HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-10 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting April 10, 2000
1. Joint Meeting with Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian ............................................................ 55
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.................. 55
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS............................................. 56
1. Amendment No. 1 to the Adolescent Counseling Services Agreement No. C0117283 in the Amount of $17,435 to Provide Counseling Services to At Risk Youth and Their Families for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 ................................................... 56
2. Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. C8096901 in the Amount of $300,000 with Underground Construction Company, Inc., for Electric Utility Trench and Substructure .................... 56
3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C9111693 in the Amount of $100,000 with Utility Constructors for Providing Overhead Construction Services ....................................... 56
4. Resolution 7955 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated Special Election Held on Tuesday, March 7, 2000” .................... 56
5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement for Transfer of Rights and Obligations under an Interest Rate Exchange Agreement Relating to Hydroelectric Project Number One Revenue Bonds (Transfer Agreement) .................................. 57
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Review of Cable Co-op’s Past Performance Related to the 1986 Franchise Agreement, Amended in 1991 .... 57
7. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 Modifying Leaf
Blowers Regulations and Public Property Noise Limits and Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.48 Prohibiting the Blowing of Debris onto Adjacent Properties ............................. 61
04/10/00 90-53
8. Feasibility Analysis of the Roth Building ................... 69
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m................ 69
04/10/00 90-54
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:40 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL MEETING 1. Joint Meeting with Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian A. Welcome and Introductory Remarks B. Transportation
− Supervisors’/VTA Role in Transportation (Kniss)
− Roadway Improvements (Ojakian)
− Public Transit (Kleinberg) C. Housing, Health, and Human Services
− County Funding/Involvement in Housing (Kniss)
− Response of County to PIA Affordable Housing Proposals (Kleinberg)
− Availability of Santa Clara County Funds and Health and Human Services in Palo Alto (Staff)
− Juvenile Justice (Kniss)
− Welfare-to-Work (Kniss)
− Funding for Early Childhood Development Programs/ Services, “Proposition 10” Commission (Kleinberg) D. Stanford General Use Permit and Plan Update (Eakins, Kleinberg, Kniss, Ojakian) E. Environment
− Santa Clara County Assistance with SFO Overflight Issues (Eakins)
− San Francisquito Creek Issues (Mossar)
− Greenbelt/Open Space Issues (Kleinberg, Kniss)
− Santa Clara County Pesticide Ordinance (Staff) No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
04/10/00 90-55
Regular Meeting April 10, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconference from Washington, DC), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding miscellaneous issues. Annette Glanckhof, 2747 Bryant Street, spoke regarding Leadership Mid-Peninsula. Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, spoke regarding Leadership Mid-Peninsula. Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, spoke regarding biker safety. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding working in the public interest. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding governance. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 – 5. 1. Amendment No. 1 to the Adolescent Counseling Services Agreement No. C0117283 in the Amount of $17,435 to Provide Counseling Services to At Risk Youth and Their Families for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 2. Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. C8096901 in the Amount of $300,000 with Underground Construction Company, Inc., for Electric Utility Trench and Substructure 3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C9111693 in the Amount of $100,000 with Utility Constructors for Providing Overhead Construction Services 4. Resolution 7955 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated Special Election Held on Tuesday, March 7, 2000”
04/10/00 90-56
5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement for Transfer of Rights and Obligations under an Interest Rate Exchange Agreement Relating to Hydroelectric Project Number One Revenue Bonds (Transfer Agreement) Council Member Fazzino believed there was a need to bring the historic preservation issue before the Council as soon as possible. City Manager Frank Benest said the historic preservation issue was scheduled for the April 24, 2000, City Council Meeting. Council Member Fazzino said for those concerned with why the matter was not agendized before that evening’s meeting, the Council could take no action on the historic preservation issue until the March 7, 2000, election results were approved. MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Review of Cable Co-op’s Past Performance Related to the 1986 Franchise Agreement, Amended in 1991 Council Member Mossar could not participate in Agenda Item No. 6 due to a conflict of interest. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said staff was working with Cable Co-op and AT&T on the transfer and renewal of the cable franchise. Part of Phase II of the process was to review past performance, including several tasks on which staff was working concurrently. Staff requested that the Council conduct a public hearing which would provide an opportunity for the community as well as members of the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to comment on the past performance of the Cable Co-op including any issues related to performance, picture quality and sound, cable modem services, and customer service matters. The task was completed in an effort to resolve any contract compliance issues prior to the proposed transfer and renewal with AT&T. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing open. Margaret Cooley, 830 University Avenue, understood the public hearing was one opportunity for the community to speak to the renewal of the franchise agreement. She spoke as a member of the Open Net Coalition, which maintained open access to the Internet over broadband cable. She felt that open Internet access was an important part of the renewal process. She was disappointed that technology was not one of the areas covered. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, wanted to praise Cable Co-op for its past performance. Cable Co-op had a wide array of channels,
04/10/00 90-57
