HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-02 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting May 2, 1994 1. Closed Session for the Purposes of a Conference with two Labor Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 ....................................... 72-457 1. Appointments to the Public Art Commission ............. 72-458 2. Annual Report from the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport ................... 72-460 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 72-460 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1994 ...................... 72-461 3. Security Services at Municipal Services Center - Request for Increase in Funding for Contract Extension with The Wackenhut Corporation ........................ 72-461 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and McMahon Construction for Playground Equipment at Peers Park ... 72-461 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and C.F. Archibald Paving, Inc. for 1994 Street Resurfacing .... 72-461 6. Award of Construction Contract between the City of Palo Alto and St. Francis Electric for Installation of Traffic Signals ....................................... 72-461 8. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Library Division of the Community Services Department in Recognition of Receipt of Funds from the Public Library Fund of the State Library ..................... 72-462 9. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Downtown Parking Garage Security ...................... 72-462 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 72-462 10. The Finance Committee Recommendation re Approval of the Downtown Parking Issues - Civic Center Garage Subsidy, Proposed Parking Structures, and Attendant Lot Fees ... 72-462 11. The Finance Committee Recommendation re Approval of the
05/02/94 72-455
Agreement with the Accounting Firm of Deloitte & Touche for Fiscal Year 1993-94 Audit Services ................ 72-467 12. The Planning Commission Recommendation re Adoption of an Ordinance adding Chapter 18.97 to the City's Zoning Regulations, Establishing Procedures for the Conduct of Study Sessions for Preliminary Review of Development Projects .............................................. 72-468 13. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Planning Department to Study Financing Options of the Dream Team Design and Planning Solutions .............. 72-471 14. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Metropolitan Fiber Systems of California, Inc. for Installation of Fiber Optic Cable ..................................... 72-474 15. Preliminary Agreement and Form of Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Babe Ruth League for the Construction of a Concession Stand and Storage Facility for the Baylands Athletic Center ............. 72-487 16. Request for approval of Amicus Participation in Domar Electric v. City of Los Angeles ....................... 72-487 17. Readvertising the Vacancies on the Historic Resources Board ................................................. 72-488 18. Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 9, 1994 ............................................... 72-488 19. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 72-488 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. .......... 72-488
05/02/94 72-456
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Wheeler (arrived at 6:40 p.m.) ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL MEETINGS AND/OR CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Closed Session for the Purposes of a Conference with two Labor Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (SEIU) Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Glenn Roberts, John Walton, Virginia Harrington, Rodger Jensen, Mike Rogers, Bill Miks, Susan Ryerson) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers Association (PAPOA) Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Lynne Johnson, Tom Merson, Kathy McKenna, Susan Ryerson) Public Comments None. The City Council convened at 6:10 p.m. in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room to a Closed Session to discuss the matter listed as Item No. 1 on the agenda. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, the City Council took no disclosable or reportable action during the Closed Session that evening. ******** Regular Meeting May 2, 1994 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
05/02/94 72-457
1. Appointments to the Public Art Commission Council Member Andersen said it was an extraordinary group of candidates for the Public Art Commission (PAC), and it was diffi-cult to vote since every person that came forward was well qualified. He would vote for Gerald Brett, Sandra Eakins, and Kathryn Carleton for the full terms. Mayor Kniss said she was not present for the interviews but had either spoken to the candidates or had done some inquiries as to the candidate's qualifications. Council Member Wheeler echoed the sentiments expressed by Council Member Andersen. It was an outstanding group of candidates, and each candidate brought a different talent and perspective to the job. It was difficult to choose among them. For the full terms, she would vote for the current chair, Sandra Eakins, who had done an outstanding job, Kathryn Carleton, who had demonstrated an interest in the PAC over a period of time, and Susan Morss, who had a background of working with industry to place public art with private corporations. Mayor Kniss said Sandra Eakins had done an excellent job on the PAC and also brought a good perspective. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BRETT: Andersen, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR CARLETON: Andersen, Kniss, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR EAKINS: Andersen, Kniss, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR JENKINS: VOTING FOR MEIR-LEVI: VOTING FOR MORSS: Kniss, Huber, McCown, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR SWAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Kathryn Carleton and Sandra Eakins received eight votes and Susan Morss received six votes and were appointed on the first ballot for the full terms. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BRETT: Andersen, McCown, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR CARLETON: VOTING FOR EAKINS:
05/02/94 72-458
VOTING FOR JENKINS: VOTING FOR MEIR-LEVI: Huber, Schneider, Kniss, Wheeler VOTING FOR MORSS: VOTING FOR SWAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Vice Mayor Simitian had abstained from voting and that no candidate received five votes and another round of ballots was in order. RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BRETT: Andersen, McCown, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR CARLETON: VOTING FOR EAKINS: VOTING FOR JENKINS: VOTING FOR MEIR-LEVI: Huber, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR MORSS: VOTING FOR SWAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Vice Mayor Simitian had abstained from voting and that no candidate received five votes and another round of ballots was in order. RESULTS OF THE FOURTH ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BRETT: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Simitian VOTING FOR CARLETON: VOTING FOR EAKINS: VOTING FOR JENKINS: VOTING FOR MEIR-LEVI: Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR MORSS: VOTING FOR SWAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that no candidate received five votes and another round of ballots was in order. Council Member McCown supported Gerald Brett and thought his background was interesting because of his depth of knowledge in the field of Asian art. Mr. Brett would add a different back-ground and experience that would be useful to the PAC.
