HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-08 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting May 8, 2000
1. Study Session with Youth Council re Youth Master Plan..........................................................147
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m...........................................................147
1. Presentation of Regional Water Quality Control Plant Awards..........................................................148
2. Proclamation Designating May as “Architecture Month”..........................................................148
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................................148
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................................149
3. Resolution 7961 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Gerald L. “Jerry” Lynn Upon His Retirement”..........................................................150
4. 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 $30,000 for a Feasibility Study in the Planning Department Relating to Train Whistles..........................................................150
5/08/00 90-143
5. Resolution 7962 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 7782 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7812, 7837, 7872 and 7904 to add a Backup Child Care Benefit”..........................................................150
6. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Maze and Associates for External Audit Services (2nd Year Renewal of a 3-Year Contract)..........................................................150
7. Ordinance 4633 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Ordinance No. 4549, Adopted February 22, 1999, Regulating Demolitions and Major Alterations of Certain Historic Resources”..........................................................151
5/08/00 90-144
8. Ordinance 4634 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 Leafblowers”..........................................................151
9. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the California Court of Appeal in Associated Builders of Northern California v. City of Napa, No. A090437..........................................................151
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS..........................................................151
10. Audit of Accounts Payable..........................................................151
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendations to Adopt the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan for Receipt of Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds; and the Finance Committee Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2000-01 CDBG Funding Allocations..........................................................152
11A. (Old Item No. 13) Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10 [Cable Television Systems – Award of Franchises by City Council] to Regulate Cable Television Systems and Open Video..........................................................154
12. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider awarding leases to Sprint Spectrum L.P. for portions of two city-owned properties located at 799 Embarcadero Road and 3600 Middlefield Road, respectively, commonly known as the Rinconada Fire Station and Mitchell Park Fire Station...........................................................158
14. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of May 15, 2000, Regular Council Meeting..........................................................160
5/08/00 90-145
15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..........................................................160
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. in memory of Kristine Fitzhugh, a Palo Alto School District music teacher who died tragically on May 5, 2000. 161
5/08/00 90-146
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Beecham SPECIAL MEETING 1. Study Session with Youth Council re Youth Master Plan A Youth Master Plan defines a vision for the future that establishes Youth as a priority in the community. It was recommended that the plan development use an asset based approach identifying assets for youth already present in Palo Alto, proceeding from there to identify strategies to address unmet needs. The approach would be based on a “Youth Development” model. Youth development was a framework that addresses human needs for the healthy growth of young people into healthy, caring, and responsible adults. Youth would come to the table as full partners in developing and implementation the strategies. Youth was defined to include all individuals under 25 years of age. Resources must be committed (at least conceptually) from the beginning for both development and implementation. The strategies developed would determine the resources needed for implementation. Without identified resources for implementation, any plan developed will be of minimal value. The City Manager challenged staff to design a strategy that was both creative and developed the plan in a short amount of time. Both councils indicated agreement to pursue developing a Youth Master Plan. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
5/08/00 90-147
Regular Meeting May 8, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation of Regional Water Quality Control Plant Awards Kathy Suter, California Water Environment Association (CWEA) Director, said CEWA presented an award in April 2000 for the Large Plant of the Year for 1999 to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The RWQPC received the award for its outstanding accomplishments in permit compliance, innovative practices, cost effectiveness, and other evidence of superior plant operations. 2. Proclamation Designating May as “Architecture Month” Mayor Kniss read the proclamation and presented it to Architecture Month Chair Patrice Langevin. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding the big 3 mph bicycle stop sign caper (continued, #5 of 50) Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding the upcoming historic preservation week. Karie Epstein, 1143 Stanford Avenue, spoke regarding College Terrace traffic calming. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding traffic safety. Nancy Pleibel, 301 Bryant Court, spoke regarding the Farmers Market. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. Aram B. James, 832 Los Robles Avenue, spoke regarding an initiative to amend “Three Strikes.”
