HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-19 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting March 19, 2001
1. Introduction of Visiting Exchange Students from Niihari,....466
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................466
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m...................466
Regular Meeting 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed University Avenue Area Off-Street
Parking Assessment District – Protest Hearing, Tabulation of Ballots, and Actions Thereafter 467
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................471
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................472
1. Guidelines For The Use of Financial Instruments For
Managing Price Risk of Electricity and Natural Gas Commodities - Refer to Finance Committee....................472
2. Fiscal Year 2000-01 Consultant Agreements over $65,000 – Refer to Policy & Services and Finance Committees...........472
3. Resolution 8041 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Valley Transportation Authority for
Funds from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Pedestrian Bicycle Undercrossing Project”....................................................472
4. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, approval of a 25 percent retail gas rate increase effective
April 1, 2001, in order to partially offset higher natural gas costs...................................................472
5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, approval of the proposed energy risk management policies. Further, that Quarterly Reports be submitted to the
Utilities Advisory Commission and appropriately reported to the Council.................................................473
03/19/01 91-464
6. Amendment No. 1 to Sublease with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to Provide for Improvements
to University Avenue Depot, 95 University Avenue............473
6A. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the United States Supreme Court in Lorillard Tobacco Co., et al., v. Reilly, No.: 00-596..............................473
8. Conceptual Approval of a Residential Parking Permit
Framework to be implemented to coincide with Opening of New.473
9. Report of Tabulation of Assessment Ballots..................479
Resolution 8043 entitled “Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto Adopting Engineer's Report, Confirming the Assessment, Ordering the Work and Acquisitions and
Directing Actions with Respect Thereto - University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District”................480
10. Mayor Eakins re Cancellation of the March 26, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting........................................481
11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..............481
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m...................481
03/19/01 91-465
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in
the Council Chambers at 6:50 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler (arrived at 6:55 p.m.)
ABSENT: Fazzino, Kleinberg SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY
1. Introduction of Visiting Exchange Students from Niihari,
Japan No action required.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Paul Grimsrud, 3955 Bibbits Drive, spoke regarding electric
deregulation.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
03/19/01 91-466
Regular Meeting March 19, 2001
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 (teleconferencing from
Washington, D.C.), Kleinberg (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
move Item No. 7 forward and hear it as the first item of
business. This request is pursuant to Council’s direction on procedural streamlining. Council Member Beecham would not participate in Item Nos. 7, 8, or 9 due to a conflict of interest because he lived in the area
and was close enough to the parking structures to make the possible value of his home increase over $10,000. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham “not participating,” Kleinberg
absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District – Protest Hearing, Tabulation
of Ballots, and Actions Thereafter
Management Manager Joe Saccio said the Council adopted two resolutions on January 22, 2001, which set the process in motion. The first resolution of intent was to make acquisitions
and improvements. That resolution gave impetuous to the building of the two garages on lots S and L and a garage on lot R. The
total cost of the Assessment District was $45.8 million. The building of excess space onto the S/L garage would not be funded by the Assessment District. The second resolution preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report and set in motion the balloting process. Since January 22, 2001, letters went to property owners
in the District from interested Downtown property owners which reviewed the project, discussed its benefits, and solicited the property owners’ support for the project. Informational
brochures were sent out with the ballots and with the notice of public hearing. Several meetings with staff and Downtown
property owners were held to learn more about the assessment. The Chamber of Commerce’s Downtown Marketing Committee held a meeting to discuss the project, and the City set up a website for interested persons to learn more about the projects. Phone and office hours were set up to answer any questions. Staff
received requests for reevaluations of the assessment. One from
03/19/01 91-467
Casa Olga was currently before the Council as a proposed agreement and revolved around some unique characteristics of
that property owner’s facility. The ballots were counted on the relative weight of the assessment dollars per parcel. If the tabulation showed a majority of votes against the assessment, the Council had to terminate the proceedings. If the tabulation showed a majority of votes in favor, staff recommended that the
Council approve a resolution adopting the final Engineer’s Report confirming the assessment and ordering the work. There was a 30-day period after the hearing in which property owners
had the ability to pay cash instead of having their assessment financed. A notice of the assessment would be mailed following
the hearing if the ballot were successful. Staff would return in several weeks with a budget amendment ordinance (BAO) to fund the final design, architectural work, and project management. Staff would return to the Council in May with a resolution authorizing funding of bonds.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, wanted reassurance that if she were to pay for parking structures, her customers would be able
to use the structures. The down turn in the economy was a concern. There were areas in the City where people were not
willing or able to meet the rents that were being asked. That issue needed to be considered when asking small merchants to take on a considerable tax burden. Her share was approximately
$78,000 plus interest. Many merchants felt the burden was more than they could bear.
