Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-07 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting February 7, 2000 1. Conference with City Attorney to Determine Whether a Closed Session is Authorized Under Government Code section 54956.9(b)(2)........................................... 346 2. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation.............................................. 346 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m............... 346 1. Study Session re Downtown Parking Structures............ 347 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m............... 347 1. Presentation by Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Stream Keeper Jim Johnson re El Palo Alto............... 348 2. Resolution 7929 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Bern Beecham for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning Commission”............................................. 348 3. Resolution 7930 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Cheryl Piha for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board”............................. 348 4. Resolution 7931 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Dennis Backlund for his Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Historic Resources Board”............................... 349 5. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning and Transportation Commission............................... 349 6. Ordinance 4610 entitled “Ordinance 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 02/07/00 89- 344 Takeout of Boats at Ramps and Docks in Parks and Open Space Lands”.................................................. 350 7. Annual Public Review of Compliance of Development Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects........................................................ 350 8. Amendment No. 11 to Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the State of California, Santa Clara County, and All Cities in Santa Clara County in the Amount of $41,607 for the Cal ID System for Automated Fingerprint System.......... 350 9. Contracts for Electric Power Quality Consultant Services in the Amount of $240,000 Over a Three-Year Period......... 350 10. Amendment No. 3 to Consultant Contract C9106646 Between the City of Palo Alto and Group 4 Architecture, Research and Planning, Inc. in the Amount of $60,000 for Professional Consulting Services Related to the Interior Improvements and Space Planning Project.................................. 350 11. Resolution 7932 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Support for Proposition 14 - The California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000”... 350 11A. Public Employee Appointment............................. 351 12. Ordinances Regarding Parking Structures at 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street....................................... 351 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal by Phillip Lally of the Planning Director’s denial of an application to remove a protected Coast Live Oak from a neighboring property located at 734 De Soto............. 356 14. Status Report on Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Matadero/ Barron Creek Flood Control Project...................... 356 16. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.......... 365 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.............. 365 02/07/00 89- 345 City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:15 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino and Kleinberg (arrived at 5:30 p.m.), Kniss, Lytle (arrived at 5:30 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian CLOSED SESSION Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. Conference with City Attorney to Determine Whether a Closed Session is Authorized Under Government Code section 54956.9(b)(2) Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on two matters. Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(2) 2. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on two matters. Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(A). The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Significant Exposure to Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. 02/07/00 89- 346 Special Meeting February 7, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:25 p.m. PRESENT: Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Beecham SPECIAL MEETING 1. Study Session re Downtown Parking Structures Council Member Beecham would not participate in this item due to a conflict of interest. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Ed Gawf started the presentation for the study session with an introduction of staff and a brief overview that reiterated Council’s direction from the 2nd Reading in January. The study session covered the questions that several Council Members raised on the visual, solar, and cost implications of removing the fifth floor level on Lot S and adding a third basement level. Staff provided background information on the Downtown Transportation Management Program that included the 13-point Downtown Parking Plan adopted by the City Council in 1994, the addition of a new Downtown Commute Coordinator, the start of the shuttle system, and the better use of existing parking i.e., Webster-Cowper garage. In the future, staff would review the parking requirements for new uses in the Downtown and color zone parking to encourage customer parking. In conclusion, staff said that the removal of the 5th floor level on Lot S would not have a substantial visual and solar impact to the Victorian on Florence Street. Staff illustrated that by using a shadow study, a site plan that indicated setbacks from the parking structure to the Victorian on Florence Street, building elevations for a four-story and a five-story parking structure, and a study model. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding his letter of next week regarding credibility. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. 02/07/00 89- 347 Regular Meeting February 7, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation by Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Stream Keeper Jim Johnson re El Palo Alto 2. Resolution 7929 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Bern Beecham for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning Commission” MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the resolution. Council Member Ojakian served on the Planning Commission with Council Member Beecham. He commented on Council Member Beecham’s outstanding dedication and commitment to the Planning Commission. Mayor Kniss presented the resolution to Council Member Beecham. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 3. Resolution 7930 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Cheryl Piha for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board” MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the resolution. Council Member Lytle was the staff liaison to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) during a significant portion of Ms. Piha’s term. Ms. Piha was an extremely effective ARB member who brought the qualities of the community member to her review of projects. She thanked Ms. Piha for her many hours of effort. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Kniss presented the resolution to Ms. Piha. Cheryl Piha said being a member of the ARB was a wonderful experience. She appreciated the opportunity to serve the City through the prior six years. 02/07/00 89- 348 4. Resolution 7931 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Its Appreciation to Dennis Backlund for his Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Historic Resources Board” MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Lytle, to adopt the resolution. Vice Mayor Eakins was the HRB liaison for two years. Mr. Backlund was a walking glossary of architectural and historic terminology and bibliography of resources. She believed the crowning moment was Mr. Backlund’s review of the parking structures, especially Lots S/L. When Mr. Backlund took on the point-by-point analysis of the parking structures, every listener was breathless. Mr. Backlund was comprehensive, detailed, analytical, and clear. Council Member Fazzino thanked Mr. Backlund for his many contributions. Mr. Backlund was a strong historic preservation advocate; however, he listened carefully to those with other perspectives on the issue. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Kniss presented the resolution to Mr. Backlund. Dennis Backlund thanked Vice Mayor Eakins for her work as the HRB liaison for two years. He acknowledged his colleagues on the HRB. Mayor Kniss presented the proclamation for “Library Lovers Month.” 5. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning and Transportation Commission City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Peter Eng, Michael Griffin, Bonnie Packer, Gail Schubert, and Yoriko Kishimoto received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, February 14, 2000. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert A. Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, spoke regarding the eruv. Aram B. James, 832 Los Robles Avenue, spoke regarding “no” on Propositions 21 and 22. Mary Schaefer, 742 De Soto Drive, spoke regarding flooding of San Francisquito Creek. Winter Dellenbach, 859 LaPora Avenue, spoke regarding Proposition 22. Jeff Shore, 1905 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek. 02/07/00 89- 349 John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the leaf blower ban ordinances. Leland Francois, 1955 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, spoke regarding historic zoning. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 6 - 11. 6. Ordinance 4610 entitled “Ordinance 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” (1st Reading 1/18/00, PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent) 7. Annual Public Review of Compliance of Development Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects 8. Amendment No. 11 to Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the State of California, Santa Clara County, and All Cities in Santa Clara County in the Amount of $41,607 for the Cal ID System for Automated Fingerprint System 9. Contracts for Electric Power Quality Consultant Services in the Amount of $240,000 Over a Three-Year Period Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Electrotek Concepts, Incorporated for Electric Power Quality Consultant Services Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and EPRI-PEAC Corporation for Electric Power Quality Consultant Services Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Competent Technical Services for Electric Power Quality Consultant Services 10. Amendment No. 3 to Consultant Contract C9106646 Between the City of Palo Alto and Group 4 Architecture, Research and Planning, Inc. in the Amount of $60,000 for Professional Consulting Services Related to the Interior Improvements and Space Planning Project 11. Resolution 7932 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Support for Proposition 14 - The California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000” 02/07/00 89- 350 MOTION PASSED 9-0, for Item Nos. 6 and 8-11. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 7, Mossar “not participating.” CLOSED SESSION 11A. Public Employee Appointment Title: City Manager Authority: Government code section 54957 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. Ordinances Regarding Parking Structures at 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street (continued from 1/18/00) Council Member Beecham said he would not participate in this item due to a conflict of interest. Katherine Pering, 388 Everest Avenue, read a statement from the Downtown North Neighborhood Association (DTNNA) and the Board of University South Neighborhoods Group (USNG). The DTNNA and USNG believed the proposed aboveground height of the parking garage Lot S would substantially degrade the area by: a) the inappropriate massiveness of the structure and its domination of the surroundings; b) setting a precedent for Comprehensive Plan variances requesting additional building heights; and c) diminished view of the 1893 Victorian building at 420 Florence Avenue. The additional cost of putting one level underground was estimated to increase the overall assessment minimally. The DTNNA recommended that the ordinance to reclassify the property to PC Zoning should not be passed unless the aboveground height of the current design was cut by at least one level. Walter Sedriks, 325 Waverley Street, said the staff report (CMR:133:00) stated that the view and access of the 1893 Victorian building would improve only minimally if the parking garage on 445 Bryant Street were reduced by one parking level; however, the staff report did not address the major aesthetic impact to the Victorian building. He showed some overhead projections noting the impacts to the Victorian building. The reduction in height of the parking garage made a difference in relation to surrounding buildings as well as the Victorian building. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, said she spoke with 20 neighbors in the Downtown. Not one of the neighbors was willing to support the parking garages without a commitment from the City to provide customers with additional parking. The Council had to help the businesses if it wanted to retain a mix of small independent businesses in the Downtown. She could not afford to pay for subsidized parking for other people if it did not free parking spaces for her clients. 02/07/00 89- 351 Council Member Burch recalled that at one time, Ms. Bell did not want the parking structures built. He asked whether Ms. Bell wanted the parking structure to have five stories instead of four. Ms. Bell said whatever was built would have to deal with parking problems fairly and equitably. People who got to use the parking garages should be the people who paid for them. The problem was that the City was not tying into any legal structure as to how the buildings would be used. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said Ms. Bell was both a property owner and a business owner, and the Council had to understand who would be paying for the parking spaces. The typical lease in the Downtown was a triple net lease which meant the tenant was paying for the space. Council Member Burch raised the issue of eliminating the top floor of 77 spaces without replacing the spaces with a third underground level. By his calculations, eliminating the top floor would reduce the per-square-foot cost to the retail tenant $1.04. Mark Sabin, 4274 Wilkie Way, was in favor of the proposed parking garages. He believed there was an environmental impact in the Downtown with people driving around looking for parking spaces. Because of the high price of housing in the area, people working in the downtown found it difficult to live in Palo Alto which contributed to the parking deficit. There was a need for the parking structures. Nick Selby, 475 Melville Avenue, was concerned about the obstruction of the historic structure at 418 Florence Street. Page 15 of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), stated the historic portion of the building on 420 Florence Street located near the corner of Florence Street and Lytton Avenue would not be affected by the parking garage structure; however, he believed that the construction of the garage would completely obscure the building. Council Member Burch asked whether Mr. Selby owned the building on 420 Florence Street. Mr. Selby said no; however, he was a tenant in the building. Council Member Burch said the portion that was added to the original structure would be five feet from the garage wall. He asked whether the economic value of the building would be decreased and Mr. Selby’s rent decreased as well. Mr. Selby did not know whether his rent would decrease. He thought it was interesting that when the addition to the building was constructed, the City presented the partnership that did the addition an award for its faithfulness to the original Victorian. The City celebrated the historic preservation that was achieved. 02/07/00 89- 352 The addition to the building which the City previously had celebrated was used as a reason why it was permissible to construct the parking garage. Sally-Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper Street, believed the parking structures were an inexpensive way to provide parking spaces for non-residents. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Avenue, suggested the garages be reduced in size as much as possible and that the parking spaces not be subsidized for workers at the expense of people who create the need for workers. Most major cities did not subsidize parking for its workers. The City was charging 12-15 percent of the actual cost for an annual parking pass. He believed the City was sending the wrong message and should encourage people to park and shop in the Downtown. He believed people who worked in the Downtown should take mass transit. He suggested the majority of spaces in the parking garage be for customers not workers. Mayor Kniss said several speakers mentioned that the City had not yet defined how the parking garages would be used. She believed that a use had to be defined. City Manager Fleming did not believe the style, definition, and calculation was made because staff did not know the number of parking spaces. Public Work Director Glenn Roberts said the statement that use of the parking garage was not precisely defined was correct. The Downtown Parking Committee and staff would bring a recommendation before the Council once the final design and number of spaces were confirmed. Staff spoke before Council about the issue in conceptual terms and had intentions to bring forward a recommendation to Council that at least maintained the current number of public parking spaces. The exact number of spaces had not yet been defined. Mayor Kniss asked whether the City had a plan to remove 1,200 parked cars from the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Roberts said there was no specific plan. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance, including findings and conditions, rezoning the property from PF (Public Facilities) to Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the construction of a multi-level parking structure on existing City of Palo Alto parking lot R. Ordinance 4612 entitled “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 02/07/00 89- 353 to PC” (1st Reading 12/20/99, PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0 Beecham “not participating.” MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to adopt the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance, including findings and conditions, rezoning the property from (PF) Public Facilities and CD-C (P) Commercial District with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to PC Planned Community District to allow the construction of a multi-level parking structure on existing City of Palo Alto parking lots S/L, and the request for a waiver of required parking for the new square footage of the proposed teen center; with a reduction of one floor above-ground with no additional below-ground parking. Council Member Burch attended a presentation by an architect who discussed massing, scale, and proportion. He believed the parking garage on Lots S/L were too big. The City should create disincentives to driving cars and increase the incentive to use public transportation and shuttles. He suggested removing one level from the parking garage on Lots S/L. Council Member Lytle said she would not support the motion unless there was an amendment to include one level of underground parking to maintain the number of spaces. She was concerned that the additional delay in the project would add extra costs. AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to include a third level below ground. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Burch, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle “yes,” Beecham “not participating.” SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, that the Council adopt the ordinance for Lot S/L as previously approved by the City Council. Ordinance 4611 entitled “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 “no,” Kniss, Schneider absent) Council Member Mossar said cost was an issue. She did not support an additional underground floor. She reminded the Council that customer and worker parking could not be separated and that workers were customers and spent money in the Downtown as well. Building the garages would give the City the opportunity to work on neighborhood parking permits and begin discussing increased parking permit fees in the Downtown. The City could not move forward because of the large parking deficit. 02/07/00 89- 354 Vice Mayor Eakins said Palo Alto was one of the nicer cities in the world but did not have the concentration of jobs or concentration of origins of workers or shoppers that rely solely on mass transit. The workers and shoppers came from diffused areas and would keep relying on cars. The debate demonstrated the “love/hate” relationship with the automobile. The garages would not be needed if people did not rely so heavily on their automobiles. The Council needed to proceed with the parking garages. She supported the substitute motion. Council Member Ojakian supported the substitute motion. He remembered when the Council began the project six years prior; the original cost was approximately $14-15 million. The structures proposed with the additional floor cost approximately $18.6 million. He believed the Council needed to proceed with the project because the costs were rising. The Downtown parking situation did not stop with the garages which was a piece of the puzzle. He noted with respect to square footage in the Downtown, there was a deficit close to 6,000 spaces using ordinances currently in place. Council Member Fazzino said the structure was a better design. He was concerned that the parking structure would be the defining structure in the Downtown area. He believed parking needs could be achieved, a structure designed which the citizens could be proud of, and the City could put together a parking structure that was cost effective for the assessment district. Council Member Lytle believed the structures were outstanding and good decisions were made. She thanked the Council and City Staff for participating in the study session before that evening’s meeting. She supported the substitute motion. Council Member Burch did not support the substitute motion. The two combined parking garages were the largest single project approved in the City in the prior 20 years. The Council was approving something that would have a major impact on the look of the City. Council Member Kleinberg said the DTNNA requested a reduction in the size of the parking garage. The Council was caught up with balancing aesthetics. She believed that reducing the garage by one level would make it appear bulkier. Some light might be shed on the Victorian next door, but the whole neighborhood would “feel” bulkier because of the design. She supported the substitute motion. Mayor Kniss said the transit system was not up to date. Palo Alto was still in transition. She viewed the issue as a safety issue. People were in a hurry and drove in a hurry often trying to steal each other’s parking places. She supported the substitute motion. The City was a victim of its own success. The Downtown was a 02/07/00 89- 355 successful area that many people visited, shopped, and dined. She believed approving the parking garages was the step the City needed to take in terms of safety, to decrease the parking deficit, and to attempt to cut down on the environmental impact of people circling the Downtown to find a parking space. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-2, Burch, Fazzino “no,” Beecham “not participating.” RECESS: 9:10 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal by Phillip Lally of the Planning Director’s denial of an application to remove a protected Coast Live Oak from a neighboring property located at 734 De Soto MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to continue Item No. 13 to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 14. Status Report on Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Matadero/ Barron Creek Flood Control Project Public Works Director Glenn Roberts said staff came forward with a design issue regarding capacity of Matadero Creek in lower Matadero in late 1997. The issue was significant for Palo Alto and residents of the vicinity. Since that time, the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD) staff worked hard to identify design attributes and held a number of meetings and workshops. SCVWD staff was before the Council to present a recommended alternative and to receive feedback from the Council before taking the recommendation to the SCVWD Board. He commended the SCVWD staff and Board for the manner in which it handled the design review and also for the manner for which it operated Matadero and Barron Creeks for the prior three years. During the 1998 winter storms, the SCVWD managed to operate the creeks so they did not flood. Greg Zlotnik, SCVWD Chairman of the Board, said SCVWD staff would present the Council with a brief status report on the Matadero Creek Remediation Project. Upon completion of the project SCVWD staff revised the flood maps and discovered flaws. Dave Hook, SCVWD Senior Project Manager, showed the Council an overhead of the area downstream of Highway 101 at the entrance to the Palo Alto flood basin. Staff identified a fundamental problem in the area. Due to silt deposit and vegetation overgrowth, there was no capacity to pass the 1 percent flow through the area next to the channel. Staff looked at a number of solutions, the most 02/07/00 89- 356 obvious one was to clean the channel out; however, cleaning out the channel was not the best alternative because cleaning would be expensive and difficult to maintain. There were three alternatives, 1) clean out the channel; 2) build a concrete bypass channel; and 3) build box coverts under Bayshore Road. He showed a matrix of the three choices on the overhead projector. SCVWD staff’s preference was to build a concrete bypass channel. Water was still backing up above Highway 101 because of construction. Some smaller bridges contributed to the backup. SCVWD staff looked at widening the channel; however, costs would be large and widening the channel would be disruptive. One component SCVWD staff reviewed and would be recommending would be to replace the small bridges. The key issue facing the City would be closing the bridge for construction, or keeping the bridge open while attempting to phase construction. Another component SCVWD staff reviewed was the floodwalls upstream. The floodwalls were not high enough and did not have “freeboard” which prevented SCVWD from removing people from the flood area. He showed a hypothetical before and after picture of the floodwalls. SCVWD reviewed floor reduction which included the possibility of diverting water somewhere else; however, staff found the possibility unworkable since the water was already being diverted from Barron Creek to Matadero Creek. He showed an overhead of the Creek upstream from Highway 101. The leading alternative for upstream included the modifications of Louis Road to replace the bridge and floodwalls at a cost of approximately $6 million dollars for upstream and a construction schedule to be completed by the end of 2002. Council Member Kleinberg asked what existed downstream. Mr. Hook said a fence for the Corporation Yard. Eight to 10 feet from the fence was the top of the bank. Along the bank, there was a row of eucalyptus trees. At the bottom of the bank was the start of the riparian habitat which was a concern to the regulatory agencies. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Mr. Hook discussed any existing danger to the habitats at the bottom of the creek. Mr. Hook said he did not. Council Member Kleinberg did not favor concrete troughs when nature designed a waterway. She was interested in knowing what kind of environmental mitigation the City could provide and how to avoid having another natural waterway within Palo Alto turned into a cement trough. Mr. Zlotnik appreciated Council Member Kleinberg’s concerns. He showed an overhead of the current channel which remained intact. The SCVWD was recommending a bypass which was over to the right outside the main channel. The SCVWD was taking an access road and excavating it out to put the bypass channel in place. The main streamway would be left natural as much as possible and another 02/07/00 89- 357 floodway would be built on land that was not part of the original streamway. Council Member Burch said Alternative No. 1 had a construction cost of $1.4 million, $.5 million for mitigation, and $16.9 million land costs. Mr. Zlotnik said for the SCVWD to do mitigation, land had to be bought. Council Member Burch asked why the SCVWD had to buy land. Mr. Zlotnik said mitigation could not be done anywhere else unless the land was bought. Mitigation could not be done in the creek because resources would be impacted. Land would have to be