5/08/00 90-148
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding large homes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of March 27 and 28, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Kniss requested that the Council continue Item No. 4 to a date uncertain. Patricia Villemain, 530 Melville Avenue, said it was appalling that Palo Alto was likely to be left without protection from the destruction of wonderful old homes and the erection of large buildings. She thought the vote on Measure G was close and was not overwhelmingly against the historic house ordinance. She noticed the neighborhoods most likely to be affected were the ones with the large, old-fashioned houses. Council Member Beecham said he would not participate in Item No. 7 due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Kniss said she recently met with members of the Bay Area Gardeners Association (BAGA) regarding Item No. 8 and it was mentioned that most of the BAGA members purchased quieter models of leaf blowers. BAGA wanted the 65 dba noise level to become effective as soon as was possible. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson spoke to BAGA, and it was understood that the City needed the current time through January 1, 2001, to formalize the training and certification process, to develop the list of acceptable blowers, and to provide time for the gardeners to receive training. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said what was originally intended to help residents impacted by excessive noise, was replaced by a version that promised relief only under unlikely contingencies. The ordinance avoided the problem the Council was asked to solve. He asked whether there was a chance to go back to the original version of the ordinance to save the public limits change. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the language in the Ordinance was directed by the Council at the prior meeting. The first version was in the current code. Council Member Lytle said she would vote no on Item No. 8. Christiane Coeb, member of the public, asked the Council to explain the definition of the noise from leaf blowers.
5/08/00 90-149
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue Item No. 4 to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Mossar, Ojakian “no.” MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 and 5 – 9. 3. Resolution 7961 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Gerald L. “Jerry” Lynn Upon His Retirement” 4. 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 $30,000 for a Feasibility Study in the Planning Department Relating to Train Whistles 5. Resolution 7962 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 7782 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7812, 7837, 7872 and 7904 to add a Backup Child Care Benefit” Resolution 7963 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Police Non-Management Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 7788 and Amended by Resolution No. 7903 to Add a Backup Child Care Benefit” Resolution 7964 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire Department Personnel (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 7730 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7772 and 7901 to Add a Backup Child Care Benefit” Resolution 7965 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire Chiefs’ Association Management Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 7848 and Amended by Resolution No. 7900 to Add a Backup Child Care Benefit” Resolution 7966 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7890 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7897, 7902, 7907, 7945 And 7914 to Add a Backup Child Care Benefit” 6. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Maze and Associates for External Audit Services (2nd Year Renewal of a 3-Year Contract)
5/08/00 90-150
7. Ordinance 4633 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Ordinance No. 4549, Adopted February 22, 1999, Regulating Demolitions and Major Alterations of Certain Historic Resources” (1st Reading 4/24/00, Passed 8-0, Beecham “not participating”) 8. Ordinance 4634 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 Leafblowers” (1st Reading 4/24/00, Passed 7-2, Eakins, Lytle “no”) 9. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the California Court of Appeal in Associated Builders of Northern California v. City of Napa, No. A090437 MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 9. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 7, Beecham “not participating.” MOTION PASSED 7-2 for Item No. 8, Eakins, Lytle, “no.” AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Burch, to move Item No. 13 forward ahead of Item No. 12 to become Item No. 11A. MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. Audit of Accounts Payable (Continued from 3/27/00) City Auditor Bill Vinson said the audit was initiated as a result of problems identified in the 1997 audit of blanket and purchase orders. As a result, an audit of the Accounts Payable (AP) process was included in the audit plan subsequently approved by the Finance Committee. The audit did not include review of payments related to travel expense which was audited in 1998. The purpose of an AP function was two-fold: 1) to make sure payments were made to appropriate vendors for goods and services that were received; and 2) to ensure that vendor payments were accurately and timely processed. The purpose of the audit was to identify any risks that could prevent the unit from obtaining its objectives and to evaluate any internal controls that were established to minimize the risks. Eleven potential significant weaknesses were identified which impacted the unit’s ability to meet its objectives. Recommendations for the weaknesses were provided. The issues in the report were addressed or were in the process of being addressed. Council Member Lytle asked Mr. Vinson to summarize how payments would be streamlined. 5/08/00 90-151