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, was concerned that the City was sending a mixed message to the retail storeowners and operators.
Preserving the retail that fit in with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) was important, but the assessment would fall on the
backs of the local retail merchants. Cambridge Hardware closed several years prior because of the cost of the California Avenue assessment district. She urged the Council to consider the affect the assessment district had on the business owners.
Mike Liveright, 260 Byron Street, questioned whether he, as a private homeowner, would be assessed.
Mayor Eakins said Mr. Liveright would not be included in the assessment.
Council Member Wheeler would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because she is a member of the Board of Directors for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
03/19/01 91-468
Mr. Calonne said Council Member Wheeler could participate; however, the consequence might be a conflict of interest that
prevented staff from working an arrangement with the PAHC on the assessment. He understood the Council to contemplate giving direction to the City Manager to attempt to work out an arrangement with the PAHC. If that action were to go forward, Council Member Wheeler would be unable to participate in any
part of the decision. Council Member Wheeler understood she should not participate in
anything related to the action on the PAHC.
Mr. Calonne said Council Member Wheeler should not participate in connection with the assessment district proceedings at the current time. Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC)
Executive Director, 725 Alma Street, protested the assessment of the Barker Hotel. The PAHC owned the Barker Hotel through one of its affiliates, PAHC Apartments, Inc. The building was assessed as commercial. There were two retail uses in the building. The PAHC assumed that, as residential, the building would be exempt
and presumed the error would be corrected. A letter from City staff indicated the building was in commercial zoning, and the
City could not exempt the property without compromising the integrity of the assessment district. The property should be exempt as residential. The use changed in 1994 to permanent
housing for low-income housing. The PAHC had a 40-year regulatory agreement with the City that was recorded against the
property and required it to stay low-income residential dwelling units. The City codes did not have a way to deal with single room occupancy (SRO) housing. There could not be a true finding
of special benefit, as many of the residents did not have cars. She urged the Council to review the assessment of the Barker
Hotel and classify the SRO housing as residential. Mayor Eakins asked the City Manager to follow up on the issue raised by Ms. Prendergast.
City Manager Frank Benest said if the Council so directed, staff could look at other ways of addressing the issue.
Council Member Mossar asked for clarification as to what the City Manager was asked to do.
Mr. Benest said staff believed the assessment was appropriate and understood the predicament of the Barker Hotel. Staff felt there were opportunities through the grant making process involving the PAHC or through the regulatory agreement that
03/19/01 91-469
staff could deal with the increase in cost. He recommended staff be as creative as possible and return to the Finance Committee
with a number of options. The Finance Committee would make a recommendation to the Council about the most appropriate option. To minimize or eliminate the additional cost, there were several ways to deal with that outside the assessment process.
Council Member Mossar clarified the appropriate thing for the Council to do was to approve the assessment on the Barker Hotel property.
Mr. Benest said if the Council gave him such direction, he would
work that out. Mr. Calonne said Mr. Sullivan’s concern was that the Council gave indication on the Casa Olga agreement prior to closing the public hearing so that he would have an opportunity to address
the Council. Dennis Sullivan, Attorney for Casa Olga, said the agreement with the City Attorney’s office was that the proposed agreement with Casa Olga would be decided by the Council in order for them to
submit their ballot before the public hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Casa Olga Relating to the University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking
Assessment District. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Wheeler “not participating.” Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about other properties
that were residential in nature and not for profit. The Council should not take action in a piecemeal way but take into
consideration the comments made by Ms. Prendergast. She questioned whether there were other properties in the same situation. Mr. Benest said staff spent much time reviewing the assessment,
blended rate, and appropriateness. That could be looked at, but staff recommended moving forward at the current time.
Council Member Burch asked whether the mixed use was the cause of the concern.
