HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-28 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
January 28, 2002
1. Interview of Candidates for Vacancies on the Library
Advisory ................................................... 306
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ................. 306
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 307
1. Policy and Services Committee recommendation re the City’s participation in the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Transit Shelter Advertising Program ........................................ 307
3. Allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds on an Emergency Basis to Assist in the Completion of Clara Mateo Alliance's Elsa Segovia Homeless Center for Women and Children ..................................... 321
4. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. S2135801 Between the
City of Palo and Urban Ministry to Increase Funding in the Amount of $28,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-02 .............. 321
4A. (Old Item No. 2) Resolution Declaring Council Policy
to Mitigate Development Impacts and Initiating Proceedings to Establish Development Impact Fees for
Parks, Community Centers and Libraries ..................... 322
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, of
an ARB application [01-ARB-03] to allow façade upgrades and landscaping improvements to two existing
one-story buildings located at 3924 El Camino Real ......... 323
COUNCIL MATTERS ................................................. 323
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 323
01/28/02 93-304
6. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation ....... 324
7. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation ....... 324
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. in memory of Betty Rogaway, who recently passed away. She had worked in the Palo Alto Police Department in the 1940’s, was a Palo Alto pioneer in early childhood education working for the Palo Alto Unified School
District, and was president of the Palo Alto Historical Association. .................................... 324
01/28/02 93-305
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:50 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar ABSENT: Beecham, Lytle, Ojakian
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Interview of Candidates for Vacancies on the Library Advisory Commission
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
01/28/02 93-306
Special Meeting
January 28, 2002 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar
ABSENT: Beecham, Ojakian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Stanley Taller, 508 Military Way, spoke regarding Cypress Lane alley.
Katie Buzbee, 3883 La Selva Drive, spoke regarding Cypress Lane alley.
James Thalmann, 3887 La Selva Drive, spoke regarding
Cypress Lane alley. Bob Henshel, 4014 Amaranta Avenue, spoke regarding alley in
the rear of Military Way.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked staff to respond to Council regarding the alley issue. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the staff recommendation on Agenda Item No. 5.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding staff
decisions on ARB issues with respect to signs and the need for a Zoning Administrator.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, spoke regarding public noticing on projects by staff.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
1. Policy and Services Committee recommendation re the
City’s participation in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Transit Shelter Advertising Program
01/28/02 93-307
Vice Mayor Mossar said when the item was previously before the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee, advertising and
bus shelters were to be excluded from all arterial streets. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the agreement and ordinance gave the City control over the location of bus shelters. The Council’s direction to staff to not allow bus
shelters on residential arterials would occur without need of further amendment. There was no reason why the Council could not add the location restrictions to the ordinance.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) direction required five Council Members to direct the City Attorney to prepare
ordinances. Vice Mayor Mossar said that in reviewing the P&S Committee minutes of November 14, 2001, residential arterial was the goal of that discussion.
Mr. Calonne said the Council could direct staff to change the ordinance to add residential arterial restrictions, but that was not necessary.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the proposal before the Council that evening complied with direction
from the P&S Committee. The list of locations in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:128:02) and the ordinance language complied with the direction for locations on
specified streets.
Mr. Calonne said concern was raised about the omission of Exhibit C, which was the list of locations. Earlier in the day, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(SCVTA) confirmed that Exhibit C was Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:128:02).
Mr. Roberts said in 1994, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) changed their procedure in handling bus shelter maintenance. Prior to that time, maintenance was done in-house with some contract services but was changed
to a revenue opportunity and contracted out to Clear Channel Communications (formerly Eller Media). VTA gave cities and counties the option of whether or not to
participate. In 1996, the City chose not to participate. The City assumed the responsibility of maintaining the bus
shelters, and the cost was absorbed into existing Graffiti and street maintenance programs. Shelters reached the end of their useful life and needed to be replaced. The cost
01/28/02 93-308
was estimated at approximately $200,000. The issue and cost savings were identified during the fiscal year 2001-02
budget process and the need became critical during the “Strengthening the Bottom Line” process. In November 2001, the P&S Committee again reviewed the issue. Public Works Superintendent Paul Dornell, said 30 bus
shelters were maintained by the City and were being replaced and upgraded. The bus shelters would be constructed with graffiti resistant material; glass panels
would be eliminated; and solar power lighting installed. VTA was obligated, by agreement, to replace and upgrade the
30 existing shelters, which allowed the City to add future shelters at no cost. The maintenance and cleaning of bus shelters were VTA’s responsibility. With regard to the process for future locations, the City needed to contact VTA and ask them to consider a location, which was subject
to mutual agreement. VTA used issues such as number of riders, use of stops, proximity of the shelter to hospitals, senior facilities, or schools. The City retained the final say as to whether or not a shelter went in. With regard to advertising, ads were submitted to VTA staff that
reviewed and approved ads prior to installation. The agreement called for a three- to one-ratio of advertising
to shelters versus non-advertising shelters. VTA prohibited advertising of tobacco, alcoholic beverages, nudity and sexual content, and all displays specifically prohibited by
law or local ordinance. The City had the right to solicit VTA to remove objectionable advertisement, and the City
could use available space for public service announcements. With regard to fiscal implications, currently the traffic control crew was assigned to shelter maintenance. They will
be reassigned to traffic-related projects such as installation of yellow and green pedestrian signs and
traffic calming projects. Bus shelters were not identified in the infrastructure plan. The agreement eliminated having to find $200K to replace shelters. There would be a modest annual revenue between $10K-$50K depending on ads purchased for the shelters.