most of which were basic cable. She was concerned with what would happen in the future because cable was currently tailored to the community’s needs. Marvin E. Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, said his family was involved in many community activities. He informed the Council that the effort to create a cable system in Palo Alto, which began many years ago, culminated in 1977 when the City Council decided that there was no real need for cable systems. He convinced a Council Member at that time to reintroduce the idea of a cable system. Palo Alto had a unique FM system that provided the community with classical music from 3 or 4 different sources, 24-hours a day. The community could not expect that from a company like AT&T unless the community insisted. He urged the Council to retain what the community spent 20 years building and spend a few months ensuring that the community would retain its widely diverse system that met all needs. Ken Freiberg, 842 Clara Drive, met with Assistant Director of Administrative Services Melissa Cavallo who agreed that one of the problems with the turnover was the public did not have the opportunity to provide input. The Administrative Services Department had meetings scheduled from April 17 – 26, 2000; however, there would be no time to compile the information provided by the public to be brought before the Council before the transfer. He asked why AT&T was not invited to the Council meeting to discuss what it had in mind. He proposed that before the transfer was made, the community had an opportunity to hear from AT&T. Roland Finston, 856 Thornwood Drive, said there were 81 days until July 1, 2000. One of two things could happen, 1) Cable Co-op creditors would call for repayment of loans; 2) the perspective purchaser of the Cable Co-op properties, AT&T Broadband, had an opportunity to leave the negotiation. The consequences would be major to Palo Alto. One of the major achievements of Cable Co-op in its tenure as a franchisee was the securement of the perspective agreement with AT&T Broadband, which included an upgrade of the system to fiber within 30 months which would answer many question raised regarding the kind of programming the community would enjoy on the system in the future. Cable Co-op’s problem in the past was being unable to obtain the kinds of programs it would like. With an upgraded system, there would be no problem obtaining all possible channels and radio programs. A loss that would occur with a delay in the transfer process was that the $17 million gift from AT&T to the new non-profit community media cooperative would be lost. The community would lose the ability to carry on the local origination-type programming that Cable Co-op provided in the past. He appreciated the Council’s careful consideration of the problem in a timely manner. Arthur Snyder, 473 East Meadow Drive, urged the Council not to be coerced into the transfer without adequate public input. The large
04/10/00 90-58
voter turnout in favor of the sale was impressive because AT&T sponsored calls to large factions of the Cable Co-op subscribers. The Council needed to “show some backbone” if the community was to get what it wanted out of the deal. He urged the Council to be careful with the franchise deal and not rush it. The Council should negotiate with AT&T to get an appropriate amount of time available to have serious public input and carefully consider the terms of the franchise. Bill Copeland, 3835 Carlson Court, was a member of the Needs Assessment Task Force (Task Force). The Buske Group provided the Task Force with much information regarding the franchise process. The technology and needs of the community were changing and he urged the Council to take the time to obtain the kind of public input that was required. For fifteen years, Cable Co-op served Palo Alto and other cities with television cable services. Cable Co-op added Internet services in the last few years. Cable Co-op’s past performance was excellent and it delivered a channel line-up the community found informative and entertaining. News was provided from around the world, all levels of government, and other neighborhoods. The management team adapted and evolved the choices to meet local area needs and kept the business together without losing money. In his opinion, the franchise with Cable Co-op should be renewed; however, the Board of Directors of Cable Co-op voted to sell Cable Co-op to AT&T. The reality was that the service provider in the past would not be the service provider in the future. The business was sold to a large corporation that had a different agenda. He expected substantial changes in the cable service. The availability of television channels would change and likely be brought along with other franchises owned by the new provider in the area. The selection would become part of the “cookie cutter” that was placed over the rest of the Bay Area. Public education and government (PEG) channels would be placed in direct competition with for-profit television channels. The new provider would seek to move the PEG channels to less traffic channel areas. The FM radio station line-up would change. Access to the internet would come under a provider that showed itself often to be hostile to open access. The community did not hear a response from AT&T and did not know what AT&T’s views were on the subject. He requested that staff and the Council give the process the time it deserved. He urged the Council to not be intimidated by a “ticking clock” and find out what the community wanted. Michael J. Eager, 1960 Park Boulevard, said both Cable Co-op and AT&T were aware of the issues regarding franchising. The franchising was not an issue for the Council but an issue for Cable Co-op and AT&T to negotiate. He suggested Cable Co-op and AT&T needed to work with each other if extensions were needed. The City and the community were concerned about getting a franchise agreement that provided the City and its residents with the best services they required. The issue of 81 days or whether the bank
04/10/00 90-59
would refinance the loan was not a Council or community issue but an issue for the Board of Directors of Cable Co-op. Louise Herring, 3945 Nelson Drive, said Palo Alto was a great place to live because of the cultural offerings that were available. Many people who built Palo Alto’s reputation and made it an attractive place to live were now aging. Those were people that were frequently confined to their homes; therefore, what was on cable was their main source of entertainment. She hoped that the Council would represent the people of the City who relied on the Cable offerings as a source of entertainment, in particular the radio music. Liza Loop, 760 Homer Avenue, did not use the television service of Cable Co-op but used the Internet services. She was upset that there was only one public hearing and believed there should be more. Legally the franchise agreement should not dictate to the service provider what channels it provided. There were many important issues which would not be addressed due to the lack of time. Mayor Kniss said there would be several hearings regarding the transfer of services. She noted the hearings should be shown on cable television. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Avenue, said the staff report (CMR:200:00) consisted of an audit done by KFA Services. The City Auditor audited Cable Co-op’s franchise agreements in 1994. Most of the items KFA Services mentioned did not require payment by Cable Co-op. He was appalled that the City Auditor was not involved in the outside audit. He urged the Council to move forward. Approximately $25 million was needed in order to upgrade the system. If the Council did not approve buying Cable Co-op, the money would not be there. He emphasized that if the Council waited too long, Cable Co-op would go out of business. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the City Auditor reviewed the audit from KFA Services in the staff report (CMR:200:00) City Auditor Bill Vinson said staff was not part of the working group; however, staff requested and received a copy of the audit report two days before it was issued to the public. Staff commented on one of the findings; however, staff did not have sufficient time to provide a formal response. Mr. Yeats reminded the Council there would be many community meetings concerning the issue and staff would continue collecting data. Mayor Kniss said there was a commitment from staff and the Council to move the issue as expeditiously as possible. She asked the City
04/10/00 90-60
Manager whether the public could be assured the public hearings would be televised. City Manager Frank Benest said that evening’s meeting was being televised and would be replayed at a later date. He believed other hearings would be televised as well. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether staff had any observations regarding whether the franchise was being renewed or transferred. Mr. Yeats said staff had many discussions regarding whether the franchise was a renewal or a transfer. Cable Co-op and AT&T filed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Form 394 with the City, both were asking for a transfer and a renewal at the same time. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. No action required. ORDINANCES 7. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 Modifying Leaf