Mr. Saccio said all residences were excluded from the assessment district. The underlying zoning was commercial. The Barker Hotel was zoned commercial. There were other SROs in the Downtown area that paid the assessment and continued to pay the assessment.
03/19/01 91-470
Mayor Eakins said the direction to the City Manager was to find a way to make the situation work. The Council’s intention was to
solve the problem to the satisfaction of the PAHC with respect to the Barker Hotel property. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, reminded the Council that the retail merchants who would be affected by the parking garage
were not necessarily property owners, and many were tenants. The landlords received the ballots, but the tenants who were merchants would have to pay the assessment.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed, and requested
the tabulation of ballots take place. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Eakins spoke regarding the recent passing of Ben Bailey
and his pursuit of justice. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the sale of Co-op Market at 2605 Middlefield Road.
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding the colleague memo with respect to prohibition of conversion of retail to
commercial.
Mermila Khagran, spoke regarding her store on El Camino Real where her rent was being increased, and she submitted a petition regarding the Open House Convenience Store, a landmark business
establishment serving the Palo Alto community for over 30 years. She requested that everything possible be done to maintain the
business. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, Apt. 701, spoke regarding retail in its double context.
Paul Grimsrud, 3955 Bibbits Drive, spoke regarding the State electric policy.
Linda M. Olson, 656 Lytton Avenue, spoke regarding neglect, abuse, lies and threats of some government agencies and
administration/workers that go on in senior citizens and handicap facilities, includes cover-ups from those entities. Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, spoke regarding the development in SOFA CAP.
03/19/01 91-471
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the Minutes of February 5 and 12, 2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 for the February 5, 2001, minutes, Wheeler
“abstaining, Beecham absent.
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for the February 12, 2001, minutes, Beecham
absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in Item No. 6 due to a conflict of interest because her husband worked for the Stanford University.
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in Item No. 6 due to a potential conflict of interest because of her husband’s involvement in Stanford law matters. Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 – 6A.
1. Guidelines For The Use of Financial Instruments For Managing Price Risk of Electricity and Natural Gas Commodities - Refer to Finance Committee 2. Fiscal Year 2000-01 Consultant Agreements over $65,000 –
Refer to Policy & Services and Finance Committees 3. Resolution 8041 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Valley Transportation Authority for
Funds from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Pedestrian Bicycle Undercrossing Project” 4. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council,
approval of a 25 percent retail gas rate increase effective April 1, 2001, in order to partially offset higher natural gas costs.
Resolution 8042 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-7, and G-10 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Gas Rates”
03/19/01 91-472
5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, approval of the proposed energy risk management policies.
Further, that Quarterly Reports be submitted to the Utilities Advisory Commission and appropriately reported to the Council. 6. Amendment No. 1 to Sublease with Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) to Provide for Improvements to University Avenue Depot, 95 University Avenue
6A. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the United States Supreme Court in Lorillard Tobacco Co.,
et al., v. Reilly, No.: 00-596 MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 1-5, and 6A, Beecham absent.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,”
Beecham absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Conceptual Approval of a Residential Parking Permit
Framework to be implemented to coincide with Opening of New Downtown Parking Structure
Council Members Fazzino, Mossar, and Ojakian would not participate due to a conflict of interest because they lived in
the area. City Manager Frank Benest said after public testimony, if the
Council had questions about the issues raised, the Council should transmit those questions to Police Chief Pat Dwyer. Staff would respond when the item returned to the Council during the
budget process.
Police Chief Pat Dwyer said the referral before the Council was the result of a Council direction in 1996 requesting that staff develop a proposal to address the issue of residential permit parking. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PT&C) reviewed the proposal in 1999. Staff requested conceptual
approval for the elements that would be included in a possible future ordinance. The main points in the proposal included the purchase of permits by residents in approximately 3,000
households, optional purchase of transferable Guest permits by residents, optional purchase of one-day special event permits at
$1 per permit by residents, providing a specified number of one-day permits to nonprofits at no cost and the purchase of additional permits at $1 per permit, availability of one-day special permits for auto dealerships, opportunity for purchase of a specified number of annual nonresident permits, enforcement
03/19/01 91-473
from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., and two-hour short-term parking in all the restricted zones. Startup costs were estimated at
$1,086,000. Ongoing program costs were approximately $900,000 per year, and program revenue was estimated to be $1,096,000. The proposal would not solve the Downtown parking problem. There would be at least a deficit of 500 parking spaces in the Downtown area, and the proposal would not guarantee parking for
residents. Revenue projections from citations were based on approximately 1,300 citations per month. The degree to which citations affected driver behavior could not be predicted; for
instance, if driver behavior was affected by citations and citations went down, the revenue would go down proportionately.