Mr. Roberts said staff recommended: the City participate in the VTA Transit Shelter Advertising Program; authorizing
the Mayor to execute the Implementation Agreement; adopting the ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
to provide for bus shelter advertising; rescinding the 1996 agreement with VTA; and approving the Countywide program
01/28/02 93-309
which allowed the addition of 30 or more shelters in Palo Alto.
Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, urged the Council to approve the recommendations of the P&S Committee. She felt that citizens did not want to invite big advertisements, but staff presented a good case for
allowing the advertising program. Through her own experience, she found the shelters to be most beneficial while enduring a medical problem and was dependent on
buses. In addition, both the City and VTA benefited financially through the program. The benefits outweighed
the negatives. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said staff spoke from the assumption that the City owned the shelters, but he thought VTA owned the shelters. Discussion was initiated by former
Mayor Eakins at the P&S Committee meeting about not having an ad at the shelter at Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue. Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:128:02) showed that shelter as having an ad. The statement that the recommendation conformed to the P&S Committee’s vote was
not accurate. The item should be removed because it did not conform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
There were two citations noted in the staff report (CMR:128:02) for exemptions from CEQA, but there was an exception that he pointed out in a recent letter to the
Council. One citation referred to aesthetics that the shelters would substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and the other citation was that the shelters conflicted with the existing sign ordinance and the El Camino Real design
guidelines. Appropriate environmental review with adequate public notice for a hearing was necessary in order to make
changes. A concern was raised regarding the Vice Mayor being a Board Member of VTA and whether or not that was incompatible. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, urged the Council to reject the
recommendations of the P&S Committee. Ads in bus shelters would not improve the quality of the appearance of El Camino Real. The P&S Committee minutes of November 14,
2001, did not reflect most of his comments, which were to the effect that money was not being saved and there was no
real financial advantage to approving the program. Hearing that the bus stops reached the end of their useful life after only 10-12 years was a surprise. Staff referred to
01/28/02 93-310
the amount of money, $10,000 to $50,000, the City would get. Exhibit B, Phase Two Shelter Plan, of the staff report
(CMR:128:02) listed other cities with similar numbers of bus stops that received $9,000 to $15,000. Advertising in bus stops was not good for Palo Alto. Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, Area Board 7 of
Developmental Disabilities, said the topic of public transportation for the developmentally disabled was a high, ongoing priority. Public transportation was a critical
component for Palo Altans with various disabilities, and the Council’s decision would impact Palo Altans with
disabilities. The use of passive solar lighting was a benefit. Mr. Calonne said a Council Member did not have a financial interest in his or her capacity as a VTA Board Member, so
there was no Government Code 1090 conflict of interest problem. City Manager Frank Benest said he requested that staff explore the issue as part of “Strengthening the Bottom
Line.” The budget was being cut or modified by $6 million or more. A key strategy was to look for places where the
City could offload responsibility. In terms of financial benefits, the real benefit was avoiding the future cost of $200,000 or more and directing the Public Works staff to
focus on other things. MOTION: Council Member Morton, seconded by Mossar, that the Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council accept the following recommendations: 1) Approve
the City’s participation in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Transit Shelter
Advertising Program; 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Implementation Agreement with VTA for the Transit Shelter Advertising Program; 3) Adopt the ordinance amending the Sign Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to provide for bus shelter advertising; 4) Rescind current VTA
Agreement dated March 1, 1996; and 5) Approve expansion of the existing Transit Shelter Advertising program to allow for the additional Palo Alto shelters. In addition direct
staff to provide clarification on the issues of the legal weight of local ordinances; the accuracy of the shelter
inventory; clarification of the process for requesting new shelters and the likelihood of success; the City’s ability to specify which shelters would contain ads and which would
01/28/02 93-311
not; evaluate the possibility of using the local sign ordinance to specify which areas should and should not
contain advertising. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority for Transit Shelter Advertising Program
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.20 (Sign
Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Provide for Bus Shelter Advertising
Council Member Lytle asked for the basis for recommending relaxing community standards for advertising on Page Mill Road and El Camino Real rather than Downtown. The public policy was to eliminate visual clutter.