Blowers Regulations and Public Property Noise Limits and Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.48 Prohibiting the Blowing of Debris onto Adjacent Properties Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the staff report (CMR:202:00) clarified some of the changes the Council made at the first reading. Since the Council meeting of January 31, 2000, based upon phone conversations and other correspondence with manufacturers, citizens, and gardeners, there was still some confusion about the current status of the availability of alternatives to fuel-powered leaf blowers for use by gardeners. Staff received letters and had conversations with representatives from Eco Corporation indicated the decision to produce battery-powered leaf blowers would be dependent solely upon market demands. Eco Corporation’s opinion was that the potential sales volume was not high enough to make battery-powered leaf blowers a profitable endeavor. Staff made contact with other manufacturers concerning the battery-powered leaf blowers. For example, she recently spoke with the regional sales manager of another leaf blower manufacturer and learned the company was in the basic conceptual stage of a possible battery-powered leaf blower prototype. The battery-powered leaf blower would take a considerable amount of time and dollars before a decision was reached regarding mass production. The City of Los Angeles City Council directed the Water and Power Department to work with two companies in the development of a battery-powered leaf blower prototype. To date, three prototypes were completed, and 1,500 units were completed and being tested by city employees as well as by private gardeners. Depending upon the test results, a battery-powered unit would be available for general purchase within the next few years. She was unable to get any 04/10/00 90-61
specific first-hand information from the City of Los Angeles such as cost, the potential wait, or noise level. Based upon the information, no one could definitively tell staff when an affordable, useable, and available alternate energy leaf blower for gardeners would be available. While the manufacturers were getting the clear message that a battery-powered leaf blower was something to pursue, it was still unclear when alternatives would be available and affordable for gardeners and landscapers. She reviewed the first-cut of the training video produced by the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturer’s Association (PPEMA) in conjunction with the Bay Area Gardener’s Association (BAGA), the California Landscape Contractor’s Association, and the Latin American Gardener’s Association (LAGA). She was impressed with the final edition of the video which clearly covered proper operation etiquette and maintenance. Council Member Lytle said a number of people wanting to address the Council spoke only Spanish. She understood that members of the audience contacted staff in advance to translate so the Spanish-speaking members of the audience would understand the proceedings. Don Howard, Gardenland Power, Campbell, suggested dealing with the people who misused the leaf blower instead of banning leaf blowers completely. Blower noise had been reduced approximately 200 percent in the past few years. The newer units were quieter than older units. If the Council checked police records, it would find a dramatic reduction in complaint calls on leaf blowers. Other pieces of gardening equipment were generating complaints with the reduction of leaf blower noise. An electric leaf blower used by a commercial gardener would be worn out within three to six months, which was an unacceptable cost. A garden tool had to last which was why a commercial leaf blower used by a gardener cost more than a home-use leaf blower. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, supported the ordinance. The ordinance would aid residents with noise and health problems. The phrase “from the property plane” on page 5 of the staff report (CMR:202:00) Section 9.10.050(a) was not clear. He asked whether the property plane was from the source or the resident. He asked the Council to remove the phrase because it had nothing to do with the leaf blower ordinance. He suggested the Council allow community input. Linda Jolley, 3757 Haven Avenue, Menlo Park, asked the Council not to paralyze gardeners by imposing a ban when there was no alternative. Her solution weighed less than two pounds. Her cordless electric leaf blower ran on one pair of batteries. Triple the power, the weight should produce roughly 150 miles per hour and industrial power of 210 volts which she believed was more than adequate. The companies contemplating selling a battery-powered leaf blower knew that gardeners needed a lot of power to do their jobs. She believed that leaf blowers should be used on concrete
04/10/00 90-62
which did not require a great amount of power. She suggested the Cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park assemble representatives and find a company willing to produce an inexpensive and compact machine. Gerardo Lombera, 436 Warrington Avenue, Redwood City, said the gardeners and the City could work together to educate gardeners on the correct use of leaf blowers. Ramon Quezada, 445 Lancaster Way, Redwood City, asked the Council to work with the gardeners. There were many people who worked hard in the gardening industry. He asked the Council not to ban the leaf blowers. Juan Carlos Prado translated for Juan Gonzalez, 2324 Glen Way, East Palo Alto. Mr. Gonzalez made a comparison to the people who work in the high technology industry in our community. He asked what would the high technology industry people do without palm pilots and laptop computers. The leaf blower for the gardeners was an essential tool. Gardeners saw the problems and tried to do everything possible as consumers to create cleaner and quieter equipment. Gardening was a physically demanding job. Gardeners wanted to be efficient without damaging the environment. The gardening industry was not one of the highest paying jobs. Mr. Gonzalez asked the Council not to make a decision that evening. Juan Carlos Prado, 212 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, reviewed the staff report (CMR:202:00). He believed a few things in the staff report were inconsistent and inaccurate. He noted the staff report stated that both electric and fuel-powered leaf blowers would be subject to the 65 dBA noise limit. He purchased a Black and Decker electric leaf blower that was rated at over 80 dBA. A gasoline powered leaf blower with a 65 dBA noise limit already existed. He did not know of an electric blower that had a noise limit of 65 dBA. He also noted that during daylight savings time, it would be difficult for a gardener to stop work at 5 p.m. when there were still two to three hours of daylight remaining. He requested the Council be more flexible with the hours. He quoted Section 1(c) of the ordinance regarding the increase in citizen complaints about the noise, dust, and debris created by the leaf blowers. In reality, in the past year complaints had decreased. He urged the Council to review the training video. Section 9.10.080 of the ordinance stated any person who violated Section 9.10.060 (e) or 9.10.060 (f) would be guilty of a misdemeanor. He did not agree with the penalty. The gardeners were not anti-environment. He urged the Council to not make outlaws out of the gardeners. Adam Serrano, 757 W. Virginia Street, San Jose, said the people who worked on streets used machines that made more noise than the leaf blower he used. He was in an accident while using an electric blower.
