said there were no accidents or incidents as a result. Section 1 (a) of the ordinance said, ΑThe activity of soliciting employment, business, or contributions from occupants of vehicles distracts drivers from their primary duty to watch traffic and be alert for possible traffic or pedestrian hazards.≅ Section 1 (b) of the ordinance said, ΑDistracted drivers were more prone to automobile accidents and pose a substantial traffic safety potential.≅ He felt that one or two dozen people in five locations were singled out and a law was passed against them. If the City was concerned about distracted drivers, the City should do something about people who drive while talking on cell phones. He announced he would vote no on the ordinance. Mr. Dwyer said several people made the same point in July when the matter was discussed. Council Member Burch said Mr. Dwyer did exactly what the Council asked him to do. Council Member Ojakian said the July 19, 1999, staff report (CMR:201:99) designated an area of El Camino Real and Palo Alto Avenue, but that area was not included in CMR:112:00. Mr. Dwyer said the area was included generically in all the controlled intersections. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there was a day worker problem in Palo Alto. Mr. Dwyer said no. Douglas Cowan, homeless, said people would not be soliciting if they did not have financial problems. His grandfather lived on Lytton Avenue and rented rooms to Stanford students and senior citizens at a reasonable rate. The cost of living in Palo Alto escalated. According to the Palo Alto Police Department Memorandum dated December 30, 1999, the basic issue of standing on the median was safety. Item 6 of the Memorandum indicated the problem of visibility. The problem was one of aesthetics because of the appearance of homeless people in Palo Alto. He did not see anything in the Memorandum that provided evidence of accidents involved with anyone standing with a sign requesting donations. People would not request donations if there were more social services available. He urged the Council to seriously consider the issue. People who would prefer to do something else other than 89-305 standing with a sign, but there were no other solutions for those people. There was no documentation that safety was an issue. Leland Alton, homeless, noted that the staff report (CMR:201:99) indicated, ΑStaff read each of the 88 accident reports and determined that the primary collision factors for any of the accidents did not involve solicitation. However, the fact that soliciting on medians was not listed as a primary cause should not be viewed as a determination that the distraction caused by solicitors at a median or driveway entrance was not a contributing factor. For example, generally speaking, if a car slowed or stopped in a traffic lane as a result of solicitation on an adjacent median and was rear-ended, the primary cause of the collision would be recorded as unsafe speed or inattention. Unless details about a solicitor is provided to the officer by the involved parties of an accident at the time the accident report is made, there is currently no method to collect that information.≅ He assumed anyone who thought they were a contributing factor would be likely to report the accident. The ordinance was an example of covert suppression of ugly elements, elements that might be construed to keep away international tourism. He suggested the Council do further consideration prior to taking action. Larry Duncan, P.O. Box 213, recalled during the Council meeting of July 19, 1999, Mayor Fazzino and Mr. Dwyer discussed a solicitor standing on a median strip when a car came onto the median strip. The day following the meeting, he was at the homeless drop-in center and spoke with an individual who had stood on the median when a car came onto the median strip frightening the individual into the northbound lane of El Camino Real. He found it interesting that the car was a Menlo Park Police vehicle, and the officer informed the individual that he had an outstanding warrant. He quoted from an article in the January 1999 San Francisco Chronicle in which the manager of the Stanford Shopping Center said, ΑIt is not the most ideal thing you want to see in front of a center with Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale=s and Tiffany=s.≅ He was interested that Chief Dwyer subscribed to the idea that Αsince all your friends are doing it, you should do it too.≅ He went to the shopping center office that afternoon and asked for a copy of its rules for solicitation. Item N of the rules said, ΑSales/Solicitation ban. Applicants may not solicit or receive money or other contributions or donations from anyone on shopping center property.≅ Council Member Burch mentioned cell phones. He obtained a copy of the December 29, 1999, Palo Alto Daily News. The last paragraph read, ΑSeveral countries have banned the use of cell phones while driving. A 1997 study of the New England Journal of Medicine found that talking on the phone while driving quadrupled the risk of an accident and was almost as dangerous as being drunk behind the wheel.≅ The staff report (CMR:112:00) indicated that staff was unable to locate any ordinances that might deal with other situations. During a discussion with Chief Dwyer the prior July, Chief Dwyer pointed out that he was concerned with 89-306 the safety of the homeless as well as others especially in cases where the homeless might be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He reminded Chief Dwyer of California Penal Code 647(f) Public Intoxication. He was surprised that Mr. Mayfield did not notice there was a jaywalking ordinance that would cover people going out into traffic to collect money. There might be other laws that were overlooked. Vice Mayor Eakins said she spoke earlier in the day with Council Member Beecham who wanted to convey his comments about the item. While it was not one of his issues, he would support the ordinance. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the ordinance and the resolution. Vice Mayor Eakins said the issue was strictly traffic safety. In July 1999, while driving into a shopping center parking lot, the car in front of hers stopped abruptly which made her realize that driveway stoppages could cause accidents. She urged the Council to support the ordinance and thanked staff for the sincere work they did over a considerable period of time Ms. Fleming said the Council might want to consider Council Member Kleinberg=s proposed changes as a friendly amendment. Council Member Kleinberg was not sure she supported the ordinance, but felt it would be easier to vote in favor with the amendment. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to amend the section of the ordinance regarding posting restricted areas on commercial private lots to posting areas in which solicitation can be conducted. AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-1, Burch Αno,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. Council Member Ojakian supported traffic safety issues, in particular pedestrian safety issues. He and Council Member Mossar co-authored a memo in October 1998 on that issue. The debate existed on whether there was an infringement on a person=s right to solicit versus what he considered as Αpreventative medicine.≅ The staff report (CMR:201:99) referenced 88 accidents in areas that were not safe. Council Member Mossar recognized that staff did what the Council voted to do in July 1999. She was more comfortable with the current ordinance. Staff did much to narrow the focus. She shared Council Member Burch=s opinion and said she had not seen any information that made her comfortable that a real problem was solved. The Council received correspondence from the public which indicated the public felt considerable discomfort about people soliciting in certain locations. The safety issue was not the bottom line issue, and she would vote against the ordinance. 89-307 Council Member Lytle said the ordinance accomplished what the Council directed, and she commended staff for their work on the ordinance. She did not have any uncomfortable experiences at any of the locations mentioned, but had heard from others who felt they were in an unsafe situation. She looked forward to when the Council would have an opportunity to set priorities and discuss ways of dealing with the Opportunity Center which was discussed during the campaign. Council Member Kleinberg thanked the Chief Dwyer and staff for the thorough work that was put into the ordinance. The ordinance was a solution in search of a problem. She was interested by the figures in the staff report (CMR:201:99) which indicated there were 88 incidents in the particular selected sites where there was a danger of traffic problems, but not one of the accidents had to do with solicitation. There were only a handful of people who lived in Palo Alto and could not make it without asking for help. She wondered if it might have been better to have a more comprehensive approach. When dealing with human lives, all the various ramifications should be dealt with, and the problem should be handled community-wide. Traffic safety was a concern as well as the safety of people who panhandled. The issue of day workers was included in the ordinance without being directly addressed. She would not vote in favor of the ordinance. Council Member Burch said the staff report (CMR:201:99) mentioned 88 accidents were reported at the four locations, and the accident rates at those intersections were not substantially different from rates at other comparable intersections which had 101 accidents. That meant there were 15 percent more accidents at four intersections where people were not standing on medians. Mr. Calonne reminded the Council that the motion required five affirmative votes to pass. Mayor Kniss supported the motion noting that it had been discussed by the Council many times. The ordinance dealt with a safety issue and provided the type of protection for the police officers and the public. Anything that made it easier for the City to assist the police officers was part of her job. The ordinance did not attempt to limit those who wished to panhandle in safe areas. MOTION FAILED 4-3, Eakins, Kniss, Lytle, Ojakian Αyes,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. RECESS TO A CLOSED SESSION: 9:07 p.m. - 9:35 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Public Employee Appointment as described in Agenda Item No. 11A. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 11A. 89-308 13. Ordinance 4608 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 $28,000 to Capital Improvement Program Project Number 9173 System Rehabilitation/ Augmentation for the Purchase of the Rights-of-Way for the Amarillo Avenue and Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the ordinance. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. 14. 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.210 and Section 22.04.290 and Adding Section 22.04.215 of Chapter 22.04 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to the Parking of Vehicles in Parks During Times of Closure, Damage to City Property in Parks and Open Space Lands and the Launching and Takeout of Boats at Ramps and Docks in Parks and Open Space Lands≅ Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Section 22.04.210 Vehicle operation and parking excluded city parks with parking lots. Community Services Director Paul Thiltgen said Section 22.04.210 covered all parks and was primarily focused on open space parks and the Baylands. Parks would close at 10:30 p.m. or at sunset, and cars should be gone by that time. MOTION: Council Member Mossar, moved seconded by Ojakian, to introduce the ordinance. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. 14A. (Old Item No. 4) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 445 Bryant Street (Parking Lots S/L) from PF and CD- C(P)to PC≅ (1st Reading 12/20/99, PASSED 6-1, Fazzino Αno,≅ Kniss, Schneider absent) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 528 High Street (Parking Lot R) from PF to PC(1st Reading 12/20/99, PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent) Vice Mayor Eakins asked the amount of City money expended on the parking structures planning process. Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said the amount was $1.322 million. Approximately $1 million was expended, with 89-309 $300,000 encumbered on a current contract and $22,000 remained unencumbered. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether that included the Watry contract. Mr. Yeats said yes. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the Council would amend the Planned Community (PC) Zone if the Council voted to continue the item and reopen the public hearing. Assistant Public Works Director Kent Steffens said if there was a delay, the plan was to take the design of the parking structures to a 50 percent level of completion prior to forming an assessment district and ask for a vote. If there was a delay on the action, staff would want to delay further design work as that would spend additional funds of the remaining $300,000. There would be delay in the project commensurate with the delay in any action taken by the Council. Council Member Lytle asked whether the public hearing could be reopened with the focus of making progress. City Manager June Fleming said yes. Council Member Lytle was in favor of continuing the item to obtain additional information, but she did not want to start over Mayor Kniss noted the project could become completely altered if it were reopened. Council Member Burch said during his campaign, he brought up the subject of the massive size of the structure. He felt a serious obligation to take one last shot at being able to reduce the massive size of the project. That was the reason he wanted to move to continue the item to a date certain with the idea of making modifications including, but not necessarily limited to, reducing the height of the structures. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, asked the Council to readdress the parking garage at 445 Bryant Street in looking at the mass. The parking was needed, but such a large structure was not necessary to accomplish the objectives. She hoped the alternative traffic interests and intelligence on the Council played into the plan to find the middle of the ground solution that was not exactly expansive in terms of parking but might include the opportunity for alternative transportation. Staff=s opinion was that the parking permit issue for Downtown North needed to be addressed after the parking garage. Many people from Downtown North were against the parking garage because of the mass. She urged the Council to reduce the mass which was more in keeping with the scale of the other buildings. 89-310 Nick Selby, 475 Melville Avenue, lived in Palo Alto for over 30 years. The Council began the current meeting by honoring the contribution of two members of the Public Art Commission who brought beauty in the sense of public art to the City and, at the same time, the Council was considering a huge structure that would obliterate one of the most beautiful examples of public art in Palo Alto. His house was built in 1911 and was said to have great historical significance. The City Council had considered for some time historical limitations that would prevent him from changing the facade of his house, but at the same time the Council considered the construction of a huge structure that would obliterate the site of most of the Victorian at 418-420 Florence. He urged the Council to see the Victorian in the moonlight because if the garage was built according to the proposed plan, the Victorian would no longer be visible in the moonlight. He asked that the Council give the matter further consideration. Walter Sedriks, 325 Waverley Street, suggested the item be removed from the Consent Calendar and reviewed further by the new Council. Because the structure was so massive, either removing one level or putting one more level underground would make a big difference. The deliberations by the previous Council were flawed in two respects. The first flaw related to undergrounding one level. He was surprised to hear at the December 20, 1999, Council Meeting that the cost of putting one level underground was estimated at only five percent more. To make sure the estimate was correct, he followed up with the Planning Department. The first response was the figure was reestimated at 25 percent. After further research, a mistake was found and the figure went back to five percent. It was an indication of how little attention was paid to the option. The second flaw related to the examination of the aesthetic impact. For a City that had a historic preservation ordinance, there was no mention in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that views of historic Victorian would be totally obliterated. Interestingly, and most confusing, page 15 of the December 20, 1999, staff report (CMR:456:99) noted simultaneously that 420 Florence Avenue was and was not historically significant. Janice Sedriks, 325 Waverley Street, said the architect=s model before the Council at that evening=s meeting illustrated that the proposed five-story above-ground