Mr. Roberts said staff believed the initiative was different than independent, free standing or advertising kiosks. The issue was that the shelters were already in place. New locations were not sought. The proposal came
before staff utilizing locations already in existence.
Council Member Lytle supported the policy objectives in terms of encouraging transit but did not like the trade off in aesthetic values. The option was suggested that the City
obtain a competitive bid from a company such as JC Decaux, in exchange for reducing the toilet maintenance contract
fees as a more aesthetic alternative. Mr. Roberts said in the contract with JC Decaux to install
the Downtown pay toilets, JC Decaux offered to take care of the operating and maintenance costs if it were allowed to
install additional free standing advertising kiosks in the Downtown. JC Decaux had a monopoly on the field and continued to do business without change or flexibility. Council Member Lytle mentioned the proactive public right
of way maintenance inspection program and noted that in other cities, VTA participated in a bi-weekly, interagency coordination meeting to discuss maintenance concerns, and
VTA’s maintenance record was improved over time. The question was raised whether Palo Alto’s Public Works
Department did a similar type of proactive maintenance inspection of the public realm.
01/28/02 93-312
Mr. Roberts said the Public Works Department utilized its staff to review and inspect. The PAMC was modified the
prior year in order for staff to have limited code enforcement capabilities for dealing with debris and refuse in public streets. Staff would work with VTA on the bus stop locations.
Council Member Kleinberg asked who owned the shelters. Mr. Roberts stated the City owned the shelters by default.
In 1994, the County’s program abandoned the shelters and granted the shelters back to the cities in the county.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified that by opting out of the agreement, cities developed possession of county property. Mr. Roberts said that was correct.
Mr. Calonne said the City had maintenance, repair, and liability responsibilities, but the 1996 agreement specified that VTA owned the shelters. The City had the liabilities and obligations that went with ownership.
Mr. Benest said the key issue was replacement of the
shelters. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the CEQA questions.
Mr. Calonne said staff felt it did not have evidence that
extraordinary conditions existed to take the shelters out of exemption. The exemptions that staff relied upon applied unless there was evidence that showed unusual
circumstances. Staff’s position was interpreted that there was no evidence of unusual circumstances.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to the P&S Committee Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2001, and noted that the VTA representative, Mona Babanta, was asked whether there was a preview of signs prior to installation. Ms. Babanta
responded that all the ads were viewed prior to installation. At that meeting, Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison asked whether a sign could be removed if a
community found a particular sign offensive, and Ms. Babanta responded “yes.” Section 8 of the County agreement,
Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:128:02), listed prohibited displays and indicated “No Other Content Restrictions: Except for the express prohibitions set forth
01/28/02 93-313
in Subsection b above, the Participating Entities shall not impose any other restrictions based on content and nothing
herein shall otherwise interfere with the rights of the Contractor in the selection of advertising material for the shelters.” She asked for clarification. Mr. Roberts said another section of the agreement referred
to precedence of any local law or ordinance. Jim Unites, representative Valley Transportation Authority,
said he was involved in the shelter program since its inception. There were two agreements. The first agreement
was between VTA and Clear Channel, and the second agreement was negotiated among the participating cities. The agreement with Clear Channel gave VTA the ability to go beyond the implementation agreement and ask for removal of an ad. At the time the implementation agreement was
negotiated, some cities were not comfortable with the level of control over the advertising. VTA said “no” on several occasions to ads that Clear Channel brought from advertisers.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified VTA had control over the ad content.
Mr. Unites said that was correct. The City of Mountain View entered into a side letter to ensure they had the same
control as VTA.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified the agreement gave control to VTA over what was considered “offensive.”