04/10/00 90-63
Manuel Serrano, 757 W. Virginia Street, San Jose, urged the Council to continue to allow the use of leaf blowers. The gardeners and the City could work together. Most gardeners were trying to cooperate and educate themselves to use leaf blowers in a manner that would not harm the environment. The City would be helping the gardeners to do their jobs by not banning leaf blowers. Electric leaf blowers were noisy and inconvenient. There were risks involved with the electric leaf blowers and gardeners risked electrocution. Mr. Prado translated for Ysaial Rumayor, 749 Poplar, Redwood City, Mr. Rumayor said many more families attended the prior public hearing; but were disappointed with the outcome and lost confidence in the government process. The ban on leaf blowers was hard on the children because they understood the hardship. The suggestion of gardeners’ transitioning to battery- or electric-powered leaf blowers was not possible. He urged the Council to discuss and meet with the BAGA and other organizations to see if something more creative and positive could result. Sometimes it was impossible to use an electric leaf blower because many of the homes in Palo Alto were older and did not have outside electrical outlets. Mr. Prado translated for Miguel Barron, 490 4th Avenue, Redwood City. Mr. Barron said the Council should take measures to remove the loud and polluting leaf blowers. These leaf blowers had an orange aluminum casing that vibrated and were loud. Many times Mr. Barron stopped to talk with gardeners that operated loud leaf blowers. The quieter leaf blowers were efficient and less offensive. He did not blame the residents who were outraged because Mr. Barron saw the behavior of other gardeners who used the louder machines irresponsibly. His customers saw the reduction in noise since he began using the new leaf blower. Some of his customers wanted him to use the electric leaf blower; however, the electric leaf blowers had a much higher decibel, and the customers began to complain. Francisco De Leon, Redwood City, asked the Council to reconsider the ban on leaf blowers. He believed the process was a democratic process and started in good faith; however, everything had changed. Former Council Member Rosenbaum overturned the process at the end of his term and was not present to see the results. He was concerned the Council took on the leaf blowers because it was an easy target for environmental reasons. He approximated that 80 percent of the gardeners were Hispanic. He asked the Council to help the gardeners’ approach the manufacturers of the leaf blowers to produce a tool that would not pollute and would be quieter. He believed the Council inappropriately was telling the gardeners to work without a tool that was important to their livelihood until the manufacturers produced a quieter and more environmental leaf blower. He enjoyed his work and the leaf blower was an essential tool for his job. Educating and training people to use leaf blowers would be beneficial to both the City and the gardeners.
04/10/00 90-64
Mr. Prado translated for Lupe Berumen, 702 Cassia Street, Redwood City. Mr. Berumen said the gardeners were up-to-date and advancing with the technology; however, progress was slow. Mr. Berumen had been in America for 30 years and worked in Palo Alto. Twenty-five years prior, he noted that the Council did not have its present technology such as microphones and comfortable benches. Technological benefits made the Council more efficient and comfortable. The leaf blower technology was still being updated. The leaf blower was a heavy machine that the gardeners did not like to carry. The bottom line was that older technology could not be removed until something was produced to replace it. Trying to ban something and not having any alternatives was not right. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the Palo Alto noise ordinance was enacted in 1972. In the case of leaf blowers, by 1987, there became a problem in the community. The Council’s response was to increase the noise limits for leaf blowers and other types of equipment. Over the years, the fine for misdemeanors was increased and the noise ordinance was amended for that purpose. He believed the recommended amendment to the ordinance, which would be a policy change, was not a good idea. On page 5 of the ordinance, staff recommended the addition of “from the property plane” to Section 9.10.050(a). Since 1972 the Council’s policy regarding public property was that noise would be measured in relation to the source of the noise rather than the property plane. The Council’s failure over the years to see its policies consistently enforced led to the situation where the language “from the property plane” was added. The justification of the added language during the various hearings and staff reports was because the existing language was ambiguous. In fact, the language was not ambiguous because a staff report from June 1, 1972, stated that on public property each individual had an equal right to use and enjoy the available space. Therefore, the property line was not a useful enforcement device. In that instance an increment of 15 dBA over the local ambient at a distance of 25 feet from the noise source was allowed. The standard would permit normal individual or group activities such as routinely occur at public parks and playgrounds but would limit excessively noise incidents. The standard would also ensure that at a distance of approximately 150 feet, the noise would not be noticeable; therefore, the existing language was not ambiguous and served an important public purpose. To retain the standard, it required the Council to delete the language underlined on page 5 of the ordinance (CMR:202:00), Section 9.10.050(a) which was outside the scope and intent of the leaf blower ordinance. Regarding the special provisions in Section 9.10.060 of the ordinance, there was a general daytime exception which related to all days of the week. The new language for leaf blowers inserted special exceptions on noise eliminating Sundays and holidays and applying different limits. He was unsure how the two Sections would be read in terms of enforcing the ordinance or whether it created a complication.