05/02/94 72-459
Council Member Schneider encouraged her colleagues to vote for Honey Meir-Levi whose background in fund-raising was critical. Council Member Andersen would continue to support Gerald Brett. He appreciated the interest to have a balance on the PAC, but he believed the entire community was well represented on the PAC. RESULTS OF THE FIFTH ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BRETT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian VOTING FOR CARLETON: VOTING FOR EAKINS: VOTING FOR JENKINS: VOTING FOR MEIR-LEVI: Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR MORSS: VOTING FOR SWAN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Gerald Brett received six votes and was appointed on the fifth ballot for the unexpired term ending April 30, 1996. 2. Annual Report from the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport Nicholas Petredis, Chairman, Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport, introduced and thanked Frank Briski for his dedication, leadership, and commitment as past chair of the Committee for the past two years. Frank Briski, past Chairman, Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport, presented highlights of the annual report. The City's staff as well as the airport management from the Santa Clara County had been very supportive of the Committee. Council Member Rosenbaum said the report mentioned there were nine noise complaints in 1993, and each complaint was followed up and successfully resolved. He asked about the procedure when a noise complaint was investigated. Larry Feldman, Secretary, Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport, said the tower would be called to find out why the plane was where it was, and then the person was called back with the information. If necessary, he would go to the person's house and observe the planes that were causing the complaint. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Earl Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding sidewalk squat-
05/02/94 72-460
ters. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding Stanford University's Outreach. Andy Coe, 766 Garden Court, spoke regarding Stanford University's "Good" Projects. Kazim Sheikh, 4108 Wilkie Way, spoke regarding refuse collection charges and contractor. Marilyn Kratt, 4149 Wilkie Way, spoke regarding Foothills Park. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic accountability (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Arastradero Preserve. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the Arastradero Preserve road building. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, spoke regarding the Centennial Gala and the Black and White Ball. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding homelessness in Palo Alto. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1994 MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of March 21, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0-2, Simitian, Schneider "abstaining," Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 9. 3. Security Services at Municipal Services Center - Request for Increase in Funding for Contract Extension with The Wackenhut Corporation 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and McMahon Construc-tion for Playground Equipment at Peers Park; change orders not to exceed $4,300 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and C.F. Archibald Paving, Inc. for 1994 Street Resurfacing; change orders not to exceed $125,000 6. Award of Construction Contract between the City of Palo Alto and St. Francis Electric for Installation of Traffic Signals; change orders not to exceed $17,700
05/02/94 72-461
License Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District for Installation and Maintenance of a Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting and Construction of Related Roadway Work on East Meadow Drive and Waverley Street Right of Entry Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District for the Construction of Improvements on the Real Property of Palo Alto Unified School District 8. Ordinance 4215 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Library Division of the Community Services Department in Recognition of Receipt of Funds from the Public Library Fund of the State Library" 9. Ordinance 4216 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Downtown Parking Garage Security" MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3-4, 6, 8, and 9, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 5-0 for Item No. 5, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler "not participating," Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 7, Ordinance Amending Certain Provisions of Chapter 4.10.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Adopted Pursuant to Ordinance No. 4181, Relating to Vending During the World Cup Soccer Games, had been removed from the Consent Calendar by staff. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 10. The Finance Committee Recommendation re Approval of the Downtown Parking Issues - Civic Center Garage Subsidy, Proposed Parking Structures, and Attendant Lot Fees Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item because of the location of her business in the Downtown area. Director of Finance Emily Harrison said in anticipation of the City Council's approval of the Finance Committee recommendation to direct staff to work with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) Parking Subcommittee on permit fee issues, the Police and Finance Departments staff met with the Chamber subcommittee on April 11, 1994, to discuss three issues: 1) the annual expendi-tures for the University Avenue Parking District, 2) the issue of the City's historical use of District-funded spaces versus the accumulated General Fund cost for maintaining the District, and 3) exploring options for permit fees. At the meeting, it was agreed that City staff would begin to develop and provide regular budget
05/02/94 72-462
to actual reports on parking district expenditures and that staff would pursue with the City Attorney the issue of whether it was appropriate to charge the parking district a prorated share of the cost of seismically retrofitting the Civic Center structure. Staff was also working on a commute incentive program which would address the subcommittee's concern about Civic Center parking. Since the issue was subject to the meet and confer process, it was being discussed in that arena. Vice Mayor Simitian said the recommendation from the Finance Committee blended the recommendations contained in the staff report (CMR:190:94) as well as some of the actions taken by the Finance Committee. He said on page 10 of the staff report (CMR:190:94), there were a series of six recommendations, and he asked for clarification about what the motion did and did not include. He asked for Council Member Wheeler to reference those recommendations and indicate additions, deletions, or changes from that list. Council Member Wheeler said the changes related to the timing in No. 4. The staff report outlined the timing of the increased permit parking fees for the 1994-95 budget process, but the Finance Committee proposed that it take place in the 1995-96 budget process. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the timing on No. 4 was for in-creased parking permit fees in 1995-96. Council Member Wheeler said the only change was the time frame, and the discussion would be delayed for one year. Another change from the staff recommendation was instead of putting a time period after No. 6, the Finance Committee added that when the Council adopted a fee schedule for attendant parking lot, a nominal fee of $1 be charged for first two hours, allowing for merchant and Senior Center validation. Those were the only changes from the original staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether Item No. 4 was eliminated from the list. Council Member Wheeler said Item No. 4 would still be on the list with a delayed date. Mayor Kniss clarified the delayed date was not specific. Council Member Wheeler said the date was specific, and the item would be discussed during the 1995-96 budget time period. Staff indicated to the Finance Committee that the Council would need to discuss the subject, but the Finance Committee recommended a one-year delay of the discussion. Mayor Kniss asked whether the issue would return to the Council with increased parking permit fees as part of the 1995-96 budget process. Council Member Wheeler said yes.
05/02/94 72-463
Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the reason a Downtown parking structure was not included on the list of recommendations was that it would come to the Council by way of the Finance Commit-tee's discussion about a Capital Improvement Project (CIP). Council Member Wheeler explained the Finance Committee would discuss that issue de facto as part of the CIP discussion. The only minor difference was that the Finance Committee had explic-itly asked that staff continue to work with the Chamber Parking Subcommittee on the Civic Center garage issue. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler for the Finance Committee moved to approve the Downtown Parking Issues - Civic Center Garage Subsidy, Proposed Parking Structures, and Attendant Lot Fees, and direct staff to: 1) pursue the elimination of the issuance of free parking permits for the Civic Center garage for temporary employees and contract personnel; 2) pursue the concept of payment for City employee parking permits to compensate the District for use of District-owned spaces; 3) pursue alternatives which would free up more City-used parking spaces in the Civic Center garage; 4) return to Council with increased parking permit fees as part of the 1995-96 budget process; 5) proceed with a Request for Proposal process to select a vendor for the purpose of operating an attendant lot for a year's trial period; and 6) return to Council with attendant lot fees with a daily maximum of $8.00 as part of the 1994-95 budget process. Further, to adopt a fee schedule with a nominal fee, e.g., $1.00 for the first two hours, that allows for validation; and to direct staff to work with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Parking Subcommittee on the Civic Center garage permit fee issues. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to Item No. 6 and asked whether attendant lot fees would be limited to a pair of lots in the Downtown area. Council Member Wheeler said yes. The reference was to Lots S and L. Vice Mayor Simitian asked that that specificity be included in the motion. Council Member Wheeler said yes. No other lots were discussed. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to Item No. 3 which indicated alternatives would be pursued to free up more City-used parking spaces in the Civic Center garage, and he asked whether the alternatives would include the commute incentives that were previously referenced. Council Member Huber asked for clarification of the General Fund subsidy of the parking district and whether the subsidy was only because of the seismic retrofit. Ms. Harrison said staff was continuing its work with the Public Works Department to refine the cost of maintenance of the Dis-
05/02/94 72-464