height was inappropriate and would dominate the area. The landscaping of trees along Bryant Street would do little to hide such a high structure. The Victorian at 420 Florence Avenue was a historic building built in 1893 and was the only remaining Victorian in the Commercial District that was in excellent condition. The EIR refers to the Victorian building as a commercial structure and failed to take into consideration that the view of the historic building would be completely obscured by the proposed height of the garage. Yoriko Kishimoto, Vice President, University South Neighborhoods Group (USNG), 251 Embarcadero Road, said USNG was one of the groups that requested that the Council continue the item. As University 89-311 South was a neighborhood adjacent to the Downtown, one would think the neighborhood would be excited about the parking structure since it would remove cars from the neighborhood streets; however, the USNG believed that the Bryant Street garage was not an appropriate solution for the City. The USNG suggested the fifth floor be removed from the structure. The structures should be sequenced and the High Street garage built first, allowing for time for the alternate transportation program to be set in place before determining whether the structure on Bryant Street needed to be built. Mayor Kniss said the structure on 528 Bryant Street did not seem to have the same discussion points as the structure on 445 Bryant Street. She asked whether the motion could be separated. Ms. Fleming believed the motion could be separated from a procedural standpoint. She requested that the persons supporting the garage speak to whether or not the two were related in any manner in terms of functionality because the structures were put together as a package. Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, said separating the two structures was not a good idea because Lot R was well $32,000 per space as opposed to Lots S/L which was in the $23,000 per space range. By averaging the two costs, the amount was brought down to a cost that was achievable. Removing one level and putting it underground was possible; however, the costs would be prohibitive. He urged the Council to either approve or not approve the item. Council Member Mossar reminded the Council that the process regarding the parking structures was lengthy. The City agreed to invest $1 million in the parking structures with the understanding that the project was a risk. A decision not to build was a choice of disregarding six years of process and $1 million. The ability to achieve what the Council set out to accomplish would be degraded by separating the item into smaller pieces. Parking in the Downtown was a problem for the neighbors on both sides of the Downtown. The size and number of the parking garages equated to the number of cars that could be parked. The City could not stop overflow parking in the neighborhoods if the City did not provided places for people to park. The project before the Council did not eliminate parking deficits in the Downtown. There were still many opportunities to encourage employees and patrons of the Downtown area to use transportation alternatives. Surface parking lots were an ineffective, non-environmentally sound use of land, and parking structures were preferred. There were many competing interests; however, there was no way to solve neighborhood parking problems if the City did not build additional parking in the Downtown. She reminded the Council that the City relied on the property owners in the Downtown to build the parking lots, and the residents would be the beneficiary of a relief in parking demand. She did not like parking structures and said parking structures were not the most attractive buildings; however, many people worked hard to put 89-312 together the project. The property owners in the Downtown appeared willing to fund the project. The structures provided parking that was needed and would enable the City to start addressing the need to get the employee and visitor automobiles out of the neighborhoods. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the ordinances. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Member Lytle still had questions that were unanswered. Council Member Lytle said her questions had to do with some of the testimony she heard at that evening=s meeting. She asked whether the structure located on Bryant Street could be reduced in height or some additional portion undergrounded and whether the reduction in the height would have a beneficial impact on adjacent historic buildings. Mr. Steffens said staff reviewed the cost of putting a level underground at Lots S/L on Bryant Street. Staff=s estimate was an additional $1 million. The number of parking spaces would be reduced by 11. Columns and walls got thicker and more massive the farther underground a level was placed; therefore, there would be a loss of parking spaces. Council Member Lytle asked how the $1 million related to cost per parcel. Mr. Keenan said one floor was already taken off Lot L. It was misleading to look at removing another floor on Lot S, because the cost of Lot L had already escalated to the extreme. One million dollars seemed like a small amount to spend; however, it was not the total of costs to date. Vice Mayor Eakins asked what the cost was per square foot or typical assessment. Mr. Steffens said staff=s estimate based upon the square footage within the Assessment District was $1.08 per square foot per year. Adding the $1 million increased the cost to approximately $1.12 per square foot per year. The additional cost for Lot S/L was approximately 4 percent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to continue Item No. 14A to February 22, 2000, and limit the discussion to questions