Mr. Vinson said the focus of the audit was to consider potential streamlining of payments. The Auditor’s Office found that streamlining was not as much the issue as was potential risks. The focus of the audit was in the controls that should be in place to mitigate the risks. Managerial and oversight recommendations were made including monitoring open receivings; that is, track receivings that were on the AR system that were not processed. The overall theme was that the AR Department needed to take less ownership in processing the transactions and make the responsibilities in the departments. Council Member Lytle asked whether Mr. Vinson’s assessment was that less streamlining through the mitigation was caused than what was accomplished through delegating downward through the organization. Mr. Vinson said in an effort to meet objectives, the opposite was done and some primary controls were missed. Staff overstreamlined and it was necessary to look at what controls should be in place to make sure the assets were protected. Council Member Lytle said what started out as a streamlining exercise ended up causing additional levels of control. Council Member Mossar said staff accepted virtually all the recommendations and implemented changes or were in the process of implementing changes. Council Member Kleinberg clarified what Mr. Vinson found did not necessarily imply any incorrect signatory activities. Mr. Vinson said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to accept the report. MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendations to Adopt the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan for Receipt of Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds; and the Finance Committee Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2000-01 CDBG Funding Allocations Community Development Block Grant Coordinator Suzanne Bayley said the purpose of the public hearing was to: 1) adopt the Consolidated Plan for 2000-2005; and 2) approve the Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocations for 2000-01. The draft Consolidated Plan was available for the required 30-day public review from March 31 through April 30, 2000. Comments and questions that required
5/08/00 90-152
clarification from previous public hearings were incorporated into the revised draft Consolidated Plan. Additional changes or comments as a result of the current meeting would be incorporated into the document prior to its May 15, 2000, submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended adoption of the Consolidated Plan. The allocation of CDGB funds for Fiscal Year 2000-01 was the one-year action plan portion of the Consolidated Plan. It included the activities the City intended to undertake with CDBG the following year, which would address the needs and implement the strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan. The CDBG Citizen Advisory Committee and City staff had differing funding recommendations. The Finance Committee recommended adoption of the staff funding recommendations. She acknowledged the hard work and many hours of meetings, interviews, and discussions of the CDBG Citizen Advisory Committee in providing the funding recommendations to the Council. Council Member Mossar reported that when the Finance Committee reviewed the recommendations for the 2000-01 CDBG allocations, the Committee promptly approved what was before it. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended the City Council adopt the revised Consolidated Plan authorizing application of a true 80 percent of median income limitation for specific activities on a case-by-case basis as allowed by HUD. The recommendation was simple in order to meet HUD requirements. The issue of affordable and attainable housing was broader than the report. The Commission had serious discussion about the problem and recognized the issue was regional. The Commission wanted to continue to work with the Council on possible future solutions. Barry Del Buono, Emergency Housing Consortium, 2011 Little Orchard Street, San Jose, said a proposal for $100,000 was submitted to CDBG which was subsequently lowered to $50,000. The facility in Santa Clara would serve Palo Alto families. Construction would soon be started, and he asked whether there was any way the City could help. One of the things that the Santa Clara Family Living Center needed was a play yard which was not currently funded. Michele Jackson, Shelter Network Associate Director, 1660 S. Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 200, San Mateo, thanked the City for its consideration in funding the Haven Family House project in Menlo Park. The City’s financial assistance helped leverage additional funding from other sources and provided effective comprehensive services to homeless families in the community. She looked forward to a successful partnership with the City. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the staff recommendation as follows:
5/08/00 90-153
1. Adopt the revised draft Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2005 that includes the revised Citizen Participation Plan and the authorization to apply a true 90 percent of median income limitation to specified activities on a case-by-case basis. 2. Adopt the Resolution establishing funding allocations for the 2000\01 Community Development Block Grant Program as recommended by the Finance Committee. Resolution 7967 entitled “Resolution of the Council Of the City Of Palo Alto Approving the Use Of Community Development Block Grant Funds For Fiscal Year 2000-01” 3. Authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to execute and submit to HUD, and otherwise bind the City with respect to the application, before the May 15, 2000, deadline. 4. Authorize and direct staff to carry out any further required environmental assessments and certifications for each project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to the commitment of funds. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 11A. (Old Item No. 13) Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10 [Cable Television Systems – Award of Franchises by City Council] to Regulate Cable Television Systems and Open Video Council Member Mossar stated she could not participate in the item. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said Cable Co-op was a cooperative that was run by residents of Palo Alto or neighboring communities. The City no longer operated in that environment, but instead was dealing with large corporations that had much expertise and sophistication. Protecting itself was critical for the City as well as the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under the changed circumstances. In the current cable environment, there would generally be more than one provider of cable television for the JPA member cities, and the technology used to provide cable had changed. Holding to the same standards was critical for all providers. The cable enabling ordinance was intended to work in concert with the franchise agreement; it had different goals than a franchise agreement and set minimum standards that all cable providers must meet from the current time forward. The ordinance would not prevent the City from negotiating more in the franchise agreement. In developing the ordinance, the existing franchise agreement with Cable Co-op, the Federal Communications Commissions
5/08/00 90-154
(FCC) standards, industry practices, and community input gained during the needs ascertainment process were utilized. Staff defined the minimum number of public, educational, and government (PEG) access channels, clarified the franchise fee requirements and procedures related to the transfer of ownership, and added basic customer service and Internet standards. The matrix he distributed addressed areas of concern presented by staff. In developing the elements of the enabling ordinance, staff met with and discussed the areas of concern with AT&T and RCN. The matrix identified areas where there was disagreement; however, the legal staff believed the City should go forward because it protected the interest of Palo Alto and the JPA member organizations. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted a number of typographical errors that will be corrected by the second reading. Mike Klynn, 1725 Fulton Street, said he was involved in the original selection of Cable Co-op and was opposed to that experiment partly on the basis that he did not believe the City should be involved with cable TV; it should have been left to private enterprise. The Cable Co-op concept did not work, and it was time to make a change. He understood AT&T made a good proposal to purchase Cable Co-op, which would save the system from bankruptcy. The public understood that since the vote in favor of the sale was substantial. He urged the City to move forward with the acceptance of the AT&T offer and give Palo Alto the opportunity to have the cable system run by professionals. Marvin E. Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, supported the staff’s work on the ordinance but said it needed more work. Palo Alto was an unusual community in the sense it invented a radio-cable component. That was done because a sizeable portion of the community liked music: classical and jazz. The Bay Area was one of the few cities that had two classical music stations. Only one remained, which focused on selling products. A cable-radio system was established in Palo Alto which used three existing channel spaces and purchased a system from SuperAudio in Colorado which later was taken over by TCI. The City currently had one of the best classical music systems in the United States with multiple choices. SuperAudio was taken out of existence at the first of the year. A way was found to team up with an organization in North Carolina that had a classical music station broadcast through a satellite. The City’s established radio system needed to be protected and expanded. Several years prior, the idea to expand the cable radio system to every community in the area was considered. Former Mayor Fazzino and MPAC were interested, but the Cable Co-op Board was not convinced. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, was pleased with the classical and jazz music that was available but was frustrated that many people in the community were unaware that the music station was available. She recalled former Mayor Fazzino mentioning the importance of the citizen advisory council. That was something the various groups
5/08/00 90-155
that wanted the franchise should consider. Something in connection with the public access provider was needed that would give an ongoing open forum for citizen complaints. She was unsure how public access would work with companies working in the area. She wanted to know how many channels there might be. John Kelley, President, Board of Director, Cable Co-op, 1868 Mark Twain Street, thanked the Council and staff for their prompt attention to the transfer and the extension of franchise for AT&T. From Cable Co-op’s perspective, the transfer was imperative. If the Council did not take action, there would not be an opportunity to continue to provide the level of service to the subscribers, and an extraordinary opportunity to conclude the transaction with AT&T would be missed. He thanked Council Member Burch who gave much of his time in coming to meetings and serving as a point person for the Council and the City Attorney’s office for the time it spent working with AT&T in preparing the ordinance. He hoped the staff would continue to work with AT&T to end up with a final ordinance that would be acceptable to AT&T. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said there were at least two companies that received approval for open video systems and they notified the City about that. He noticed that those companies were not listed as receiving copies of the draft ordinance. The draft ordinance was substantial, and there was no way to tell which items had the same language as the current contract with Cable Co-op and which ones were different. He would like to have seen a comparison so that the public did not have to go through the contract document to compare each paragraph. It appeared the matter would affect both policy and finances and should be referred to both standing committees to give the public adequate opportunity to review and comment on the proposed ordinance. He noticed some items needed typographical corrections. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, found a number of serious problems with the ordinance. People at AT&T assured him that AT&T also had issues. He did a comparison between the existing franchise agreement and the proposed agreement. The new proposal contained onerous items, and he was concerned that the City would end up in a tugging match. The result would delay passage of the ordinance and franchise transfer. The franchise transfer was the first step; the new franchise agreement was the second step. Without a franchise transfer, the bank made it clear that on July 1, 2000, it would want a large payment. Moving forward was important. Items were omitted from the draft including no mention of funding, facilities, or operations of MPAC. He wanted to hear the Council discuss whether it wanted the right of first refusal or wanted a system as was originally built in 1986. Palo Alto had the reputation for being the leading edge of technology, that is, the first City to be on the Internet. He asked the Council to review his written comments. It was important to have a facility that people could utilize high speed, two-way bandwidth. He was disappointed with the
5/08/00 90-156
lack of discussion in the franchise agreement for data services. Mayor Kniss said the Council had a recommendation before it to approve an ordinance related to cable television and open video system operators. Council Member Lytle asked whether staff wanted to respond to the radio issue and comments raised by Mr. Moss. Mr. Calonne said the staff was not convinced it had legal authority to require the radio issue in the ordinance. Everyone agreed the issue should be initiated in the franchise. Regarding Mr. Moss’ e-mail, his staff prepared a response that he would edit and prepare for the Council’s packet. Mr. Yeats said many of Mr. Moss’s issues would be included in the franchise agreement. Council Member Fazzino asked what the appropriate course of action was if the Council wanted the radio issue addressed as part of the negotiations. Mr. Calonne said he preferred the Council give staff direction with respect to franchise negotiation when the time came. If the Council wanted a written legal opinion as to whether it could be included in the ordinance, staff would do it, but he preferred not to. Council Member Burch clarified what the Council was laying down with the ordinance was the basis on which the Council would work with any operator and the franchise agreement would be specific to AT&T. Mr. Yeats said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian asked whether there were other companies that showed interest in franchising with Palo Alto. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said RCN Communications reviewed the ordinance and provided comments to the City Attorney’s office for incorporation. Council Member Ojakian said there was concern with the appendix about the standards set in terms of customer service. Mr. Yeats said concerns were related to office hours, telephone answering times, and cable modem and Internet standards. Council Member Ojakian said people in business were concerned about standards set against them. A form of measurement was needed to see how people were being serviced. Council Member Burch asked about the right of first refusal in case
5/08/00 90-157
of the sale of the system. Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Kolling said that was first negotiated in 1986. The City did not believe it was something that should be required of all providers of cable service. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve an ordinance amending and adding to Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to regulate the occupancy and use of the public rights-of-way by cable television and open video system operators. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.10 [Cable Television Systems – Award of Franchises by City Council] to Regulate Cable Television Systems and Open Video Systems with Respect to 1) Occupancy and Use of Public Rights-of-Way, 2) Establishment of Franchise and License Requirements, 3) Customer Service Standards, and 4) Minimum Requirements for Construction, Operation, Maintenance and Repair” MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar “not participating.” 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider awarding leases to Sprint Spectrum L.P. for portions of two city-owned properties located at 799 Embarcadero Road and 3600 Middlefield Road, respectively, commonly known as the Rinconada Fire Station and Mitchell Park Fire Station. Terms of the lease include a five-year term with two five-year options to renew and the requirement that the property be used for the operation of a personal communications service (PCS) system facility for furnishing telephone, radio, and telecommunications services to the public. Facilities to be placed on the sites consist of antennas mounted on stealth towers (flagpoles) and associated group equipment in an area of approximately 20 by 25 feet. Evelyn Conroy, 660 18th Street, San Francisco, thanked Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland and Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case for their assistance with the leases. Sprint Spectrum was excited about providing funding to the City for a passive use. As part of the lease with the City, Sprint PCS was open to other carriers who might want to collocate on the pole. She was approached from a representative from Cellular One who expressed interested at the two sites. Council Member Fazzino asked how many companies could be collocated on the poles. Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said one other company could collocate on the poles.