trict, but staff had not had time to complete the estimates re-quired. The difference between breaking even on the District and having the subsidy appeared to be approximately the amount of the seismic retrofit. Council Member Huber said page 4 of the staff report (CMR:190:94) stated that $108,695 was the total projected parking district deficit. He asked whether the figure was an annual amount. Ms. Harrison said yes. Council Member Huber asked the length of the projection and whether ongoing subsidization by the City was projected. Ms. Harrison said the projection was for the next fiscal year. The estimates for capital improvement as an ongoing maintenance cost assumed that level on an ongoing basis. Council Member Huber clarified staff was meeting with the District to discuss the issue. Ms. Harrison said one meeting had been held, and staff would continue its discussion with the District. Council Member Huber asked whether there were any other means to ensure the City did not subsidize that much money other than raising the fees to cover the differential. Ms. Harrison said staff would explore other options. Kevin Conlin, 3271 Bryant Street, Chairman, Palo Alto Disability Awareness Task Force, asked whether Item No. 6 and the proposed parking structure would have the net effect of requiring persons with disabilities to pay for access to disability spaces which were presently free in the City. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said the California Vehicle Code exempted people with handicap plaques to park anywhere they wanted except in red zones. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber supported the Finance Commit-tee recommendations with the caveat that there were some important issues that needed to resolved with regard to the permit fee and cost recovery issues associated with the Civic Center garage. The Chamber encouraged the City to work with the Assessment District and the Chamber Parking Subcommittee regarding compensation to the District for use of District-owned spaces. It was important that staff, the District, and the Chamber be in agreement vis-á-vis the numbers on page 4 of the staff report. The Chamber also supported pursuing other alternatives that would free up more City-used parking in the Civic Center garage. The Chamber recommended the City consider attendant parking on the lower level of the Civic Center garage. It would provide more parking and an attendant which might lower safety concerns about people parking in the garage later in the evening. The Chamber supported commute
05/02/94 72-465
incentive programs and would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the staff the option of having it spread throughout the entire Downtown and view the Downtown as a district unto itself as far as commute incentives. The Chamber supported the delay in the permit fee increase until the 1995-96 budget process. Increasing fees at the same time as imposing a sleeper ordinance would be bad timing. It was crucial staff discuss the attendant lot fee structure with the Senior Center and that the validation process be simplistic. It was important that as many elements as possible of the 12-Point Parking Plan stay together as a package. Throughout the Chamber's interaction with the City staff, Police and Finance Departments, and the Transportation Division, it had been able to come before the Council in near total agreement with staff's recommendations. Claudio Martinez, P. O. Box 273, Palo Alto, asked that free parking be considered for the homelessness in Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Simitian appreciated the progress made by staff given the complexity and interrelationship of the issues and the number of different opinions and interest groups that had to be consid-ered. The CIP would return to the Council on the feasibility study for a parking structure, but the information in the staff report (CMR:190:94) and the discussion at the Finance Committee focused primarily, if not exclusively, on the notion of a single structure. The testimony at a previous Council meeting spoke regarding smaller ways to deal with the issue throughout the Downtown that were not as intensive in terms of the impact on the Downtown. He wanted to make sure there was flexibility in terms of how the issue of a structure was considered and not move ahead blindly with the notion of one large structure in the Downtown area. Council Member Wheeler said the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting might appear more biased than the actual discussion was. The Finance Committee did not preclude more than the single structure approach. Vice Mayor Simitian said it was important that the study commis-sioned had that flexibility. He reiterated the understanding that commute incentives would be part of the alternatives that would be considered in terms of the City-used parking spaces in the Civic Center garage. He understood from the staff report and the discussion at the Finance Committee the concerns about some of the obstacles that staff had run into and the tax implications. He believed commute incentives were the right direction to go, and he was hopeful it would be pursued. The increased parking permit fees was left deliberately vague because staff did not know how the Council or staff would come out on the issue. Staff referenced the possibility of increased fees and the possibility of $75 per year in addition to the $200 fee. There was a big difference between phasing in an increase in fees and an increase of $75 or 37-1/2 percent in one year. He asked staff to consider the implicit suggestion that the logical increase was $275 per year to solve the problem. He took exception to the attendant lot fees. He understood it was only one lot and that people who did
05/02/94 72-466
not want to use the lot would choose to park elsewhere. He liked the staff's approach contained originally in Alternative No. 2 that had some strong disincentives for all day parking in terms of the cost rising to $8 after five hours but that there would be free parking for the first two hours. The Finance Committee wanted to have a nominal charge of $1. He believed the incremental hassle of charging $1 and the validation process that was discussed was not worth the $1. Council needed to be mindful of the fact that there were people in the community that a small incremental cost would create an impact on. He wanted the option of free parking for the first two hours at the lot where the charge would be applied. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to eliminate $1 for the first two hours of parking at the Senior Center lot. Council Member Rosenbaum said the reasoning behind the charge was to make the lot available for people who planned to park for a long period of time. The intent was not to differentiate for the first two hours from any other lot since it was a popular lot and could fill up quickly. The purpose of the $1 was to encourage people not to use the lot unless they intended to be there for a long period of time. Mayor Kniss asked what the percentage was of parking spaces that the lot represented. Mr. Aggarwal said less than 5 percent. The City had approximately 2,000 off-street spaces in the parking lots, and Lot S had about 80 plus spaces. Mayor Kniss said she was mindful of Vice Mayor Simitian's com-ments, but since it was less than 5 percent of the parking spaces, she was persuaded by Council Member Rosenbaum's comments and would not support the amendment. Council Member McCown said the Finance Committee's package made sense. She understood the concern, and it was an experiment for one year. She believed the City would be moving to an era when there was a price that people would have to pay to drive their cars. AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-5, Andersen, Simitian "yes," Schneider "not participating," Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider "not participating," Fazzino absent. 11. The Finance Committee Recommendation re Approval of the Agreement with the Accounting Firm of Deloitte & Touche for Fiscal Year 1993-94 Audit Services Council Member Wheeler said after several years with the same audit firm, the City decided to open the selection process for bids. The hiring of Deloitte & Touche resulted from that process. The Finance Committee reviewed the results of Deloitte & Touche's
05/02/94 72-467
first year of work and was particularly impressed by the professionalism exhibited in the conduct and presentation of the results of the audit as well as the feedback received from staff in both the Finance Department and the City Auditor's Office. The bid for the second year of services was in keeping with figures presented to the Council the previous year. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler for the Finance Committee moved to approve the agreement with the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche for Fiscal Year 1993-94 audit services at a cost not to exceed $91,200; and authorize the City Auditor to execute future amendments for provision of additional services incidental to or related to the original scope of services provided that the value of all such amendments does not exceed $6,000. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche for External Audit Services MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. 12. The Planning Commission Recommendation re Adoption of an Ordinance adding Chapter 18.97 to the City's Zoning Regula-tions, Establishing Procedures for the Conduct of Study Sessions for Preliminary Review of Development Projects Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the item before the Council responded to a Council referral from January 18, 1994. The procedures to be established would apply to developments that had filed a conventional develop application or proposals that were not at that stage. To trigger the study session process would require Council action. The normal proce-dure would be a referral to the Planning Commission for a study session and then to the Council for a study session with Planning Commission recommended approval. Mayor Kniss said the issue was brought forth by Council Member Rosenbaum and seconded by Vice Mayor Simitian. Council Member McCown understood as the Ordinance was drafted, the baseline expected process would be a Planning Commission study session followed by a Council study session. The staff report (CMR:246:94) also mentioned a number of possible alternatives. She asked whether the Council would be able to choose another alternative in a given instance on an ad hoc basis, i.e., when a particular item came forward, the Council could decide at that point what bodies it would ask to be involved in the process. Mr. Schreiber said the Council would always have that choice. Staff envisioned situations in which proposals might come forward from a public/private partnerships which would not involve the Planning Commission but other boards and commissions. It might be a Council item and would not need review by other boards and commissions. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Planning Commission minutes implied that there would be no minutes if the Planning Commission
05/02/94 72-468