04/10/00 90-65
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, agreed with the gardeners that the ordinance was drastic. When she called to complain about leaf blower noise, the police did not arrive before the gardener departed the area. There was a problem with the change in the language for public facilities in the Special Interest Rider. Residential properties were only allowed 6 dBA above the ambient which was four times more noise above the ambient. Commercial and industrial properties were allowed 8 dBA above the ambient. The Council allowed 15 dBA above the ambient for public facilities and public property in order to account for the extra activity which would allow 30 times more noise above the ambient which was 20-28 times more than allowed by a residence or commercial property. The ordinance specifically stated that noise should be measured at its source in order to be fair and objective measurements. The City Attorney recommended to measure noise 25 feet from the property plane. She asked whether the property plane would be from the private property plane or the property plane of the public property. The second special interest rider in the ordinance stated that 95 dBA would be allowed on all residential property for generators between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Sunday. She used an example of a trailer home used as a mother-in-law cottage or guest house with a generator that ran all day long on the side-yard set back. The noise was annoying when the trailer was parked next to a bedroom, living room, or garden. She found no explanation for the 95 dBA generated noise. She believed the third special interest rider which allowed a 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. allowance to clean a public parking lot should not include parking lots surrounded or adjacent to residential units. Frank Manocchio, 1280 Middlefield Road, represented the California Landscape Contractors Association (CLCA). The CLCA endeavored to make its case based on facts. The CLCA’s position regarding health effects, fugitive dust emissions, and fuel emissions were adequately answered by the investigation done by the Air Resources Board. Leaf blowers were relatively clean machines in terms of the environment. One type of electric leaf blower, the Echo, weighed 40 pounds which was almost twice the weight of a backpack leaf blower. There were health issues in terms of fatigue factor for the user of such an electric leaf blower. He knew of one electric leaf blower prototype that produced 65 dBA noise, higher than the dBA of a gas leaf blower which he believed was a step backward. He emphasized when the CLCA met with Lieutenant Don Harnett and Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson, the CLCA offered to work with the City as best the CLCA could. He noted Mr. Hartnett suggested the CLCA produce a training video. The CLCA was proud of the video that was produced in both English and Spanish. He urged the Council to reconsider the ordinance and return to the original recommendation made by staff for a well crafted reason and common sense approach to the leaf blower problem. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, said she listened to the gardener’s presentations. She believed the matter related to
04/10/00 90-66
ambient air and pollution which was a factor in any leaf blower regardless of the noise. Studies should be done to look into the distress caused by small particles being blown into the air. RECESS: 10:05 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Mossar said there was some concern expressed regarding the noise level limitations. She clarified the noise level limitations were from the original staff recommended ordinance. Ms. Johnson asked whether Council Member Mossar was referring to the 65 dBA level limit for leaf blowers. Council Member Mossar said yes. The original staff recommendation stated violators would be charged with a misdemeanor. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Mayor Kniss said at a previous Council meeting, the vote for the ordinance was 5-3, with Council Members Fazzino, Lytle, and Ojakian voting “no,” and Council Member Beecham absent. She was concerned with where the ordinance was heading. She suggested the Council go back to the original recommendation made by staff and move the prohibition of fuel-powered leaf blowers to July 1, 2002. She realized the gardeners preferred that the Council have no deadline for prohibiting fuel-powered leaf blowers. She suggested the Council monitor the matter closely. If by July 1, 2001, there was no viable alternative, the Council would move the July 1, 2002, deadline forward a few months until an alternative was found. The Council’s issue was not to punish the gardeners. The Council hoped to put pressure on those who manufacture the leaf blower in such a way that the Council could work with the gardeners’ help to continue to pursue an alternative solution. The most desirable change would be to have no deadline on the ban; however, she believed it did not allow for a deadline on the manufacturer’s. Timing for the July 1, 2001, deadline was too draconian. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to reintroduce the ordinance for first reading, changing the deadline for prohibition of leaf blowers to July 1, 2002. 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 [Peace, Morals, and Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Noise from Leaf Blowers” City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the motion would mean the Council would be introducing the ordinance for first reading and would need to have a second reading at a future date.