Council Member Wheeler asked what the 1,300 citations per month number was based on. Lieutenant Jon Hernandez said the number was based on a projection of five citations per zone, per day.
Chief Dwyer said the 16,000 citations that were predicted per year averaged out to 1,300 citations per month. Council Member Wheeler asked whether that number of citations
was necessary in order for the program to have cost recovery.
Chief Dwyer said 1,300 citations per month would be necessary in order for the program to have cost recovery. A good portion of the revenue was based on permits, and the rest was based on
citation revenue.
Council Member Burch noticed the permits that went to residents indicated “vehicle-specific permits.” The nonresident permits of $500 to $600 per year did not indicate vehicle-specific.
Lt. Hernandez believed the permits would be vehicle-specific,
but the issue needed to be discussed as to whether or not the permits were transferable. The Police Department’s stance was that the permits should be vehicle-specific, but a policy decision needed to be made by the Council.
Council Member Burch questioned the $10 guest permits. He foresaw a good bootleg system with people duplicating permits.
Lt. Hernandez said research and survey information from Washington indicated guest permits were the biggest area of
fraud. The proposal was that each resident be allowed to purchase two guest permits, but there were no controls as to how they were used.
03/19/01 91-474
Council Member Burch clarified parking enforcement officers would conduct enforcement only by the visibility of a permit and
asked whether officers would have to look for a permit on each car. Lt. Hernandez said that was correct.
Council Member Burch asked about the size of the permits. Lt. Hernandez said the permits would be large enough in order
for the officers to physically see the permit down the street.
Council Member Burch clarified staff recommended the program not be implemented until the parking structures were built. Mr. Benest said staff’s position was that the permit process would take place after the parking structures were built.
Council Member Lytle said a program was initiated a few years prior in San Jose near the County Government Center and asked that the program be looked at as an example of a successful program.
Mr. Dwyer said the program in San Jose was looked at. San Jose
has residential permit parking around the Civic Center, certain parks, and San Jose State University.
Council Member Kleinberg asked about commercial vehicles in the residential area for occasional service calls.
Lt. Hernandez said if the vehicle appeared to be on official business, the Police Department would not issue a citation. If
the same vehicle were seen on a daily basis, the vehicle would be cited.
Eric Nee, 567 Kingsley Avenue, said while there was a real parking problem close to Downtown, it did not extend to the outer reaches of the proposed area. Zones 10, 12, and 14 were immediately south of the Downtown area and had parking problems.
The permit program extended its reach in zones 11, 13, and part of 15. Two surveys were done while the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) was in operation. The surveys did not
distinguish between non-Palo Alto residents who worked in the area. The area south of Channing Avenue during the day contained
many empty parking spaces. Addison School should be excluded from the permit zone because the school relied on many parents who helped out on a volunteer basis.
03/19/01 91-475
Leslie Pound, 237 Byron Street, said she had not experienced a problem with parking in her neighborhood. The Council should
consider the borders of the area she lived in. Mark Nanovich, 228 Waverley Street, Downtown North Neighborhood Parking Project Chairman, said he tried for many years to get the proposal to the Council. His neighborhood came up with
objectives to establish and maintain a cap on the cars that were parked in the neighborhood, to protect the neighborhood from future expansion and developments such as in-lieu parking and
density increases, to provide a level of available parking for all residents and their guests by distributing density of the
parking throughout the neighborhood, to encourage public transportation and carpooling, and the eventual reduction of residential parking capped to zero when the parking structures were completed. During the prior five years, staff made some changes which most of his neighborhood found objectionable. The
permit program was set out by the Council five years prior to stand alone as a project next to the parking structures. There was no current protection from restaurants adding more seating capacity which in turn added more cars into the neighborhoods.