regarding reducing the garage on Bryant Street by one floor. Ms. Fleming suggested if the Council decided to have further discussion about reducing an additional floor, staff should be given an idea of the type of information the Council wanted. Should the Council want more information and require staff to draft 89-313 a model, the process would be an extended process, and staff would need several months to return to Council. She believed there was some confusion among staff and the response that was given to the Council. She believed the cost impact was larger than what Mr. Steffens indicated. Staff needed direction as to what information Council wanted returned. Council Member Kleinberg was interested in whatever information could be brought back to the Council, either staff-generated or by Mr. Keenan=s committee, that had to do with the economic effectiveness of the cost and the ability to turn the Assessment District into a viable area. Council Member Burch was prepared to support the motion to continue. His feeling was that money was not a crucial issue. He was concerned about doing what was right for Palo Alto and what was going to look right. He wanted to see the City work at all levels of traffic calming and volume. The project was supported by the Downtown through an assessment, but the project had to exist for all the people of Palo Alto. Mr. Calonne said the motion from Council Member Kleinberg was a motion to continue and was not a substitute motion. A substitute motion or an amendment would alter the original motion either substantively or change its purpose. The motion on the floor had precedence; however, the original motion and second were still on the floor. MOTION TO CONTINUE FAILED 3-4, Burch, Lytle, Kleinberg Αyes,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. MAIN MOTION FAILED 4-2-1, Eakins, Kniss, Ojakian, Mossar Αyes,≅ Kleinberg Αabstaining,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. Mr. Calonne said the motion to give a second reading to the ordinances failed; however, the Council could move to reconsider and continue the item. Council Member Mossar clarified the failed motion would return the ordinances to first reading. Mayor Kniss asked whether Mr. Calonne meant the first reading would occur at that evening=s meeting, and the next time the ordinances were brought back would be second reading. Mr. Calonne said the Council would not have to start over and reopen the process to public hearing, but the Council would be required to take two votes to adopt the ordinances. Council Member Mossar said she wanted the ordinances returned to the Council in the same form the item was in at that evening=s meeting. 89-314 Mr. Calonne said there were sufficient Council Members to adopt the ordinances at that evening=s meeting. Any member of the Council who voted with the prevailing side could move to reconsider the action. At that point, a motion to continue to a future point in time would be in order. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to reconsider Item No. 14A. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. Mr. Calonne said the Council could vote to continue without a public hearing if one or more of the Council Members believed there were votes not present at that evening=s meeting that could sway the matter without a public hearing. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to continue Item No. 14A to a date uncertain, with a study session to be held prior to that meeting. Council Member Lytle did not support the motion. She was unclear as to what the ramifications of the cost effect was in the Assessment District. She did not have a sense of what the advantages or disadvantages were of reducing the structure by one level in terms of visual and aesthetic impact, both on the historic structure from all the various vantages. Mayor Kniss asked whether scheduling a one-hour study session prior to a Council meeting was possible to discuss the matter without going to a public hearing. Ms. Fleming said a study session was possible. Mayor Kniss said the Council would have a study session before its meeting within the next two to three weeks. The study session would be informally structured. Vice Mayor Eakins said during the Stanford project hearings, the Council directed written questions through the City Manager. She believed the study session should be structured in the same way. Council Member Mossar believed the study session was a good idea. She wanted to be clear that the Council would not be discussing further expenditures of money. Mayor Kniss said the study session would be information only. Mr. Calonne said if the Council continued the item there was no obligation to allow public testimony. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. 89-315 14B. (Old Item No. 8) Amendment No. 5 to Option Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. to Provide for Interim Use of the Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Road City Manager June Fleming said a question was generated in terms of what the intent of the item was and whether the soundwall would be put in place. Under the existing agreement, a soundwall would not be built before the maintenance/improvement was made. Council Member Lytle said the project and property had a long and complicated history. Staff did an outstanding job in summarizing the situation and proposing a practical solution. Her issue could be resolved simply. The lease option amendment would allow interim uses under an existing use permit without requiring any of the specific property improvements that the new use permit required, particularly the new soundwall that the neighbors requested and the City agreed to share the cost of. The neighbors understood the soundwall would be