04/10/00 90-67
Council Member Burch wanted to make clear that no one wanted to take away the gardeners’ right to make a living. Bigger, better, and more powerful seemed to be the way of society. He did not believe anyone complained about leaf blowers when the machines first were produced; however, the leaf blowers did become more powerful and louder. He noted Mr. Barron spoke of education which was the key. The Council had the duty to educate the homeowners as well. The idea of a video was excellent. The Council did not ban leaf blowers but put a date on a calendar. The City and community needed to work together. He suggested to leave the date of July 1, 2001, and agree that the Council would revisit the matter on January 1, 2001, to see whether the video was working and what was happening with the manufacturers. He reiterated that the Council did not want to take away the gardeners’ way of living, but wanted people and the manufacturers to know the City was serious about making a change. Council Member Mossar was comfortable supporting the motion. She was not comfortable with having to do another first and second reading. When the Council changed the date to 2001, it made clear that the Council would review the feasibility of that date and whether there was acceptable equipment. If in January 2001 there was no acceptable equipment, the Council could extend the date. She was unsure the 2001 date needed to be changed as long as the Council clearly stated its intent to move the date forward until equipment was ready for the gardeners or community to use. Mayor Kniss believed extending the deadline to 2002 with the Council monitoring progress put enough pressure on the manufacturer and at the same time relieved pressure on the gardeners. Council Member Mossar did not disagree with Mayor Kniss; however, she wanted to avoid another public hearing process. Mayor Kniss said the Council had a dual goal to allow the gardeners to earn a living and send a clear message to the manufacturers that they must improve the equipment they were selling. Council Member Lytle said she agreed with the goal of pressuring the manufacturers with the ordinance and yet reassure the gardener community that the Council was not interested in taking away its livelihood. She asked how the Council could accomplish both objectives with one law. She understood Mayor Kniss wanted to extend the date of the ban and that the ban would not be enacted if there was no leaf blower alternative in place. She asked how the manufacturers would consider the deadline if it was not real and if no alternative was manufactured. Mayor Kniss said although the ordinance would read July 1, 2002, the Council would have a verbal agreement that if the ban were not
04/10/00 90-68
feasible the Council would try to accommodate the BAGA. She believed the deadline was sufficient to send a warning. Council Member Lytle clarified the ordinance would enact a July 1, 2002, ban with a verbal agreement from the Council that no ban be enacted if an alternative was not produced. She asked whether the verbal assurance would be binding. City Manager Frank Benest believed the verbal agreement was a clear intention and therefore sufficient. Mayor Kniss said the Council was quite clear with what it was trying to attempt. She was not sure whether other Councils had taken the same approach, allowing the gardeners to continue using the leaf blowers. Mr. Benest was comfortable with the intent of the Council. Council Member Burch clarified the ban would be enacted in 2002. Vice Mayor Eakins was pleased to hear the request to continue to work together. She responded to the sincerity of most of the speakers and congratulated the gardeners for the improvements they made in using quieter blowers and emphasizing courtesy and consideration. She was concerned about the pollution the 2-stroke engine created. She believed leaf blowers were not a good tool. More education was required. She approved extending the deadline of the ban. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Beecham, Lytle “no,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to adopt the ordinance.
Ordinance 4625 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.48.040 of Chapter 9.48 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Disposal of Rubbish, Dirt, Leaves or Debris on Streets and Other Public and Private Properties” (1st Reading
1/31/00, PASSED 5-3, Fazzino, Lytle, Ojakian “no,” Beecham absent) MOTION PASSED 7-1, Lytle “no,” Fazzino absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Feasibility Analysis of the Roth Building Council Member Ojakian did not participate due to a conflict of interest.
04/10/00 90-69
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the staff report (CMR:218:00) included a discussion involving the amendments the Council made at the first reading. In regard to the feasibility of the Roth Building, there were two questions the Council asked staff: 1) the cost of restoring the Roth Building, and 2) the issue of financial impact of the costs. Staff had accurate numbers that were still conservative. The one cost staff did not include within the staff report was the cost of providing parking since parking would depend upon the use that staff placed on the public facility. A range was provided in the staff report for the Council’s consideration. Mr. John Northway supervised the report that was done on the feasibility of restoring the Roth Building. His evaluation and conclusion was provided for the Council’s consideration. The financial impact of the cost of restoring the Roth Building on City programs was included in the staff report (CMR:218:00). The process would be a long process, with a design review, a demolition process, and a construction process. Staff would be organizing to coordinate the various activities by requiring a management construction plan of the developers to be reviewed and approved by the City. Staff would hold regular meetings with the developers, the City developer, and the developers of the affordable housing site to ensure any construction impacts on the neighborhoods would be minimized. Mayor Kniss said she and Council Member Beecham, City Manager Frank Benest, Consultant John Northway, and Assistant Planning Official John Lasardi attended a field trip of the site. A fair amount of time was spent going over the issue at the actual site. Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, said the City had no value for money. She did not support using taxpayer money to restore the Roth Building. Neil O’Sullivan, 362 Channing Avenue, said the working group spent two years working on the plan. The Council gave all responsibility to developers and planners. North Palo Altans did not think that Johnson Park was large enough given the population it served. The community was reduced to 1.57 acres of land oriented to serve a building and not the community. There were many elderly citizens living in the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area. The elderly needed open space in the Downtown. The proposed Roth Building yard was inadequate for the population. The Summerhill development plan did not suit the neighborhood. In a neighborhood of Victorian cottages, the plan intended to place a large structure much larger in size than the surrounding homes. The structure would be larger than City Hall. He did not support the plan and was prepared to referend it. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, was concerned about the traffic and the number of people who would be moving into the area. Many people did not want more cars driving through town. The area was historical and should be mainly for community use.