Conrad M. Lamond, 330 Bryant Street, said when he bought his home 18 years prior, parking was not a problem. Presently, he
often found it difficult to park his car in front. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, said the color zones and
preponderance of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) created a parking nightmare. She was willing to pay up to $25 per year for a
parking permit and believed a parking permit plan was needed, which included the true cost of driving incurred by people who commuted to Palo Alto currently. The true cost of driving did
not exist. The line of sight difficulty in Downtown north at many intersections was very dangerous. She encouraged the
Council to drive east on Everett Street at the intersection of Bryant Street. The intersection was impossible to cross without going into the intersection to get a clear line of sight because of trucks or SUVs. Street cleaning was rarely done on her street due to the parked cars, and cars often blocked her driveway.
Guillaume Peters, 327 Waverley Street, encouraged the Council to adopt the permit process and to adjust the cost on an annual
basis according to the revenue generated the prior year. There was no provision for contractors to park their cars when doing
remodels of homes. The recommendation to allow anyone to park in specified residential zones without any permit for two hours should not be allowed. Residents preferred to park off the street. A Public Works policy prohibited two curb cuts in front
03/19/01 91-476
of residences, and he suggested the Council ask the Public Works Department to justify that policy.
Emily Renzel, 475 Homer Avenue, said the Palo Alto Women’s Club wanted the Council to consider some suggestions and concerns regarding the residential parking permit system. The Club had 150 members and only two parking spaces associated with the
building. A big concern was alleviated when weekend enforcement was removed from the program. The Club’s building maintenance was funded with income from weddings and other events on
weekends. Enforcing the permit system on weekends would have made the rentals difficult. The membership activities were
concentrated on Tuesday evenings between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. and on the first and third Wednesdays of the month between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. To require members and guests to stop by the Clubhouse, pick up a permit, park, and return required considerable bothersome driving around the neighborhood. The
Club requested the City consider allowing the organization to purchase any annual sticker that would be good only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at a cost of $10 each. The Club understood the neighborhood concern about parking and would support what the neighborhood wanted, assuming the Club could obtain annual
stickers for the members. The permit system would be cumbersome for little gain if several hundred regular monthly parking
permits were issued to commuters. Alexandra Mayer, 359 Hawthorne Avenue, lived by Johnson Park and
noted five problems: increased traffic, increased all-day parking, no parking under phone lines, five to seven spaces
painted with lines for one car where two cars would actually fit, and increased population density. She had to park her car on her lawn or two blocks away from her house and had asked
people to pull forward to make room for two cars. Her landlord called the City to paint new lines on the street. She would pay
up to $200 per year for a parking permit, would request that more lines were painted on the street and phone lines placed underground. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said residential parking permits
were successful in the past in Southgate. The rate 15 years prior was $10 per year, and the City might want to consider raising that amount, taking inflation into account. He supported
the staff recommendations but made some modifications. One was that the City have the issue revisited at a date certain, in two
or three years, in order to have an opportunity to make a number of adjustments. The Council might want to change the number and location of zones, the number of permits allowed, the costs and time people were allowed to park. Starting the parking permit process prior to the garages being opened might be advisable
03/19/01 91-477
with the idea in mind of making adjustments after the garages were opened. Fine-tuning should be made later in the process.
Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, recommended the Council not close the public hearing and make sure people fully understood the issue. He appreciated the problems the area north of University incurred. There was no stop on the parking problem
and no solution for providing more parking Downtown. He could not understand how the City could ask the residential residents of the community to subsidize one of the most successful
commercial enterprises in the country: Downtown Palo Alto. There was not another commercial use in the town that the Council
would allow to have deficit parking. Solutions were needed. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, University South President, said University South was larger than Downtown North, and many people had parking problems from the commercial areas.
If Downtown North got the parking, University South would be impacted. The needs of University South were different from Downtown North, and the program might need to be different. Allocation of nonresidential parking should be spread out so that any one street was not so impacted. Long-term permit
parking was necessary as part of the comprehensive transportation plan for Downtown. Many details needed to be
worked out, but she would push ahead for a trial. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, wanted to see a residential permit
parking program in place. Two major problems with the proposed program might keep the residential parking permit program from
working successfully: (1) the proposed one-year transferable guest permit, and (2) the two-hours of free short-term parking that was proposed to be made available. Her concern with the
short-term parking was the enforcement costs. A residential parking permit program with the right tools that might require
more upfront costs but less enforcement costs should be set up. College Terrace residents succeeded in obtaining up to $100,000 toward the implementation of a permit parking program in College Terrace. College Terrace should not have to wait until the Downtown program was in place before its neighborhood program
was considered. A program in College Terrace would be less complex and less costly to implement than for the Downtown.