built before any use intensification. She spoke with Jack Morton of Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) who assured her that CSI would not back out on its commitment to build the soundwall and make the improvements. Mr. Morton was concerned that the delays in the timeline would continue to go on indefinitely. The neighbors trusted that the soundwall would be built before use intensification occurred. The Council wanted the property back into recreational use. Although proceeding with the project was legal without requiring the soundwall as a condition, she believed proceeding without building the soundwall was unfair and would lead to a lot of bad feeling. A soundwall being the first step in the maintenance and improvement of the facility was important. Mayor Kniss asked whether a motion to continue the item without hearing from the public was appropriate. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the public could not be prevented from speaking to the item. The Council could discuss the proposal in order to persuade the public not to speak to the item. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to support the staff recommendation with amendments to include that the soundwall be constructed before the lease becomes initiated, to return the item to the Council at the next meeting, and to move the application ahead of other Architectural Review Board applications. Mr. Calonne said the Council rules and the Brown Act required the public have an opportunity to speak prior to final action. Mayor Kniss asked the Council to indicate whether it supported the motion. Council Members Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, and Mossar would support the motion. She asked whether the public still wished to speak to the item. 89-316 Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, said the soundwall was not something that CSI could do instantly. There were a number of hearings that were required before the soundwall could be approved. CSI gave its word that the soundwall would be built; however, CSI did not want to spend funds for a soundwall unless there was some assurance that there would be a useable lease. He urged the Council to approve the lease. Council Member Kleinberg said Mr. Morton gave his word that the soundwall would be built; however, he also said that he had no assurance that a soundwall would be permitted. Mr. Morton said if the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) decided that the soundwall was a flood hazard and did not approve the soundwall, there was nothing that CSI could do. There was no guarantee that the soundwall would not be found to be an obstruction. Council Member Kleinberg clarified that CSI was not guaranteeing that the soundwall would be built. Mr. Morton said CSI would agree to whatever the City Council approved. He tried to indicate to the Council that a lease could not be approved that left CSI with the problem that should be the Council=s responsibility. Council Member Mossar recollected that there was an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project. Mr. Calonne said there was a mitigated negative declaration. Council Member Mossar understood the barriers of the soundwall to floodwaters was analyzed and found to be a non-issue. She was concerned that the Council was not informed that the SCVWD could potentially not approve the project when the Council made its decision to approve the soundwall. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the issue was reviewed when staff brought the item to the Council as part of the mitigated negative declaration. The SCVWD commented and did not find that the soundwall was going to be impossible to build. The SCVWD did review the matter at a conceptual level and would re-review the matter to see the details of the soundwall, the design, and its exact location. There was no indication that approval would not be given to build the soundwall. Council Member Mossar clarified the SCVWD review was a formality that was required in the approval process. John K. Abramson, 736 Ellsworth Place, was concerned that the developers did not want to build the soundwall. If the exception from Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was granted, there was no need for CSI to build the wall unless CSI wanted to proceed with the project. Ninety percent of the project was tennis related. On 89-317 good faith, the Council offered the neighbors the soundwall which was fair. The City was going back on its word if the wall was not built. Loren Brown, 633 Kellogg Avenue, said he was the contractor that built the Alsa Headquarters in Mountain View which was adjacent to a creek governed by the SCVWD. The project was submitted to the SCVWD three years prior to raise the levy along side the creek. He was assured that approval was just a formality; however, the approval was a three-year process. The SCVWD process was not simple. He urged the Council to approve the contract. Jan Van der Laan, 3090 Ross Road, said he worked with the City Council since 1968. The Council directed staff to find uses for the property adjacent to the Winter Lodge. In 1992, staff came back with an Request for Proposal (RFP). CSI submitted a proposal which was accepted. The property continued to deteriorate and the City was fortunate that there were no lawsuits pending. Certain areas were completely unmanaged for which the City was liable. Sheryl Keller, 642 Georgia Avenue, said recreation was what the matter was about. She urged the Council to approve the lease option. Marianne Lipanovich, 1715 Virginia Avenue, Redwood City, said CSI tried to address the neighbors= concerns. CSI had every intention of getting a permit to build the wall; however, CSI wanted to move forward and was concerned