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The document referred to by Mr. Unites was an advertising agreement and was
referenced in the implementation agreement. The agreement purported to give VTA content control. The biggest issue was discriminating against noncommercial speech in favor of commercial speech. The practical issue down the road was first amendment protected core political speech activities
that might be controversial. Mr. Calonne said there was greater control because of the
dual nature of free exercise of religion and no establishment of religion. There would be an establishment
issue if the locations were heavily identified as government locations. The advertising agreement required that political signs indicate someone paid them for.
01/28/02 93-314
Council Member Kleinberg clarified the City would not have control over political or religious ads that were covered
by the first amendment. Mr. Calonne said VTA insisted they would confirm any advertising choice with the City. The agreement had a termination clause that let the City pull the plug if
things got out of hand. The agreement also included an indemnification clause that would cause the advertisers to pay the City’s defense cost if there were a first amendment
issue.
Mr. Benest said the worst that would happen was the City would not like the maintenance, shelters, or advertising. The City would then say it did not want the program. Vice Mayor Mossar asked what would happen to the shelters if the City decided two years down the line that it wanted
out of the program. Mr. Calonne said the termination clause allowed the City to terminate if the program resulted in a challenge to sign laws. The termination right came into play if the City said
it did not want a particular type of sign and someone sued to allow the sign.
Council Member Burch clarified there were 30 existing locations for shelters with the potential for an additional
30 locations.
Mr. Roberts said the proposal was for the current 30 locations, and there was a potential for additional locations, at the City’s discretion. The assumption was 10
additional shelters would be added.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the staff report (CMR:128:02) indicated 10 shelters. Mr. Roberts said the number was flexible, and the City was able to negotiate further with VTA if more shelters were
desired. There was no current intent to double the number of shelters.
Council Member Burch clarified the ratio was three with advertising to one without advertising.
Mr. Roberts said that was correct.
01/28/02 93-315
Council Member Burch asked whether advertising was on both sides of the panel and on one end only.
Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Council Member Burch said one advertisement was for people inside the shelter and the other was for people outside the
shelter. Mr. Roberts said both sides of the panel were visible to
motorists, depending upon the direction of travel.
Council Member Burch asked whether the solar lighting was on a timer. Mr. Roberts believed the lighting was on a photocell and sensitive to ambient light conditions.
Council Member Burch clarified the lights were on all night. Mr. Unites said that was correct.
Council Member Burch referenced the P&S Committee minutes
of November 14, 2001, which indicated, “Council Member Burch said nothing would be on Middlefield Road, in that case.” At that meeting, Emily Harrison responded,
“Middlefield Road would be considered residential arterial.” The list in Attachment A of the staff report
(CMR:281:02) indicated a shelter at Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue.
Mr. Roberts said the Council could shift the advertising to a different location.
Council Member Burch understood the space was available for messages the City might want to put up if the space was not sold for advertisement. He asked who would place the City’s messages.
Mr. Unites said the City would print the information, and Clear Channel would place the information.
Council Member Freeman asked whether VTA had responsibility
to provide shelters on their bus routes.
01/28/02 93-316
Mr. Unites said VTA did not have a responsibility to provide anything in specific. Many bus stops throughout
Santa Clara County (the County) did not have shelters. Council Member Freeman said the staff report (CMR:128:02) indicated the number of shelters could be increased.
Mr. Roberts said the current number was 564 shelters Countywide. 200 shelters could increase that number, with the possibility of 10-30 added to Palo Alto.
Council Member Freeman agreed that providing bus shelters,
supporting public transportation, and making money for the City were positive attributes of the request. The City Attorney mentioned that implicitly the selection of street locations was inherent in the language the Council was asked to approve. She asked whether that could be more
explicit. Mr. Calonne said that was possible. Council Member Freeman asked whether residential arterials
included collectors.
Mr. Calonne said Channing Avenue was a residential arterial.
Council Member Freeman clarified if the City designated only residential arterials, collectors were included in the
possibility of bus shelters with signage. Mr. Calonne said that was correct and asked Public Works
staff to figure out if Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:281:01) included streets the City did not want.
Council Member Freeman was concerned about the 10 shelters that could be added. Mr. Calonne said the City had complete control over the 10
shelters that would be added. Council Member Freeman suggested looking at exact streets
and arterials and name those streets and locations where the Council would prefer ads.
Mr. Calonne said that was possible.