found within the region so the same environmental values could be provided that would either be destroyed or impacted by doing the project. The enhanced riparian corridor was not enhanced in terms of its environmental values; it was enhanced because of its ability to move water which would require decreasing its environmental values. Currently, the riparian corridor was clogged with vegetation and habitat which would have to be cleaned out. Permits were required to clean out the riparian corridor and the environmental values had to be replaced. The land acquisition costs were to buy land for environmental replacement. Council Member Burch asked how many acres would be purchased. Mr. Zlotnik said in terms of the riparian corridor, .8 acres. Council Member Mossar clarified the SCVWD wanted to cut a 45-foot wide channel through the wetlands. The channel may not be concrete; however, the channel was not a natural channel and would destroy the habitat. The alternatives the SCVWD suggested enabled the City to leave the creek channel in its natural state and divert flows of excess water through the channel. The same thing was done in Barron Park to allow the creek to remain natural. Mr. Zlotnik said Alternative No. 2 was the more environmentally benign alternative. It did not seem that way since a concrete channel would be constructed; however, the reality of what was not being impacted made the alternative more environmentally benign. Vice Mayor Eakins supported Alternative No. 2. Libby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa Avenue, Los Altos, hoped staff would come up with a flood control project much like the project for the Charles River in Massachusetts. Boston could not construct a flood control project that could protect the city; therefore, Boston took the natural valley approach which consisted of purchasing a lot of land and having a lot of wetlands so the floodwaters would undulate as it came down the Charles River. She believed when staff reviewed the San Francisquito and Matadero Creeks, it had to meet 02/07/00 89- 358 with Stanford and come up with areas in the Stanford campus that could take the natural valley approach along Deer Creek, Matadero Creek, and the San Francisquito Creek. She believed the flood basin was over subscribed with all the rivers going into it. Sediment basins upstream were needed. A good example of a sediment basin could be found upstream of Barron Creek. There were more conservative ways to buffer the upstream watershed that were safer in the long run. Janet Owens, 850 Webster Street, #421, was concerned about the Colorado Park Apartments which were across Colorado Avenue, west of Highway 101. There was a City storm drain behind Colorado Park Apartments that was pumped into the Matadero Creek during flood problems. Since the storm drain was built, Colorado Park Apartments periodically suffered from flooding in the east and west parking lots. She hoped something could be done with the flooding problem near the Colorado Park Apartments. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said historically, Matadero Creek did not exist east of Emerson Street. According to an 1895 United States Geological Survey (USGS) map, Embarcadero Creek vanished just past the railroad track. When the concrete channel was put in, it created a flow path through the marshland which was filled and used for housing and industry. The SCVWD abandoned the creek and did not perform maintenance work once it installed the concrete channel in the 1950s. The creek then filled with silt and trees and bushes grew. The federal government claimed mitigation costs came into play because more damage would occur to remove silt and vegetation than to leave the creek as it was and to install another channel that would go around the Municipal Service Center (MSC). The only setback would be high floodwalls downstream because there was no retention pond on Stanford land that was proposed. Ideally, there would be a retention pond and 20 acres of dedicated open space; however, in order to get the retention pond and the 20 acres, the City would have to deal with Stanford. If the upstream retention option were tried, the project would be delayed, increasing the risk of flooding. He believed the alternative plan was the best option. Mr. Zlotnik said the Council should have received a letter sent on behalf of the SCVWD Board to the County Planning Department with respect to the General Plan process. The SCVWD asked the County to insert the retention basin as part of its discussion. The reason for the request was that Stanford University indicated an unwillingness to discuss the matter unless the SCVWD wanted to provide funding for the land and provide environmental enhancement that Stanford University could use as mitigation for some of its projects. The SCVWD would provide the environmental enhancement in exchange for the property. The SCVWD believed there was an opportunity to provide an overall environmental benefit and ability to lower the floodwall heights. He asked the Council to provide some comment to the County Planning Department. 02/07/00 89- 359 Vice Mayor Eakins asked for a general idea of where the retention basin would be located. Mr. Zlotnik said the retention basin would be located on the southwest corner of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway. The basin would be between Matadero and Deer Creeks with significant buffers off the creeks. The land would still be utilized the same way it had been despite the fact that the SCVWD would have to excavate. The SCVWD did not expect any water on the land with the exception of every five or ten years. The idea was to provide environmental enhancements as mitigation credits to Stanford for other development it was doing. No action required. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Members Ojakian and Fazzino re Request to Reintroduce Proposed Median Solicitation Ordinance Council Member Fazzino recalled that he along with Council Member Schneider placed the item regarding median solicitation on the agenda. At that time, the Council decided to direct staff to draft an ordinance more narrowly crafted with respect to the issue. Unfortunately, the ordinance was agendized for a meeting that he could not attend. He requested to reintroduce the proposed Median Solicitation Ordinance. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Beecham, to request that Item No. 15 be reintroduced. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Kleinberg, Mossar “no.” Council Member Fazzino viewed the item as a traffic safety issue. People standing in medians were at risk, as well as people driving the cars. In one situation, he observed an automobile rear-ended by another automobile because the driver had stopped to give money to someone soliciting from a median. Tony Ciampi, Bryant Street, provided articles to the Council which pointed to the fact that cell phones increased accidents, the magnitude of injuries, and property damage. Several Council Members indicated that the justification for passing the ordinance was solely based upon protecting the safety and health of the community. He believed he provided the Council with compelling evidence concerning the hazardous activity of driving an automobile while using a cell phone. If the Council believed it had enough evidence to support the passage of the ordinance, it should have no qualms to pass an ordinance banning cell phones which were more hazardous to public safety. Shirley Ledgerwood, 2050 Waverley Street, said most of the issues discussed at that evening’s meeting were important to Palo Altans 02/07/00 89- 360 because they affected their homes, health, and pocketbooks; however, no one was thinking of the health or the lack of pocketbooks of the homeless. There were no accidents that occurred because of panhandling on the streets, except for the accident that Council Member Fazzino mentioned. She believed the real motive behind the ordinance was to remove the homeless from Palo Alto streets. Unged Ballad, student at Stanford University, said the statistics showed the ordinance was not a transportation issue. There were no police records of accidents caused by soliciting. Council Member Burch commented that more accidents occurred at certain intersections where there was no soliciting than at the intersections where people solicited. Thomas Gibbs, exchange student from Atlanta, Georgia, attending Stanford, said people who panhandled did not do it for sport or leisure, but panhandled as a means of income. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian, to introduce the ordinance. 1st Reading entitled “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 Area, and in and Adjacent to Driveway Entrances” Council Member Fazzino agreed with Mr. Ciampi that cell phones were a hazard when used while driving. The issue was not relevant to the discussion; however, he was willing to consider it because cell phones were a safety issue. He emphasized the ordinance would not ban panhandling, and there were other places that people could panhandle after the ordinance was passed. The ordinance was directly related to a traffic safety issue. Council Member Ojakian believed the issue was a safety issue rather than a panhandling or homeless issue. He mentioned in regard to Mr. Ciampi’s comment that he did not use a cell phone because he considered it a safety hazard. He believed the ordinance was preventative and did not relate to panhandling, but did relate to solicitors putting themselves in a position that could be dangerous. Council Member Burch did not support the motion. He did not believe the matter was a homeless or safety issue. He encountered panhandlers standing quietly or sitting there leaving the driver to take the initiative. AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to adopt the ordinance with the effective date postponed until after Council consideration of the Downtown Opportunity Center proposal. 02/07/00 89- 361 Council Member Fazzino was concerned the amendment made the item a homeless issue. There would be support for the Opportunity Center within the Council and there was no need to merge the two issues. Council Member Mossar said the Opportunity Center was a private proposal. At some point, the Opportunity Center would ask the Council to participate; however, the Council should not expect to have the project appear in the regular budget cycles. City Manager June Fleming said Council Member Mossar was correct. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-7, Burch, Lytle “yes.” Council Member Beecham would not support the ordinance based on safety issues; however, he would support the ordinance based on what he believed was established City rights, procedures, and policies in the past. The City had a number of regulations to regulate how and where commerce was performed and how it affected the neighbors and public at large. The City would not allow a normal business establishment to operate part of its business in the indicated locations. The City was not saying one could not panhandle; but as with many things, there were appropriate and inappropriate places to panhandle. Council Member Kleinberg asked when the law would take effect in terms of the bail schedule. Police Chief Dwyer said the Council would draft a resolution recommending a bail schedule to the judge and would determine when the law would take effect. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the second reading would occur two weeks after that evening’s meeting and the law would take effect 31 days after that. The Council would send a recommendation to the court for bail sometime in fall 2000; however, the Council could make that determination anytime. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the law could take effect without a bail schedule. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The court would establish bail on its own; the Council’s action would be a recommendation. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the charge for breaking the law would be an infraction. Mr. Dwyer said yes, the charge would be treated as a traffic infraction. Traffic infractions were priced at $50-250 dollars. His recommendation would be to price it at the lower end of the scale. Council Member Kleinberg said in Attachment A of a staff report (CMR:201:99), seven cities were listed that had solicitation 02/07/00 89- 362 ordinances. She asked whether the seven cities were a complete list of all the cities in California. Mr. Dwyer did not believe the list was a complete list of cities that passed solicitation ordinances. The list was compiled by Ms. Johnson who had personal contact with people in the seven cities to discuss the application and enforcement of the ordinance in the cities. Most of the other cities passed a solicitation ordinance as a preventive ordinance. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add language to the ordinance that “No person shall be cited under this section unless the person engages in conduct prohibited by this section after having been notified by a law enforcement officer that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section.” Council Member Kleinberg suggested that signs posted in the prohibited areas should have a phone number or ask someone who owned the private commercial lot where the permissible areas were located. Mr. Dwyer said an expedient way to handle Council Member Kleinberg’s request was to address in the agreement that the commercial parking lot operator was required to have on file with the City Manager the permissible areas and agree to place signage in the area. Council Member Kleinberg asked what happened after the person was cited. Mr. Dwyer said when someone was issued a traffic citation, he/she had the option to pay the bail recommended or request a court hearing and plead not guilty and contest the citation. The person would have to pay the fine if found guilty in court. A bench warrant would be issued if the person failed to appear in court. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there was a policy as to how many warnings would be issued before a fine was issued. Mr. Dwyer said the matter was appropriate to be left up to police discretion as long as it was supported by good supervision and training. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the bail could be lower than the minimum of $50. Mr. Calonne said the court typically accepted bail recommendations. Council Member Kleinberg asked what would happen if the person did not have the money to pay the fine. 02/07/00 89- 363 Mr. Dwyer said the person could opt for community service in lieu of bail. Council Member Kleinberg clarified that the decision was up to the judge and the Council had no control over the decision. Mr. Dwyer said that was correct. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the provisions applied to the drivers. Mr. Dwyer said yes. There were three sections to the ordinance, 1) driver soliciting from other drivers or pedestrians; 2) pedestrians soliciting; and 3) commercial lots. Vice Mayor Eakins clarified a driver could be cited for stopping. Mr. Dwyer said yes, if the driver was soliciting. Council Member Kleinberg did not support the motion. She thanked the Council for adding reasonable mitigated language. There had not been one traffic accident caused by solicitation, and the accident rates were not substantially different in comparable intersections. In each of the 88 accidents reported in 1998, the primary collision factors did not involve solicitation. The videotapes recorded by the Police Department showed no behavior by the solicitors that would constitute a traffic hazard, and interviews with the business owners conducted showed mediocre interest. She believed the ordinance meant to deal with a socio-economical problem that was manifesting itself in a potential traffic hazard. She was worried about the kids standing at the entrance to Palo Alto High School advertising their car wash or parking for a Stanford game. She was stunned that the Council did not show the same consideration for the childrens’ safety as it was showing for the panhandlers. She believed the City needed a comprehensive approach to the problem of homelessness. If the Council wanted to correct the problem of people having no money, the Council needed to view the problem in a comprehensive, cross-sector fashion. She was concerned about passing a law that would cause people with no money to go to jail because they had no money. Council Member Mossar did not support the motion. Mayor Kniss said the County spent $2.5 billion. Half of the money was spent preparing people to go from welfare to work. There was a program available for people wishing to re-enter the workforce and many jobs in the area. Unemployment was just under three percent. She found it difficult to believe that if someone wanted to work and be retrained that they could not avail themselves of that in the County. MOTION PASSED 6-3, Burch, Kleinberg, Mossar “no.” 02/07/00 89- 364 16. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar spoke about the “Think” car. Mayor Kniss spoke regarding the passing of Henry Page, former principal of the Palo Alto Adult School and counselor at Cubberley High School. Council Member Fazzino communicated good wishes to former Council Member John Beahrs (1963-1977). Council Member Burch asked whether the Council would take positions on measures for the March 7, 2000, election. City Manager June Fleming replied that staff would look into the question. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 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. 02/07/00 89- 365