had a study session. Mr. Schreiber said study sessions normally did not have tradition-al minutes. Staff envisioned a brief summary of review and discussion, but a Planning Commissioner could supplement that information with comments at the Council study session. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether a motion by the Council would be appropriate if it were interested in receiving the usual Planning Commission minutes from the study session. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said yes. He asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum wanted the language provided in the Ordinance that evening or whether it would be done when preliminary review was initiated. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council found the Planning Commission's discussions very helpful. He wanted the usual Planning Commission discussion available to the Council prior to the Council's study session. Mr. Calonne said if the Council wanted to make sure that happened, a direction to the City Manager would be adequate because the Planning staff responsible for preparation of Planning Commission minutes answered to the City Manager, or it could be put in the Ordinance. City Manager June Fleming said she preferred the direction be placed in the Ordinance so that it would be clear and not left up to someone's discretion. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Simitian, to approve adoption of the Ordinance adding Chapter 18.97 to the City's zoning regulations, establishing procedures for the conduct of study sessions for preliminary review of development projects. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 18.97 To Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Proce-dures for the Conduct of Preliminary Development Project Screening Study Sessions for Preliminary Review of Develop-ment Projects" AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Simitian, to require the usual Planning Commission minutes or the minutes from any other board or commission that might review the item at the preliminary review study sessions. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to the statement by Mr. Schreiber on page 20 of the Planning Commission minutes of March 9, 1994, regarding the conceptual review by the Planning Commission and said he understood the major reason that there had been a change at the first level of review by the Planning Commission was that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) permitted preliminary reviews of projects prior to the Planned Community (PC) application coming before the Planning Commission. It was
05/02/94 72-469
driven by the interest of the applicants to provide information ahead of time to the ARB. He suggested that if the Council wanted to return to the original PC zone process, it might want to put into the PC ordinance that preliminary reviews before ARB were prohibited until after the first run through with the Planning Commission. Council Member McCown understood the other limitation of the conceptual review aspect of the PC process was that even if the City were able to go with a less complete application at that point, unless the Planning Commission denied the application, it did not come to the Council, i.e., if the Planning Commission's review was favorable, it moved through the process and developed the level of detail before the policy questions which might or might not be raised if an application came to the Council. Mr. Schreiber pointed out in the Planning Commission minutes that the Hamilton project was an example of when the Planning Commission voted to deny the application because that was the only way to get the basic policy question to the Council at an earlier point. Conceptual level policy issues did not reach the Council. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council was motivated by the problem with Single Room Occupancy (SRO), and it did not want to be in a position of having to invest a large amount of money and determine whether it had made a wise decision. The Planning Commission looked at the issue in a more general way and expressed some healthy skepticism. He was uncertain how it would work out, but it had the potential to be of help to developers who were looking for public guidance rather than the usual approaches. It had the advantage of bringing things out into the open. Mr. Calonne clarified the Council's existing policy as to the quasi-judicial matters was not to entertain the discussion outside of the hearing chamber. The Council had a procedure to follow if it happened, but the general thrust of the policy was to discour-age it. One of the themes in the proposed ordinance was the concept of leveling the playing field so that it was lawful and appropriate to have out of hearing discussions for development projects which were legislative in nature. There would still be an opportunity for members of the public to participate on the projects when the Council put through the process. Council Member McCown said that was one of the most significant elements that the proposed ordinance provided. A number of Council Members had been concerned with the need for a more open process on significant issues in which there would be broad concern in the community. It would be helpful to have those discussions in an informal way in the public arena with everyone interested being able to give input. She believed many project proponents would find it helpful to get a reaction from the Council and members of the community on new and innovative ideas that did not fit within the rules set out. If the Council wanted to encourage creative public/private partnerships, there was a risk on the side of the person who was trying to put the application together, and it was much healthier for the entire community to have that happen in a public way. There was input at
05/02/94 72-470
the Planning Commission meeting from a Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) member who said the CPAC had talked about ideas of neighborhood processes which were similar to the proposal. She was glad to see the encouragement to put it in place and see how it worked. The CPAC might be able to refine it, learn from the experience, and find a way to incorporate into the new Comprehen-sive Plan if it became a useful device. It was a good new way of thinking about important issues in the community. Council Member Schneider said Stanford University, the Urban Design Guideline, and the CPAC were examples of outreach in the community which helped to defuse potential conflicts. The more information the Council had, the better it was able to govern. She supported the motion. Vice Mayor Simitian associated with the comments of Council Members Rosenbaum, McCown, and Schneider. He understood the process was voluntary on the part of the project proponent and that no project proponent would be expected to participate in the process if he or she did not wish to do so. He referred to page 3, Section 18.96.030(b), Applicability and Initiation, of the proposed Ordinance, and said the language indicated that prelimi-nary review could be initiated by motion of the City Council with concurrence of the project proponent or "upon request of the city manager or project proponent with the concurrence of the City Council," which suggested to him that "upon request of the city manager, with the concurrence of the City Council," the process could move forward. He asked for clarification of the language. AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Mr. Calonne said the second reading of the Ordinance would return with the changes indicated. ORDINANCES 13. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Planning Depart-ment to Study Financing Options of the Dream Team Design and Planning Solutions Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the Council appointed a Dream Team Citizen Advisory Committee (the Committee) for the second phase of the Dream Team process. The first phase of the process in early 1993 resulted in a conceptual proposal for a reuse and reconfiguration of the area around the University Avenue train station with access ways leading into and out of that area. The second phase of the process had been jointly funded between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Univer-sity. There had been good involvement from the Committee to help in the process. The recommendations from the second phase indicated that while a key component of the initial concept was not structurally feasible, there was a considerable number of things in the area that could be done to substantially improve the
05/02/94 72-471
appearance, function of the area, and access to and from the area. The Committee and City staff recommended that a maximum of $5,000 be spent to pursue the specifics of potential funding sources for both the next stage of the work, which was a much more detailed engineering analysis and preparation of the materials necessary for submittal of applications for various funding sources, and the implementation work. Staff believed the $5,000 would be a good investment for the City and would provide expertise that the City did not have available. The directions that came out of the process would be critical in any future decision as to whether or not to pursue the concept further. Council Member McCown said at the CPAC workshop that looked at the area south of California Avenue train station, there was some discussion about multimodal stations associated with the Stanford Research Park. If the Council authorized $5,000 for an analysis, she asked whether the City could get a more general kind of learning that would not be narrowly focused on the Dream Team specifically and could be applicable to other train-related multimodal station projects that might come out of the CPAC process. She could envision a situation that the Council might decide it was a higher priority to do something in the Stanford Research Park. Mr. Schreiber said the information would be applicable, but not 100 percent, to other potential projects that involved the train line and the train/bus interface at California Avenue. Sandy Eakins, 3493 Greer Road, said the Dream Team Charette process was significant because it included a positive partnership with Stanford University. She agreed it was an investment and urged the Council to move forward with the funding. The benefits would include community uses, gathering places, and opportunities for community celebration. Circulation would be greatly improved. The flow of dollars into transportation planning was significant, and it would be too bad if the City missed the opportunity. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the automobile circulation on page 20 of the feasibility study of April 5, 1994, indicated the linkage between the project and Stanford University's proposal for the Sand Hill Road Corridor. He believed it would become one project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which was important for both the environmental review of the projects as well as Council's commitment for further funding beyond the $5,000 recommendation. Money should not be spent without some assurance that the project had gone through the appropriate environmental reviews. He hoped the Council would be cautious in moving forward with funding for schematic drawings for a project the City might not ever do because appropriate environmental review procedures had not been followed. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the Committee was enthusi-astic about the concept that came out of the Dream Team Charette. The coalition of ideas that supported the general concept was held together by the fine thread of everything occurring and nothing occurring. She said some language was inadvertently