01/28/02 93-317
Mr. Roberts said the County did not have the authority to unilaterally establish bus stops. Encroachment permits were
required prior to location of bus stops and shelters. The Council might give policy direction to staff regarding the nature of locations. Council Member Freeman suggested adding language in an
amendment or attachment to the agreement so there was no question in the future as to what the Council voted on. She suggested adding to the agreement that removal of an ad,
based on a complaint regarding the content, would be adjudicated in a specific amount of time. The language
should be explicitly written in the agreement. Mr. Calonne said language could be added to the agreement. Council Member Freeman asked whether it was possible to add
anything to the sign ordinance that might remove the fear of inappropriate political signage so that the sign ordinance had precedence over the VTA. Mr. Calonne said the City could not forbid noncommercial
advertising if commercial advertising were allowed.
Council Member Freeman suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that locations for bus shelters with advertising be explicitly stated.
Vice Mayor Mossar suggested reconsidering the amendment
after other Council Members spoke. Council Member Kishimoto said the City Manager indicated
the staff that took care of graffiti could be redirected and asked how large the staff was.
Mr. Dornell said there were five people on the traffic control group who took care of signing, striping, curb painting, graffiti removal, and bus shelters.
Mr. Roberts said the impact was 20 percent or one person out of five, which was a significant impact on the resource when the City was faced with the challenge of new school
safety signs and neighborhood traffic issues.
Council Member Kishimoto said shelters were a major part of the City’s commitment to strong alternative transportation. El Camino Real was a major road that needed shelters. The
01/28/02 93-318
sidewalks in South Palo Alto were extremely narrow, which led to the question of whether shelters would fit in South
Palo Alto. Mr. Unites said there was a narrower shelter that fit on smaller sidewalks. Clear Channel worked in different locations to obtain a right-of-entry from private property
owners. Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether anyone looked at the
locations listed on Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:128:02) to make sure the unit fit.
Mr. Unites said all the locations were looked at to determine which shelter would fit. Council Member Kishimoto said the City intended to do a
large redesign of El Camino Real in the future. She asked whether spaces for shelters were specified into the planning. Mr. Benest said staff was beginning the planning process.
Mr. Roberts said the Public Works Department would
participate on the technical committee and steering committees for the planning process.
Council Member Freeman understood staff’s focus was on the 30 existing shelters, but the agreement included an
additional 10 shelters. She asked whether 8 of the 10 locations could be restricted to the El Camino Real corridor, and whether there was enough space on the narrow
streets on El Camino Real near Maybell, for example.
Mr. Roberts said locations would be reviewed on a case-by- case basis. Council Member Freeman said the agreement indicated approximately one shelter could be moved to a different
location at the City’s request annually and asked whether an amendment letter could be added in the event of major redevelopment of the El Camino Real area.
Mr. Roberts said yes.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the motion before the Council was to approve the staff recommendation from the P&S Committee,
01/28/02 93-319
and Council Member Freeman suggested adding to the motion to make explicit in the ordinance the streets where
advertising and bus shelters were acceptable and those streets that were not acceptable. Council Member Morton would accept an amendment that the additional 10 shelters went back to the P&S Committee for
review and recommendation to the Council but would not accept a motion to define the streets.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the intention was to make sure there were no advertising bus shelters in residential areas.
Mr. Benest said any additional shelters would go back to the P&S Committee and then to the Council. Council Member Freeman said the point was to give direction
so that the shelters did not have to go back to the Council. Vice Mayor Mossar said it was not possible for the Council to come up with an explicit list of streets at the current
meeting. AMENDMENT: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to refer the matter back to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee to create language to be placed in
the ordinance, which describes explicit streets for bus shelter advertising, and to return as soon as possible to
Council for approval. Council Member Kleinberg hoped the P&S Committee would
consider scenic routes when locations for bus shelters were designated.
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-4, Freeman, Kleinberg, Kishimoto “yes,”
Beecham, Ojakian absent. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve the staff recommendation with an addition of a side agreement with VTA which gives the City explicit control over content of advertising.
Mr. Calonne said the agreement gave the Council sufficient
protection from the bad things that might happen from the agreement. A side letter was consistent with what VTA wanted to do.
01/28/02 93-320
Council Member Kleinberg said she could not vote for the motion because she was worried about the termination and a
side agreement. The potential degradation of the environment and visual blight that might happen were concerns. The City was in an effort of trying to beautify the roadways and community, and the shelter advertising would diminish from that effort.