Irwin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, #126, wanted to see Palo Alto implement progressive transportation programs rather than
continue the current auto centric policies that discouraged use of environmentally friendly alternatives. The current policy was one of unregulation, nonpricing, and unlimited use. The parking garages were not going to solve the shortages. Implementing the program at the present time would create problems. The program
03/19/01 91-478
that was implemented must be flexible. He did not like the idea that revenue from the program be based on citations. That money
should go to a separate account. The people who bought the permits funded the permit program. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, said College Terrace had funding for permit parking. Her neighbors understood the pain felt by
the residents of Downtown North. The problem was with all-day parkers from the Stanford Research Park and the California Avenue commercial area. The Council was asked to go forward with
permit parking in the City.
Joshua Mogal, 429 Ruthven Avenue, observed there was not a parking problem beyond Hawthorne Avenue in his area. A delay in the implementation of the program past the implementation of the parking garages was possible. He asked that permits be allowed to be on glass rather than bumpers, because placing permits on
painted bumpers cause permanent damage. Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, Downtown North Neighborhood Association President, worked in conjunction with the parking committee for several years. Many people were disappointed with
the amount of time it took the issue to get to the Council. The staff report (CMR:159:01) indicated the revenues offset the
costs. Costs imposed by the commercial district should be borne by the commercial district. The two-hour parking was an expensive issue that he felt should be removed.
Mayor Eakins announced that the public comment period was
closed. The Council stopped the proceedings to hear Item No. 9,
Tabulation of the Assessment Ballots for the University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District.
9. Report of Tabulation of Assessment Ballots City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that the assessment ballots were tabulated and the results were:
Total Valid Ballots: $30,232,151.40 or 100%
In Favor of Assessment: $22,078,094.82 or 73.0%
Oppose Assessment: $ 8,154,056.58 or 27.0% MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the following resolution:
03/19/01 91-479
Resolution 8043 entitled “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Engineer's Report,
Confirming the Assessment, Ordering the Work and Acquisitions and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto - University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District” MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Wheeler “not participating,” Fazzino absent.
RECESS: 9:22 p.m. to 9:35 p.m. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 8 Mr. Benest said staff took notes during the public comment period and would try to respond to those questions as well as questions raised by the Council.
Council Member Kleinberg asked that the following be brought back with staff review: (1) question of review and a recommendation of staff as to whether a review or sunset was most practical; (2) question of street sweeping and occasional
no parking hours; (3) review of the northernmost and southernmost zones and how they might be incrementally added;
(4) pricing system or financial package that would allow the permit parking program to be self-supporting rather than dependant upon a penalty system; and (5) definition of special
event permits, and allowing residents to purchase permits for $1 per day.
Council Member Burch said a question was raised about corner parking. All four sides of the Bryant Street and Everett Street
should have signs that indicated no parking on corners for at least the length of one parking space.
Council Member Lytle asked for a copy of the minutes of the meeting five years prior where the issue was originally directed. She asked what percentage of the cost of the program was attributable to the two-hour parking provision and whether
it was possible to have the structure of the program set up so that more of the cost was shifted to the commercial downtown instead of neighborhood residential areas.
Council Member Kleinberg asked Council Member Lytle for an
explanation, noting that the fees would get increased closer to the Downtown. Council Member Lytle asked whether there was another way to look at the program so the cost would be borne more by commercial
03/19/01 91-480
revenue and whether there was a nexus for using impact fees, assessment district monies, or any other funding mechanism that
would shift the burden from the residents. Council Member Wheeler said staff did considerable work in looking at other cities where such programs were successful. She wanted information on cities that had success in residential
parking permits. No action taken.
COUNCIL MATTERS
10. Mayor Eakins re Cancellation of the March 26, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
cancel the March 26, 2001, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Beecham, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian absent. 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Eakins spoke regarding a colleague memo about prohibition
on converting retail space to office space to be heard at a Special Meeting not yet set.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 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.
03/19/01 91-481