that with more delays the project would not move forward. Linda Jensen, Executive Director of the Winter Lodge, 3009 Middlefield Road, said the Winter Lodge acted in good faith to do everything possible to offer quality programs to the community. The Winter Lodge would work in the same vein to offer the tennis programs to the community. The property continued to deteriorate, and she asked the Council to help keep the Winter Lodge open and make it available to the community. Council Member Kleinberg wanted to know where the City was legally on the matter. Mr. Calonne said three lawsuits were filed and dismissed. The settlement with respect to the Condominium Owner=s Association determined: 1) the fifth court would not be built; 2) the bathroom shown on the plans would be relocated; 3) there would be certain limitations on seating and night lighting; and 4) there would be a limit of 800 membership keys and a limitation that no more than 200 people use the facility for tennis-related purposes at any time. There would be a review of the limits at some point in the future, and the Council would authorize a contribution of $50,000 towards improvement of the City-owned property subject to a lease. 89-318 Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the sequence of the agreements in terms of when the soundwall would be built was the subject of any legal writing. Mr. Calonne said the sequence was in the use permit but not in the court settlement. Ms. Grote said the use permit specified that the wall would be part of Phase 1. The use permit did not specify within Phase 1 when the soundwall would be built. Phase 1 included refurbishing four tennis courts and other landscaping improvements. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there would be actual use of the tennis courts during Phase 1. Ms. Grote said Phase 1 would precede use. Council Member Mossar recollected that when the Council approved the project, it was with the understanding that the soundwall preceded the use. She asked whether the concern that the project was taking so long motivated using the tennis courts prior approval of the soundwall. Mr. Calonne said CSI was confronted with what it felt was an unacceptable business risk when the litigation was complete. Council Member Mossar believed the Council made a good faith decision in understanding the terms of the agreement. She did not understand why the issue was before the Council. Ms. Grote said the main difference was CSI=s request would not involve any increase in use over and above what would be allowed under the existing work the City performed. The work would be minor repair and refurbishment of the courts, which would not involve any Phase 1 improvements approved as part of the new use permit. The use permit would transfer what the City did as far as repair and maintenance of the existing courts to allow CSI to perform repair and maintenance. Council Member Mossar asked whether the Council=s decision at a prior meeting negated the use permit. Ms. Grote said the Council=s decision did not negate the use permit. The use permit allowed a certain amount of use for the site. Staff estimated 20-25 percent full use on the site. Council Member Mossar asked what the issue was if the use permit was in place. Mr. Calonne said the original RFP required that a new use permit be obtained. He recollected that the Council wanted noise mitigation; therefore, the new use permit process was done to protect the 89-319 neighbors. After resolution of the lawsuits, CSI approached staff with a request for an amendment to the agreement. Council Member Mossar said everyone did what was required in good faith and the best of intentions and another road block was presented. Mayor Kniss clarified that when the fifth court was eliminated, the Council altered the specifications that went along with the agreement. Ms. Grote said yes. Mayor Kniss said when the fifth court was eliminated, the Council altered the arrangement made with CSI. Ms. Grote said the Council altered part of the arrangement that CSI requested, and no arrangement was put in its place. Mr. Calonne said the lawsuit resulted in a change in what CSI could develop. The settlement with Middlefield Homeowner=s stated there would be no fifth court. CSI made a compelling argument that it had a Αchicken and egg≅ problem with respect to some of the technical language in the option. The question was whether staff would support it and how would staff consider letting CSI Αget off the dime≅ without losing the benefit of the revised use permit. Mayor Kniss did not support the item. She believed the Council was not getting sufficient answers regarding what was being proposed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue Item No. 14B. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 5-2, Lytle, Ojakian Αno,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. (Public Testimony Closed) Council Member Burch said the lawsuits delayed action, and he felt CSI=s frustration. He believed the City should take CSI=s consideration of giving the property back to the City seriously. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Ojakian said the application process for the vacancy on the Planning Commission was extended to January 26, 2000. The actual term of the vacancy was for July 31, 2001, and not July 31, 2000. Mayor Kniss reminded the Council that the Council Retreat was scheduled for February 5, 2000, at 9 a.m. 89-320 MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to reschedule the City Council Meeting of January 24, 2000, to January 31, 2000. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Mossar Αno,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:40 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. 89-321