05/02/94 72-472
omitted from page 2 of the letter and should read: "The reliance on intermodal movement of people through the area is critical to the plan, including elements like the jitney, because there is limited increased automobile capacity and further through routes are not likely to be acceptable to the community." It was a strong concern of the Committee. The process was complex, and there was a lot of things going on that really belonged in the Comprehensive Plan process rather than being done individually. She hoped some of the things would be addressed comprehensively. She noted that San Mateo County with limited sketches received $9 million through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) funding process. The City had an exciting potential project that could be a focal point for the City. The staff recommendation asked for $5,000 but was really asking for a policy reading from the Council and whether it was still interested in pursuing the project. She hoped the Council would move forward with the next step. John Van Horne, 653 Waverley Street, served on the Committee and urged the Council to support further investigation of the station interface area. The current condition hindered usage of public transit, and the City should be doing something to encourage and promote usage of public transit. It would help alleviate several local and regional problems. The Dream Team consultants had come up with a concept that untied the knot created by the underpass which made the area more accessible, attractive, and usable. If the train station were more accessible and attractive, CalTrain and the buses would be more appealing alternatives; and more people would get out of their cars which would alleviate parking problems, traffic congestion, and air pollution. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Avenue, said there was a critical linkage between some of the major ideas of the Dream Team and Stanford University's Sand Hill Road Corridor proposal. He was disappointed that Stanford University's proposal did not formally acknowledge some of the key elements in the Dream Team sugges-tions, e.g., the extension of El Camino Park and the closure of Alma Street. He was disappointed in Stanford University's outreach but was encouraged by Stanford's participation in the Dream Team effort. He urged the Council to continue with the Dream Team process. Monty Anderson, 423 8th Avenue, Menlo Park, member of the Histor-ical Resources Board and the Committee, commented on the history of the area. He supported the efforts of the Dream Team. The conceptual plan was exciting. He encouraged the Council to support the continuing efforts to turn the dream into a reality. Tony Carrasco, 4216 Darlington Court, said the area between Alma Street and El Camino Real had the most difficult transportation and land use issues, and it had almost been abandoned. It was important to recognize that Stanford University and Palo Alto had decided to work together to clean up the area. He supported the project. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to
05/02/94 72-473
endorse the Dream Team Phase II concept and (1) adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance and direct staff to secure the services of a transportation financing specialist for a cost not to exceed $5,000, to assess fully the potential for public financing of both the schematic design packages and subsequent design/construction of the project and to provide a work program for attaining these funds; (2) refer the plan to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) for consideration in its Transportation Workshop on May 15, 1994, in the Phase II policy and program recommenda-tions, Urban Design Draft Element, and Business and Economic Draft Element, and for later inclusion in the Phase III work developing a new Comprehensive Plan. A broad-based consideration of the plan was included in the current Scope of Services of Peter Calthorpe Associates and Jim Musbach, Economist; (3) commend the advisory committee for its efforts in critically evaluating and steering the Phase II Feasibility Study, and ask the co-chairs to continue in an advisory capacity during the transportation financing study; and (4) request Stanford University to continue its pursuit of planning data to support an eventual public financing request in terms of positive multimodal ridership impacts. Ordinance 4217 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Planning Department to Study Financing Options of the Dream Team Design and Planning Solutions" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. RECESS: 9:30 TO 9:44 P.M. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 14. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Metropolitan Fiber Systems of California, Inc. for Installation of Fiber Optic Cable Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the item before the Council was the proposed agreement with Metropolitan Fiber Systems of California, Inc. (MFS) for installation of fiber optic cable within the public right-of-way on Palo Alto streets. MFS had approached the City and asked for the City to issue a street opening permit so that it could exercise its rights under state franchise law to install cable systems within Palo Alto. Staff proposed, since it was a precedent setting item, that an agreement be developed rather than a street opening permit so the issues for the new activity could be more clearly defined and a precedent setting agreement could be established for any subsequent actions by either MFS or other similar firms choosing to propose similar systems. The agreement had been developed with input from the Public Works and Utilities Departments and the City Attorney's Office. The process was being mired in other cities in Santa Clara County. A similar agreement had been developed in the City of Santa Clara, and agreements had been approved in Mountain View, San Jose, and Sunnyvale. The agreement proposed installation of approximately 18 miles of cable and would provide service to 20
05/02/94 72-474
major users within the City of Palo Alto. The agreement also provided for payment for the street permit fees which would serve as a cost recovery activity for staff inspection which was minimal. One of the keys to the work was the location and method of construction that MFS proposed to use. Staff was initially concerned that the proposal for fiber optic installation would have the potential to cause major disruption within the streets right-of-way and major conflicts with the City's utilities. Staff was concerned about having a new kind of utility installed between the curb lines in the paved area. MFS's proposal located the cable under the sidewalk area and proposed to use directional boring techniques so that there would be no continuous trench. It would be a modern type of construction that would cause minimal disruption. Staff felt comfortable with the location and method of construction proposed. The agreement came to the Council to set the conditions; establish the nature of the work, type of con-struction, the location for installation; and minimize the disruption and impact to the City's streets and the municipal utility facilities. The project had undergone environmental review and was being referred to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for consideration of the nature of the boxes and visual appearance that would be created. It would require a notification to all residents where construction would take place. He intro-duced Tom Hickson, the project manager for MFS, and Carol Critchlow, the attorney representing MFS. Council Member Wheeler asked whether all of the areas worked on by MFS would have the installation underground regardless of where the City's utilities were placed. Mr. Roberts said yes. The project was proposed to be 100 percent underground construction. Holes would be dug in the area of sidewalk where the kits would be built to do the boring. The holes would be filled later and covered with concrete sidewalk. There would be no overhead line installed with the contract. MFS had inquired separately about the possibility of overhead lines, and the staff had indicated that it was not interested in such a discussion, that the City did not unilaterally control the poles, and that there were joint use agreements with the Pacific Tele-graph & Telephone which would have to be considered. He understood, based upon that conversation, that MFS had withdrawn the proposal. Council Member Wheeler clarified there would be some kind of appurtenances that would appear above ground. Mr. Roberts said there would be no aboveground appurtenances. It would be utility vaults which had a cover that was flush with the ground. Staff was concerned about the color and appearance. Council Member Wheeler clarified the vaults would appear in the sidewalk areas rather than in the front yards or planter strips and would not displace landscaping. It would be subject to ARB review and approval. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. The ARB approval was a
05/02/94 72-475
condition of the agreement. Council Member Andersen asked how many miles of streets were in Palo Alto. Mr. Roberts said approximately 200 miles of City streets. Council Member Andersen clarified the request was for 18 miles. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Council Member Andersen asked what the basis was for the location of the streets. Mr. Roberts understood that MFS had selected the routing for the service it wished to provide to various potential clients in the community. Staff had reviewed the street locations with MFS and had indicated that some streets were not acceptable, e.g., University Avenue. Staff indicated it would work with MFS to find streets that would both serve the proposed routing and users and that were acceptable from a construction and location standpoint. Council Member Andersen said a select path was being used, and he asked how the Council could make certain that others who wished to be served would be served. Mr. Roberts said the question embodied elements of policy, legal, and technical issues. The proposal before the Council had not been initiated or developed by staff and was from the private sector that attempted to focus on a narrow segment of the business market for a profit motive. Staff would raise the issue of service to the larger community to the Council in a subsequent agenda. There was no linkage between the intent behind the proposal and service to the larger community. Council Member Andersen asked whether it would be more difficult to carry out any service to the larger community if selected areas had been picked already. Mr. Roberts was uncertain how the relationship would work. There would be less major users available for other systems as individu-al service went into place. Council Member Andersen asked whether a Request for Proposal (RFP) could be done. Mr. Roberts said the question presumed that the City had the ability to control or regulate the kind of users and cause them to bid for the service. He understood that was not the case, and MFS had a franchise right through the state. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:254:94) which indicated the project was scheduled for construction between June and August 1994. He asked whether it was anticipated that the construction would be completed during a three-month window.