04/10/00 90-70
Joette Farrand, 724 Bryant Street, lived in one of the last Victorians in the SOFA area. She had addressed the Council on other occasions regarding neighborhood concerns over the mass and density of the project and the lack of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan regarding scale transition. She expressed appreciation to Council Member Beecham for listening and acting on some of the neighborhood concerns. She referenced a Report from the City Attorney dated April 10, 2000. The changing of the lot line on Block A seemed to be a manipulative device and not the intent of the SOFA Working Group. The 1.5 FAR was not compatible with the neighborhood. Four story condos were not compatible with the neighborhood. On Bryant Street and Homer Avenue Block A, there were several older distinctive trees that were included in the Downtown walking tour. Some of the trees identified in Exhibit B of Block A were to be removed. She spoke with Council Member Beecham and Mr. Gawf who were not clear which trees would be removed. The trees were old and would shield the project. She hoped the trees could be preserved. The cedar tree was approximately five feet in diameter. Mr. Dockter estimated the cedar tree to be approximately 100 years old. She hoped there would be a legal mechanism, whether it was on a deed or easement, to protect the trees. The massiveness of Block A would impact the neighborhood. She hoped the lot line would not be changed and that trees would not be removed. Money was always scarce when the park was discussed. She noted that Mr. Gawf encouraged the neighborhood group not to seek private funding; however, money was found to restore the Roth Building. She did not believe the Council was listening to the community. Margaret Cooley, 830 University Avenue, read a prepared statement written by Karen Holman who could not attend that evening’s meeting. Ms. Holman asked the Council to reconsider inclusion of 820 Ramona Street in Phase 1 of the SOFA plan. There were other things she disagreed with regarding the plan; for example, the relocation of the Bryant Street and Homer Avenue Victorians. Ms. Holman wrote that she could not find any rationale for adding 820 Ramona Street to Phase 1 under its current zoning. When the plan was divided into Phases, 820 Ramona Street was made a part of Phase 2. The inclusion of 820 Ramona Street into Phase 1 denied property owners the opportunity to comment. A property owner on that block did not know until after the Council’s action of the inclusion of 820 Ramona Street. Owners of an office on Bryant Street were denied inclusion in Phase 1, due partly to the late request and lack of time to consider options and consequences. The rest of Ramona Street block phase was proposed as housing. Ms. Holman proposed that DHS or AMF would be appropriate at 820 Ramona Street given the housing needs faced within the community. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said on page 11 of the staff report (CMR:218:00), certificates of participation for a 25-year term would result in an annual cost of $610,000. He confirmed with
04/10/00 90-71
staff that the certificate of participation’s interest rate was in the seven percent range which indicated the principle amount of the approximately $7 million Budget Stabilization Reserve rather than the entire amount shown for acquisition. If the amount for the commercial housing fund were included, it would result in an annual debt service cost of $917,000. The certificates of participation would only repay the City and not create any new revenue. The alternative of General Obligation Bonds was a low interest rate for Palo Alto which had a triple A rating at 5.65 percent for a 30 year General Obligation Bond in California. The comparable annual cost for the $7 million dollar General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve would be $480,000 per year instead of $610,000. The entire amount including the housing in-lieu fund would be $722,000 per year instead of $917,000. Finally, for the entire $12.5 million authorization, the annual debt payment would be $866,000 instead of $1.1 million. The difficulty would be that the Council would need a two-thirds consensus from the voters. The advantages, in addition to the debt service cost, were additional revenues. One item left unsaid in the staff report was what happened to the additional money the City would receive for the $12.5 million debt instrument of which the City only showed $7 million being expended. The City’s policy was to have a budget stabilization reserve of 20 percent of the adopted budget. Given the budget before the Council in the next fiscal year, the budget stabilization reserve should be $21 million. He believed if the Council should have authority for $12.5 million, the community had a right to know what the money would be spent on. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, urged the Council to refrain from demolishing the Roth Building. She noted the City was renting office space for $400,000 a year. Since the City required more office space, it made a great deal of sense for the City to take over the building. The neighbors wanted a large park in the area; however, another office building would be built in the development area. Council Member Beecham asked staff to clarify whether the cedar tree would be removed. Mr. Gawf said there were four trees in the area, two redwood trees in the back yard and two trees in the side yard. Summerhill Homes’ plans were to retain the larger of the two trees in the side yard. Attempts would be made to save the smaller tree; however, it was not clear the tree could be saved. The Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) identified trees that would be saved. None of the trees in question were identified in the CAP study as essential to be saved. Council Member Beecham asked whether the Council could direct staff to save the trees unless the trees must be removed for construction purposes.
04/10/00 90-72
Mr. Gawf said the trees would be removed for construction purposes or if they were not healthy. Council Member Beecham appreciated the information staff provided on the Roth Building. He was concerned about the cost of keeping the Roth Building and what the cost to the City would be to turn the building into a viable facility. He was assured by staff’s presentation that the Roth Building could be rehabilitated for suitable use by the City without great risk for future upgrades. He checked informally with others and was confident that the cost of rehabilitating the Roth Building was in keeping with other buildings in the area on a square foot basis. Mayor Kniss said one of the Council’s discussions revolved around the Carnegie Building which used to be on the site. She commented that many buildings within the Downtown City buildings were not buildings that would be pointed out to visitors to the City; however, the Roth Building was worthy of comment. She appreciated the opportunity to visit the Roth Building. A determination was made that the 13,000 square feet was available at the Roth Building for public facility use. Council Member Mossar thanked staff for the work put into the report. She had serious questions given the information that was presented the last time the matter was brought to the Council. She believed staff adequately answered the questions and did it in an understandable fashion. She was comfortable with moving forward on the acquisition of the Roth Building. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Adopt the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan – Phase I; Ordinance 4626 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase I” (1st Reading 3/27/00, PASSED 7-0-1, Ojakian “not participating,” Lytle “abstaining”) 2. Approve the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Ordinance 4627 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Development Agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation” (1st Reading 3/27/00, PASSED 7-0-1, Ojakian “not participating,” Lytle
“abstaining”) 3. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $9,938,000 for the acquisition of certain real property owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and 04/10/00 90-73
corresponding reduction of interest income of $125,000 in the General Fund and $27,000 in the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund; Ordinance 4628 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $9,938,000 for the Acquisition of Certain Real Estate Property Owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and Corresponding Reduction of Interest Income of $125,000 in the General Fund and $27,000 in the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund”
4. Approve a Resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to reimburse expenditures from the proceeds of obligations to be issued by the City and directing certain actions Resolution 7956 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expenditures from the Proceeds of Obligations to be Issued by the City and Directing Certain Actions” Further, to approve the following changes: A. That the minutes reflect Council’s intent that the Cedar tree on Block “A” Bryant Street be saved unless there is a requirement for removal for construction purposes. B. Add the following language to the Development Agreement of SOFA CAP Ordinance, “The monitoring and enforcement of the this condition shall be through implementation of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program described in Item 6 below.” C. Add a new Item 13 to Exhibit “D” of the SOFA CAP Ordinance, “The developer and staff shall prepare a construction management program prior to the issuance of any demolition, excavation, grading, house relocation, development or building permit. Such program shall ensure that nuisance, inconvenience and other impacts on surrounding neighborhoods are minimized by: 1) coordinating and phasing all construction among the independent projects and by the use of proper construction management methods and by public communications.” City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there were two places in the action document where the change would go. One would be on Exhibit “D” (1) to the development agreement and the other would be on Exhibit “D” to the ordinance approving the CAP.