Council Member Lytle said there were approximately five adopted public policies that supported Council Member
Kleinberg’s comments. Staff’s work should include an audit of the policies when the issues went before the P&S
Committee. MOTION FAILED 3–4, Burch, Mossar, Morton “yes,” Beecham, Ojakian absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Morton would not participate in Item No. 4 due to a conflict of interest because of his role as
Auditor for Urban Ministries. Vice Mayor Mossar announced that Item No. 2 would be removed from the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 4A.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 and 4. ADMINISTRATIVE 3. Allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds
on an Emergency Basis to Assist in the Completion of Clara Mateo Alliance's Elsa Segovia Homeless Center for Women and Children
4. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. S2135801 Between the
City of Palo and Urban Ministry to Increase Funding in the Amount of $28,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-02. MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 3, Beecham, Ojakian absent.
MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item No. 4, Morton “not participating,” Beecham, Ojakian absent.
LEGISLATIVE
01/28/02 93-321
4A. (Old Item No. 2) Resolution Declaring Council Policy to Mitigate Development Impacts and Initiating
Proceedings to Establish Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers and Libraries Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant Street, looked at nexus surveys from other cities and found that the surveys rotated around
one question, which was how many people verifiably lived and worked in a town. Palo Alto’s staff felt $57 was the nexus fee, which he thought was high. A spreadsheet was
given to the Council Members that looked at costs. The cost to run the library system for 30 years was approximately
$550 million. The nexus fees for libraries was $.12 per square foot. The City needed to find things to generate money. The Council should spend time to figure out what the appropriate values were, based on past and current construction.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the Council had not adopted and was not reviewing specific proposals for development fees. Winter Dellenbach, 859 LaPara, urged the Council to get
something in place in the interim.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said by adopting the Resolution, the Council made the choice that the fees were not retroactive. He understood it was possible to make the fees
retroactive. The Resolution allowed a placeholder for fees to be set where it was warranted. When fees were adopted,
the City might or might not set an exemption, but that was unknown at the time projects came forward prior to adoption of the fee. Each project needed to be assigned a
placeholder for a fee if the criteria for a fee were met. Adopting an ordinance with a retroactive date was a cleaner
process. The agendas should have notations that items were referred to the committees, which he had not recently noticed. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, supported the Resolution that
provided for the use of placeholder fee conditions in anticipation of the Council adopting development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries at a later
time. She attended the December 19, 2001, public forum held by City staff and was troubled by the specific
recommendations presented by staff with respect to the structure and amount of fees. She asked about the estimated timeline for adopting the development impact fees.
01/28/02 93-322
City Manager Frank Benest said the item relating to development impact fees was scheduled for the Finance
Committee on February 20, 2002.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, to adopt the resolution.
Resolution 8124 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Council Policy to
Mitigate Development Impacts and Initiating Proceedings to Establish Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers and Libraries”
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Ojakian absent.
City Attorney Calonne stated for the record that Council Member Kleinberg’s husband’s law firm was not engaged in
any development impact fee issue, and there was no conflict of interest for Council Member Kleinberg.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’s approval, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, of an ARB application [01-ARB-03] to allow façade upgrades and landscaping improvements to two existing one-story buildings located at 3924 El Camino Real
Project Withdrawn; Appeal Terminated
COUNCIL MATTERS THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 9:23 P.M. TO A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND RECONVENED AS THE CITY COUNCIL AT 9:25 P.M.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Kishimoto asked staff to return to the Council on the next agenda with a placeholder on housing impact fees.
City Manager Frank Benest said the package going to the
Finance Committee included the housing development fee and staff’s recommendation to increase the fee.
01/28/02 93-323
City Attorney Ariel Calonne asked the Council to give direction to staff to investigate the feasibility of a
housing fee placeholder. The process concerned him because there was a fee on the books, and he wanted an opportunity to investigate the fees. Council Member Freeman asked staff to return to the Council
on the next agenda with a placeholder on traffic. Mr. Calonne said he would report to Council on the feasibility of housing and traffic fee placeholder, which
could then be agendized with a Colleagues memo.
Vice Mayor Mossar requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of Betty Rogaway who recently passed away. CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to a Closed Session.
6. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Christine Lasich v. City of Palo Alto; SCC #CV783615
Authority: Government Code 54956.9(a)
7. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Hanna, et al. v. City of Palo Alto, et al.;
SCC #CV782487
Authority: Government Code 54956.9(a) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters
involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7.
Vice Mayor Mossar announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. in
memory of Betty Rogaway, who recently passed away. She had worked in the Palo Alto Police Department in the 1940’s, was a Palo Alto pioneer in early childhood education working for the Palo Alto Unified School District, and was president of the Palo Alto Historical Association.
01/28/02 93-324
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.
01/28/02 93-325