05/02/94 72-476
Mr. Roberts said yes. The intent was to complete the work during the present construction season. The technology described was an extremely rapid method, and the schedule proposed was feasible. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether 18 miles of underground cabling could be done in three months. Mr. Roberts said it was possible, but the construction schedule was at MFS's discretion. Vice Mayor Simitian said the agreement did not cover the length of time. He understood it was more cost effective if MFS moved the process along, but if there were extended delays on the streets and sidewalks, the Council would hear about it. Mr. Roberts said the agreement was not binding on MFS to complete it within the time line. MFS had indicated an extreme desire and urgency to move forward on that schedule. Staff had not viewed failure to perform as an issue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the agreement did not deal with the timing issue, but the Council could condition the opening permit to deal with timing issues. Vice Mayor Simitian said the agreement dealt with the issue of the insurance and a performance bond. He asked whether the City was protected by the bond or the insurance if there were a problem with workmanship of the boring. Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Kolling said it depended on the nature of the problem. The performance bond was requested by staff to ensure the City that the work would be done in a timely and sufficient manner. The insurance covered any other nonrelated construction work liability issues. Vice Mayor Simitian asked the diameter of the boring that went underground. Senior Engineer Jim Harrington said the first bore was approximately one inch in diameter. When it pulled the conduits through the earth, the diameter would be approximately four inches. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified there was a four-inch hole in the ground. He asked what could be bumped into while underground. Mr. Harrington said the standards called for MFS to open a utility to define where it was. The digs could be identified approximately 70 percent of the time from known City records. Staff had attempted to minimize the conflict by being below all the utilities. For the unsure areas, there would be a dig to verify. Mr. Roberts said the location involved was under the sidewalk area, which was selected to minimize the potential conflicts. If it were in the street right-of-way, there would be utilities in
05/02/94 72-477
multi-directional conflicts. Location of the sidewalk enabled staff to deal only with sewer, water line, and gas laterals which were much easier to locate and avoid and then to go to a depth below the standard locations. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it was an insurance issue or a performance bond if a lateral were accidentally hit. He said $50,000 was not much of a performance bond. Mr. Harrington said the issue would be covered by insurance. The performance bond ensured that restoration took place. There would be restoration of every block after the initial work. Vice Mayor Simitian asked which insurance provision of the agreement applied to that situation and what the dollar amount coverage would be. Mr. Kolling said Section 9.1 of the agreement covered comprehen-sive general liability. Vice Mayor Simitian said Section 9.1 stated "MFS shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement compre-hensive general liability insurance and comprehensive automotive liability insurance protecting MFS in an amount of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence..." which was the insurance the City would look to cover the City, and he asked whether that was also the insurance that a private party would look to if there were any damage. Mr. Kolling said yes. Vice Mayor Simitian understood policy issues related to the topic would come to the Council in the near future. Mr. Roberts said the item which staff would bring to the Council at its May 23, 1994, meeting would address the bigger community-wide issue of potential communications and fiber optics throughout Palo Alto. The proposed agreement did not. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it made sense for the Council to address the policy issues first before it took action on the agreement. Mr. Roberts said the three components were technical, legal, and policy, and it was possible for two of the three components. He did not believe it was possible for the overriding third compo-nent. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified even though it was the City's right-of-way, the City did not have a choice if someone wanted to use the right-of-way. Mr. Roberts understood the issue was similar to that of PacBell which was granted franchise rights under state law and had the right to install its facilities within the public right-of-way. The City retained the right to condition how the facilities would
05/02/94 72-478
be located within the City's right-of-way. Mr. Calonne said the Council's questions reminded him of a process the staff went through some time before in which staff gave a written opinion on the scope of authority. The City's authority was limited to specifying manner and location of the facilities. In the absence of that kind of agreement, the City would be left with its usual street opening permit. To the extent that the agreement went beyond that, it was advantageous and in the City's interest to have an agreement. The questions by Vice Mayor Simitian seemed to probe the contours of the kind of conditions that might be appropriate beyond what was in the agreement. Vice Mayor Simitian asked what would happen if 20 companies wanted to do the same thing. He understood the first company in the door had the best part of the market share. He asked whether the City would look at the other companies sequentially and whether there would be a multiplicity of companies to deal with. Mr. Roberts said staff had had preliminary inquiries from two or three other firms that had not come forward with a proposal at the present time. The Palo Alto Municipal Code stated that such requests were to be dealt with by the Director of Public Works as an administrational act and approved in a timely fashion with the appropriate conditions. It was helpful for the Director of Public Works to have an agreement in place to reinforce his actions. Vice Mayor Simitian said there was a cost associated with moni-toring, and he asked what reimbursement was anticipated to cover that cost. Mr. Roberts said the reimbursement would be provided for through the street opening permit. The standard fee was $3,500. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it was a single permit. Mr. Harrington said it was a single permit, but it would be phased. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the single payment of $3,500 would not be up front. Mr. Harrington said the $3,500 payment would be up front, but because of the nature and complexity of the drawings, staff would receive the drawings in two phases. Council Member Rosenbaum did not understand where the issue was leading to and whether there would be a common carrier require-ment. He asked whether the company would provide service to other people, whether the City would have to bury conduits which other companies could use for fiber cable, whether it was a one-time project, or whether a completely new system had to be dug for another company. The City allowed Digital Equipment Corporation to run its fiber cable through existing pipes, and he asked whether that same philosophy was envisioned. The staff report (CMR:254:94) dealt with the issues that it was required, but there
05/02/94 72-479
was a whole set of issues that was not covered. Mayor Kniss was concerned the areas for construction would be the same areas that World Cup travelers intended to go to. She was puzzled about where it would stop if MFS were here and other companies wanted to be here too. Carol Critchlow, 1121 San Antonio Road, attorney representing Metropolitan Fiber Systems, said MFS had operated as a public utility in California since 1989. MFS had two certificates of public convenience and necessity from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and was authorized to provide telephone service, but it was not certificated as a cable company. She pointed out the shoe was on the other foot in terms of universal service. The CPUC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) told MFS whom it could serve and what services could be rendered. MFS was not allowed to offer cable services which often necessitated wiring the entire city. The CPUC had not yet addressed the issue of local competition. MFS would abide by all of the rules of the CPUC and the FCC. The status as a public utility was extremely important to MFS. The City had the right to be concerned about who would be digging up its streets. MFS had the right as a telephone company to come into the streets of municipalities in California with its state franchise as long as it could satisfy the city reasonably about the location of the facilities. What MFS was doing did not preclude an RFP or the City's system, the agreement that the City Attorney had drafted provided that MFS had to remove or relocate its system if the City needed it. There was provision in the CPUC chapter that provided that it would protect the City against the constant boring of the streets. As a public utility, MFS had to share its facilities with other public utilities. She had made that request with the CPUC on behalf of MFS to share General Telephone and Electronics's (GTE) facilities. She reassured the Council that the City would not have 1 to 20 companies coming through the City. The market usually supported two to three competitors. MFS was operating in 16 major locations across the country. MFS had grown to a multimillion dollar company with a public offering launched with a second one in the future. MFS had complied with all of its permits in a city and had never been shut down by a city for breach of logistical or engineering of city streets. She empha-sized it would be directional boring, and it was feasible that it would be done in two and one half months since it had been done elsewhere in the same period of time. MFS would be happy to accept a permit condition of time. During the past seven to eight months, MFS had tried to satisfy the Public Works Department and the City Attorney's Office. She realized there were policy concerns; but as a public utility, MFS asked that the Council act on the proposed agreement that evening. She said third parties could turn to the insurance, but then the City could not get it. MFS was fully insured through its parent corporation, and the bond was in place as well. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding the sidewalks in the City. He did not understand how the directional boring would work. He wanted to know where the work would be done
05/02/94 72-480
and who would provide the maintenance of the sidewalks after the work was completed. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to refer the item to the Policy and Services Committee. Mayor Kniss asked the City Manager for the time line of the item. City Manager June Fleming said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee could possibly consider the issue in June 1994, and it would return to City Council in July 1994, which would be 8 to 12 weeks. MFS would be notified when the date was confirmed. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how the delay of two to three months would affect the applicant. Ms. Critchlow said the time line would be difficult. MFS had tried to make the City happy for 7 to 8 months. The 8- to 12-week delay would be the time needed to complete the construction. The City was in a line of construction that was being done, and the construction plan called for the construction to begin soon. It was not just the cost to MFS but the cost to the customers who could not use the service that should be considered, e.g., it cost a customer in Atlanta, Georgia, $5,000 per month to be without service. MFS was not a special interest group. It was a telephone corporation under California law. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the cost to a potential customer in any delay that might be occasioned by the consideration in committee was the function of the difference between what a customer was paying a current telephone provider and the services of MFS. Ms. Critchlow said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian said the applicant referenced a 7- to 8-month time line, and he asked when the City heard from the applicant. Mr. Harrington said staff had heard from the applicant five months before. Vice Mayor Simitian said it had been five months into the process. Mr. Harrington said yes. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether staff was comfortable with MFS's speed and thoroughness with moving the process forward. Mr. Harrington said yes. MFS had given staff all of the informa-tion asked for. Staff had conferred with a number of other city agencies and had had the opportunity to observe MFS's work in Sunnyvale. Staff was happy with the written proposals and the performance that was more miles in Sunnyvale. Only one utility was hit in more than 20 miles. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether there was any problem with seasonal weather considerations.