5/08/00 90-158
Council Member Fazzino asked how many similar public facilities/poles did the City have that could accommodate such requests. Ms. Freeland was unaware of others and noted that staff was in the process of developing the telecommunications policy. Part of the process identified city sites that would be appropriate for such types of uses, encouraged telecommunication companies to use those sites, and encouraged collocation to reduce the proliferation of that type of facilities throughout the City. Council Member Lytle was concerned that there were other competitors who the City would hear from promptly; the area included great competition, and the industry learned to spot its holes. She understood the experience from other cities was that it was best to try to do what staff was doing, which was to master plan for the facilities and locate them on public properties. She was assured there was some flexibility with the applicant for sharing and for relocation in order to deal with aesthetic impacts of the demand and also that the City was properly indemnified as part of the action. She was concerned about cancer from the radiation sites. Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said he would check on the matter. City Manager Frank Benest said Utilities Staff would be able to provide information, and he would follow up. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council Member Lytle’s point was well taken that the City had suitable indemnification and insurance, should the issue arise in the future. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve two leases between the City of Palo Alto and Spectrum L.P. (Sprint) for the development and operation of telecommunications facilities at the Riconada fire station and the Mitchell Park fire station (fire stations #3 and #4), located at 799 Embarcadero Road and 3600 Middlefield Road, respectively. Lease Between the City of Palo Alto and Sprint Spectrum L.P., for the Development and Operation of Telecommunications Facilities at Rinconada Fire Station #3 Located at 799 Embarcadero Road Lease Between the City of Palo Alto and Sprint Spectrum L.P., for the Development and Operation of Telecommunications Facilities at Mitchell Park Fire Station #4 Located at 3600 Middlefield Road Council Member Fazzino agreed with Council Member Lytle and commended the staff for its long-term planning with respect to accommodation of the new, emerging technology, that is, wireless infrastructure. A master plan to accommodate the communications
5/08/00 90-159
infrastructure was imperative. A number of definitive studies were concluded by the United States Government and the Swedish Government. One Swedish study was cited several years prior about the possible health impacts of electro magnetic waves. His understanding was that the science was clear in the area that there were no health risks associated with the technology. He asked staff to provide the information to the Council. What was proposed was far less intrusive than what was done to the City on a daily basis by workers laying cable in the roads. Telecommunications companies laying cable and affecting streets, traffic, and residents’ well being increasingly impacted the City. The issue needed to be addressed. Mr. Yeats said, if the City Manager concurred, the information would be included in his weekly report. Mayor Kniss said the issue was primarily around the streets being repaired after being dug up. While she understood the streets were public, the streets were in danger of being permanently dug up during the next years. Anything the City could do to address the issue would make many of the citizens feel better about their streets. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar “not participating.” COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of May 15, 2000, Regular Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Lytle, to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of May 15, 2000. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent. 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Ojakian announced that a long-standing institution, Parents Nursery School, would be celebrating its 50th anniversary during 2000. Council Member Ojakian dedicated his efforts that evening to Becky Schaefer, a community volunteer and Palo Alto School District employee, who passed away during the prior week. Council Member Burch spoke regarding the circulator of a referendum for PAMF/SOFA. Council Member Kleinberg asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Kristine Fitzhugh, a community volunteer and Palo Alto Unified School District teacher, who passed away during the prior week.
5/08/00 90-160
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. in memory of Kristine Fitzhugh, a Palo Alto School District music teacher who died tragically on May 5, 2000. 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.
5/08/00 90-161