04/10/00 90-74
Council Member Beecham agreed with Mr. Calonne. Council Member Mossar did not disagree with Council Member Beecham’s language; however, it was directly related to the TDM program. The 15 percent trip reduction was too high. She believed the trip reduction was not an appropriate percentage to set. She preferred a 10 percent trip reduction. She hoped the Council would not have to specify a percentage and direct staff to develop an effective TDM program for the office building and its tenants. Mr. Calonne suggested deleting the word minimum so that the goal would be 15 percent and not a mandatory requirement. Council Member Mossar did not want to require the purchase of Eco-passes. She suggested that staff work with the employer to create the best solution possible. A minimum goal of 10 percent trip reduction would be a measurable target she would be comfortable with. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that language be changed in the Development Agreement, Exhibit “D” of the SOFA CAP Ordinance, “The TDM program shall have a minimum goal of fifteen percent (15%) ten percent (10 percent) trip reduction and shall establish financial penalties for non-compliance. The TDM program shall may include a requirement that the occupants of the project be provided with ‘ECO Passes’ or equivalent public transportation vouchers at no cost.” Vice Mayor Eakins said Council Member Beecham was concerned about preserving the viability of the Bryant Street bicycle corridor. She was caught off guard with the suggestion that the entrance to the parking garage be moved to Ramona Street. Presently, Ramona Street was a weak link between the Downtown Historic Preservation District and Professorville; however, redeveloped, Ramona Street would be an outstanding street and a fine link between the two historic neighborhoods. She did not want to see that compromised by a parking garage entrance along Ramona Street. There were existing houses across from the church. The church would be rehabilitated as well as the eastern side of the street. There would be a new affordable housing project and she was confident that the developer would make the project a handsome contribution to the neighborhood. She did not want Ramona Street to be considered a “throw away” street. She shared Council Member Beecham’s concern about the parking garage entrance; however, she wanted to ensure that Ramona Street was treated with great sensitivity. Council Member Beecham shared Vice Mayor Eakins’ concern. When the matter came up previously, the Council commented that there were in fact residents living on that part of Ramona Street whereas there were no residents living on that section of Bryant Street. He wanted staff to evaluate the option of placing the parking garage
04/10/00 90-75
entrance on Ramona Street. He believed the option would be a substantial benefit to the affordable housing site. Vice Mayor Eakins did not want to see Ramona Street put up for sale. She suggested the parking garage entrance impact on Bryant Street be minimize with regard to access for both the commercial and affordable housing development, and that the bicycle route circulation be evaluated carefully. Mr. Gawf said there were three issues, 1) a single entry; 2) the BMR should not pay for the single entry; and 3) placing the single entry on Ramona Street rather than Bryant Street. One approach on the matter would be to allow staff to look at the issue as part of the review process to see which one was the best approach. Mayor Kniss clarified that Ramona Street not be considered for the entrance to the parking garage. Mr. Gawf said the ordinance currently stated if feasible, the entrance should be located off of Ramona Street. He suggested deleting the phrase “off of Ramona Street” so that both streets could be a possibility. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Attachment D1, Section J of the staff report (CMR:218:00) was part of the development agreement. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Kleinberg suggested that public access be made later than 9 p.m. on the weekends. Additionally, she wanted a definition of the term “weekend.” Mr. Gawf said there were two concepts regarding public access parking, 1) overflow parking on the weekends; and 2) after office hour parking during the weekday available for public access. Council Member Kleinberg suggested adding “Friday, Saturday and Sunday” and after the hour 9 p.m. Mr. Gawf said staff tried to pick an hour that seemed reasonable. There was a security issue if the hour was late. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there would be an impact to a residential neighborhood the Council did not know about. Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said any concern the developer raised with respect the parking garage was that it be limited to nonresidential usage. The concern was that residential user would park and leave their cars overnight. The restriction was key to non-residential use. He believed the developer was flexible in regard to the hours of use.
04/10/00 90-76
Council Member Mossar said the building was a commercial building with residents surrounding the building. She believed it would be inappropriate to attract nightlife and traffic into the neighborhood until midnight. The garage had a legitimate use as public parking; however, the 9 p.m. closing time was appropriate for the location of the parking garage. The time restriction would control the kind of uses for which the public would make of the garage. Council Member Kleinberg suggested extending weekday parking until 10 p.m. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that language be changed in the Development Agreement, Exhibit D-1, Public Access to Parking, to read “On Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m. 10 p.m.,” and “The spaces shall also be made available for non-residential parking on weekend weekday evenings…” Council Member Lytle had abstained from prior discussions. The primary disadvantage to the public of having the property developed simultaneously was addressed at that evening’s meeting. Construction would likely be severe in the neighborhood and she appreciated that the Council worked out a way that would allow the City to stagger and phase operations to ensure the neighborhood was protected. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Ojakian “not participating,” Fazzino absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:55 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.
04/10/00 90-77