05/02/94 72-481
Mr. Harrington said because it was a boring operation compared to open trench, it was not as sensitive to weather conditions. Most contractors operated at a faster pace and a cheaper rate during the summer. Vice Mayor Simitian asked Ms. Critchlow if the construction people were comfortable with that response. Ms. Critchlow said yes. She commended the City Attorney's Office and the Public Works Department for working quickly with the applicant. MFS did not want to be treated differently from the other telephone corporations. It might be precedent setting for the City since it was the first time that an agreement of that type had been developed. The agreement gave the City more protection, and MFS was delighted to sign it. Vice Mayor Simitian asked who MFS's customers were. Ms. Critchlow said the users were small and large businesses, government, universities, hospitals, and military installations. Residential users could not be served at the present time. MFS would take part in a CPUC proceeding which might come back to the City in the future, but the agreement could be renegotiated at that time. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified MFS was a telephone company. Ms. Critchlow said that was correct. MFS had voice data video teleconferencing, but it could not do video programming. There was a dial tone and a hookup to inter-exchange carriers point-to-point. Vice Mayor Simitian asked why a company would use MFS rather than the telephone company. Ms. Critchlow said the service was better, cheaper, and faster. The service could have a special configuration, and the redundancy was critical to a law firm or business. Vice Mayor Simitian said the City had not negotiated a similar agreement with the telephone company or GTE, and he asked whether those companies had the same sort of presence in the City's right-of-way. Mr. Harrington said MFS was the first company that would be boring and moving through the street corridor. At the present time PacBell used its overhead poles and existing underground cables. PacBell had not come to the City with a new infrastructure requirement. Vice Mayor Simitian asked about GTE. Mr. Harrington said GTE had not come to the City with a request. A minor project had been done with Sprint that crossed the boundary for a moment to service a customer.
05/02/94 72-482
Vice Mayor Simitian said the reason the Council was considering a precedent setting agreement was that until recently there was not a multiplicity of players in the area providing that kind of service. Mr. Harrington said that was correct. Staff had met many times with an adjacent city which had had applications from MFS, Sprint, and other companies. Vice Mayor Simitian said MFS had to bear the burden of being the company that came forward first. There needed to be some expla-nation of how it would all fit into the larger picture. Ms. Critchlow said MFS might be the first nondominant telephone company in Palo Alto, but MFS had to convince CPUC that it would serve the public interest for MFS to come through. From the Governor's Task Force, CPUC, and common law in California, competition had been mandated. Policy issues had been determined by California law. Telephone companies had the right under Section 7602 to come through the streets. The staff recommenda-tion supported the fact that MFS had satisfied the municipality about the location of the facilities. CPUC had exclusive juris-diction over the issues of competition. California was a landmark state in terms of technology development. The state legislature recognized that unlike gas and electricity, telephone service was so important for the State of California, and it gave the companies a statewide franchise. She understood the Council wanted to know how it would all work together, but MFS was a certificated public utility, and the cities required MFS to comply with all laws at the present time and in the future which it would do. She was concerned about the time frame it might take to grapple with the policy issues given that many of the issues had been currently settled by law. Ms. Fleming said the review given by staff to the application to date was focused from an engineering point of view in terms of whether it was feasible and could be done. Staff had been assisted by the City Attorney's Office who had looked at the legal issues. Staff had not focused on whether the proposed agreement met existing or potential policy issues. She understood MFS's concerns regarding the time frame. The time frame was being dictated by the agenda schedule presently before the P&S Committee, and the issue could not be agendized until June. Staff would return the issue to the Council the first of July 1994. She was aware that other cities had entered into an agreement but did not know whether the cities had pursued the policy issues. Council Member Andersen was not comfortable proceeding with the item that evening given the fact that the Council had not had an opportunity to review the staff report related to the broader issues that would come forward later in the month. Council Member Wheeler said Ms. Critchlow indicated that Palo Alto was a piece of a string, and she asked whether agreements and dates for construction had been reached with the cities of
05/02/94 72-483
Mountain View and Menlo Park. Ms. Critchlow said Palo Alto was the first city on MFS's calendar. The City of Mountain View had asked MFS to sign the same agreement that Sprint signed. Several conforming changes were made because MFS did not provide the same kind of service. There were permits from other surrounding jurisdictions, but she was uncertain about Menlo Park. Council Member Wheeler asked whether Palo Alto was a direct string link from Sunnyvale to San Francisco. Ms. Critchlow said no. Palo Alto was first. MFS had offered to enter into agreements with all of the cities that required it. Many of the California cities had required the issuance of a building permit because of the public utility rights. There had been no indication there would be difficulty with other cities. Council Member Wheeler said Palo Alto was not holding up the entire Bay Area, and she expected the City would not grapple with the entire policy arena during the period before the issue returned to the Council in July 1994. She would be voting in total ignorance if she voted on the issue that evening. She wanted an opportunity to review the staff report so that she would have a better understanding of the larger policy context before the issue returned in July. Council Member McCown asked whether MFS was identical to the telephone company as a public utility in terms of the City's authority to act. Mr. Calonne said the use of the word "identical" was not applica-ble. The City's working relationship with the telephone company, e.g., pole sharing agreements and engineering process of installing the cable were not identical. He had not reviewed MFS's certificate to determine its right, but he expected that it would be as represented. Staff had researched and given its opinion as to the City's limitations on regulatory authority. He felt it was a disadvantage to discuss the issue in that context. If the circumstances were appropriate, he would recommend a closed session, but he did not believe a closed session was appropriate. He would advise the Council confidentially beyond the meeting if it were desirable. If the Council referred the issue, he hoped staff would be given an opportunity to report to the Council in the interim pending the referral so that staff might be able to divert any problems that might arise as a consequence of the referral. Council Member McCown asked whether the May 23, 1994, report would be presented to the Council. Assistant City Manager Bernard M. Strojny said yes. The staff report would provide information regarding the possibility of the City's running its own communication utility in the future. Staff had analyzed the situation for some time. Palo Alto was unique in that regard, and the staff report presented on May 23, 1994, would
05/02/94 72-484
ask the Council to consider a feasibility study to be done over the next several months. The feasibility study would provide the foundation staff would need to determine whether the City should be actively involved in a communications utility operation or not. The report had taken longer than anticipated because staff had been soliciting information from the private sector. Council Member McCown asked whether the Council could indicate that evening that entering into the agreement would or would not impede policy choices that the City might otherwise be able to consider after the report was presented. Ms. Fleming said she could not foresee that entering into the agreement that evening would impede anything that the City might do. The staff report would ask for funding to hire a consultant to help staff assess the direction the City should go. It was not realistic for the City to think that other companies would wait until the City made that decision. She understood Council's concern about wanting to look at the bigger picture and MFS's concern about the timing. It might be possible to address everyone's concern if the agendas were rearranged and both issues were brought back to the Council on May 23, 1994. Council Member McCown suggested the issues return to the Council on May 23, 1994. She wanted to know whether the City would be able to ask for the space back. The agreement should not prevent the City from acting upon any new authority if the regulatory environment changed and cities were given an authority it pres-ently did not have to locally regulate. She wanted to make certain the agreement preserved those issues for the City. The May 23, 1994, date would give staff an opportunity to provide some greater contextual information before the Council made a decision. Mayor Kniss clarified the suggestion was that the issue not be referred to the P&S Committee, that staff come up with a policy driven type of report on May 23, 1994, and that the Council make a decision at that time. Council Member McCown said that was correct. Ms. Fleming said staff had already prepared some of the informa-tion, and it needed to be put into a format that could be present-ed to the Council. May 23, 1994, would be the target date, which might be overly optimistic, but there was a City Council meeting on June 13, 1994, which was far from July 1994. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the current plan was to bring the Council a proposal regarding how the City would explore the range of policy issues on May 23, 1994, but he understood the Council would not get any real hard answers about where the City might go to in terms of communications at that time. He was struggling with the desire to understand the question in a larger policy framework, but he was not anxious to delay MFS if no purpose would be achieved by the delay. Mr. Strojny said that was correct. Staff would ask Council to
05/02/94 72-485
approve a feasibility study. Vice Mayor Simitian asked how long the feasibility study would take. Mr. Strojny said approximately three months. Vice Mayor Simitian said he would be really frustrated if the Council approved the application and discovered three months later that the Council should have asked for access to the conduit as a condition to the agreement. The City had not talked about the process or the policy issues of having its own communications utility. If the Council approved something before it had a discussion or there had been a discussion at the committee level, some of the options might be lost. He did not know what to ask for because he did not know what the larger policy issues were. He had no desire to prevent MFS from having whatever legal rights it was entitled to under the law and had no desire to delay the procedure. The Council had tried to be increasingly attentive and to make the systems work for businesses. The Council had a broader policy set of interests on the item than staff and the applicant had anticipated. He wanted the issue to move along as expeditiously as possible and asked that the item return to the Council for action no later than the end of July 1994. Mayor Kniss clarified if the issue were referred to the P&S Committee, it would still return to the Council by July 1994. Vice Mayor Simitian wanted a commitment that the issue would return to the Council by July 1994. Council Member Rosenbaum said there was a vital time interest with the issue, and the Council should commit itself to taking action by a time certain. If the Council could not get the information by that time, then it would make the decision with the best information it had at that time. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the item would return to the City Council no later than July 1994. Mayor Kniss clarified the item would be referred to the P&S Committee with a time certain of the end of July 1994 and no later. Council Member McCown wanted the City Attorney to inform the Council of any developments with respect to the applicant during the interim. Ms. Fleming had planned to bring to the P&S Committee some of the support work that had been done by staff on the issue. She asked for direction if there were other issues the Council wanted ad-dressed. Staff had anticipated that the Council would be inter-ested in the item. Vice Mayor Simitian said the issue of time and the type of policies and conditions that might be requested in connection with
05/02/94 72-486
the City's interest in the broad area of communications utilities should be addressed. Council Member Andersen wanted to know the broader complication if several different companies within the same area provided services and to what extent the areas were limited once a single carrier had its services in place. Mayor Kniss clarified the motion included the suggestions regard-ing the timing and broader areas it might appeal to. Mr. Calonne clarified the motion also included any other condi-tions that might be considered. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. 15. Preliminary Agreement and Form of Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Babe Ruth League for the Construction of a Concession Stand and Storage Facility for the Baylands Athletic Center Director of Recreation, Open Space and Sciences Daniel B. Williams said the City Council had given strong direction to seek out ways to use public/private partnerships to help move along facilities and programs that would benefit the residents without a lot of additional City funds. The Babe Ruth Baseball League had been an organization that had jumped to the forefront and had supported the City's program. The Babe Ruth Baseball League had installed a new scoreboard at Baylands Athletic Facility and had cooperated with the maintenance staff and renovated the end field. The Babe Ruth Baseball League had come forward with a project to construct, at its own cost, a snack bar and storage facility at the Baylands. Staff believed the project would work and would be a benefit to the entire community. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Simitian, to approve: (1) the Preliminary Agreement and Lease between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Babe Ruth League; (2) authorize the Mayor to sign the Lease in substantially similar form when all conditions required by the project have been fulfilled as set forth in the Preliminary Agreement; (3) approve the waiver of fees for the project in the amount of $1,700 for Building, Planning, and Public Works permit fees; and (4) introduce the Park Improvement Ordinance to allow for the construction of the project on the Baylands dedicated park land. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting the Plans for the Construction of a Concession Stand and Storage Facility for the Baylands Athletic Center Within the City-Owned Baylands" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. 16. Request for approval of Amicus Participation in Domar Elec-tric v. City of Los Angeles
05/02/94 72-487
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the City's amicus participation in Domar Electric v. City of Los Angeles. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent.
05/02/94 72-488
COUNCIL MATTERS 17. Council Member Gary Fazzino and Vice Mayor Joe Simitian re Readvertising the Vacancies on the Historic Resources Board MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct the City Clerk to readvertise the vacancies on the Historic Resources Board. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. 18. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 9, 1994 MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Simitian, to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of May 9, 1994, and to schedule a Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 10, 1994, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the Enterprise Funds and move the Finance Committee meeting starting time to 7:30 p.m. Council Member Andersen asked whether the meeting on May 9, 1994, could be postponed until 8:30 p.m. Mayor Kniss said the Council Chambers would be reconfigured for the State of the City address and it would be difficult to meet in the Chambers that evening. Her preference would be to meet on Tuesday, May 10, 1994. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. 19. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Simitian referred to the City Council's action on September 27, 1993, regarding the Council's size reduction and asked the Chair of the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee and the liaison to the Committee to schedule the item for review in time for a possible election in November 1994. City Manager June Fleming said she had spoken to Vicci Rudin, staff liaison to the P&S Committee, and she had indicated the issue would be discussed with Council Member Huber at the P&S Committee meeting on May 3, 1994. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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
05/02/94 72-489
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.
05/02/94 72-490