HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-07 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting August 7, 1995 1. Resolution Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico ........................................ 76-410 2. Resolution Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Ulrika Elert of Linköping, Sweden 76-410 3. Appointments to the Planning Commission ............... 76-410 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 76-413 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 24, MAY 1, AND MAY 8, 1995 .... 76-413 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and HSQ Technology for Water-Gas-Storm Station Equipment, Instrumentation Control, and Telemetry System Project . 76-414 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Robison-Prezioso, Inc. for Interior Recoating and Exterior Repainting of Monte Bello Reservoir ................... 76-414 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dr. Kelly Jean Fergusson for Continuing Quality Control Procedure Development and Implementation for Geographic Information System .................................... 76-414 7. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Ralph Andersen and Associates to Conduct a North County Fire Services Consolidation Study ..................... 76-414 8. Amendment to Contract with Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to fix the Employer's Contribution under the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) Health Plans for Active and Retired Employees 76-414 9. Ordinance 4285 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 1.04 of Title I by Adding Section 1.04.071 Relating to Time Limits for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions ........... 76-414
08/07/95 76-408
10. Ordinance 4286 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 18.85 Regarding Special Regulations for Hazardous Waste Facilities ............ 76-415 11. Ordinance 4287 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 16.09.010 and 16.09.143 of Chapter 16.09 (The Sewer Use Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code .......................... 76-415 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Weed Abatement Charges ............... 76-415 13. Initiative Petition Regarding Growth Management of Non-Residential Areas ..................................... 76-415 14. Ballot Arguments Procedure - Special Election, November 7, 1995 ............................................... 76-432 15. Response to Council Request on the Legality of City Payments for Conflict of Interest-Related Real Property Appraisals ............................................ 76-433 16. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 76-436 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. .......... 76-436
08/07/95 76-409
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7534 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico" MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian presented the Resolution. 2. Resolution Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Ulrika Elert of Linköping, Sweden MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7535 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Ulrika Elert of Linköping, Sweden" MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian presented the Resolution. 3. Appointments to the Planning Commission Council Member Fazzino would support Kathryn Schmidt for reappointment to the Planning Commission. She had been an outstanding member over the past four years and had taken her public service very seriously. He was often impressed by her careful analysis and study of Planning Commission items. Council Member Schneider concurred with the comments of Council Member Fazzino. Ms. Schmidt had served with distinction on the Planning Commission and was an important member of the Commission, and she was delighted to support her on the first ballot. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BIALSON: VOTING FOR COLVIN:
08/07/95 76-410
VOTING FOR EAKINS: VOTING FOR GARDINER: VOTING FOR KISHIMOTO: VOTING FOR NEWFIELD: VOTING FOR PETREDIS: VOTING FOR SCHMIDT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR TAYLOR: VOTING FOR VON RUDEN: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Kathryn Schmidt received a unanimous vote and was appointed on the first ballot to the four-year term ending July 31, 1999. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING Council Member Fazzino would support Sandy Eakins for the Planning Commission. He could recall only one other instance in which he felt an applicant was as well prepared for a commission as Ms. Eakins was for the Planning Commission. Ms. Eakins had served her public apprenticeship in many different capacities over the years. She had been an outstanding member of the Public Art Commission (PAC) and had been a neighborhood and residentialist leader in South Palo Alto for many years. More recently and perhaps most important, she had been an outstanding co-Chair of the Comprehen-sive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). He knew that Ms. Eakins would be an outstanding Planning Commissioner. Council Member Huber said the applicant pool was fantastic for the Planning Commission seats. There were a number of experienced people who had given a lot to the community, and there were also a number of new people from the community. He looked forward to all of them reapplying. Her analysis of the issues, intelligent approach, and the reasonable way she looked at everything would make her a valuable addition to the Planning Commission. He would join with Council Member Fazzino and support Ms. Eakins. Council Member Kniss said Ms. Eakins had been an exemplary representative of the CPAC. She said the applicants--Ms. Bialson and Ms. Kishimoto from the CPAC process and Mr. Petredis, who was an excellent candidate, spoke very well of the pool of candidates that applied for the Planning Commission. The Council had believed that the CPAC process would bring forth candidates for the boards and commissions which it had. She would support Ms. Eakins for the Planning Commission. Council Member McCown would cast her vote for Annette Bialson. She was impressed with her participation in the CPAC. She
08/07/95 76-411
reminded Council that Ms. Bialson was appointed as an alternate, and the Council had hoped that it would have some people who would be willing to follow along in the process for the possible eventuality that a full-fledged member of the CPAC would resign. She gave Ms. Bialson enormous high marks for consistently participating through the process and being what the Council hoped an alternate would be, someone prepared to step in and participate. She was particularly impressed by her thoughtful and balanced comments during the interview. Her vote was between Ms. Bialson and Ms. Eakins; and if Ms. Eakins were appointed, she requested that the record show a unanimous vote for Ms. Eakins. Vice Mayor Wheeler was extremely impressed by the pool of candi-dates and was particularly excited that three members of the CPAC applied for the positions. The CPAC had turned out to be the training ground that the Council had hoped it would be when it set up the CPAC process several years before. She would support Ms. Eakins on the second ballot. Given the breadth of interest and knowledge Ms. Eakins had about the community and its various aspects and given the fact that she had shown remarkable leadership skills through the CPAC process and in her service to the PAC, she believed Ms. Eakins deserved the appointment and would do a superb job as a member of the Planning Commission. Council Member Schneider commended the group of applicants for the Planning Commission positions. She encouraged the applicants to reapply for other vacancies in the future. She would also support Ms. Eakins, who had done a remarkable job as co-Chair of the CPAC, and she knew Ms. Eakins would serve with great distinction on the Planning Commission. Ms. Bialson had shown incredible stalwart support during a very difficult CPAC process, and she hoped Ms. Bialson would reapply in the future. Mayor Simitian would cast his vote for Ms. Eakins. He had also considered very strongly the application of Ms. Bialson. He was particularly impressed with her contribution during the interaction the Council had had with the members of the CPAC. He said with respect to all of the applicants, his vote reflected his regard for the individual he supported; but it also reflected his notion about where the need was greater in terms of perspectives and experience on the current Planning Commission. VOTING FOR BIALSON: McCown VOTING FOR COLVIN: VOTING FOR EAKINS: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR GARDINER: VOTING FOR KISHIMOTO: VOTING FOR NEWFIELD: VOTING FOR PETREDIS:
08/07/95 76-412
VOTING FOR SCHMIDT: VOTING FOR TAYLOR: VOTING FOR VON RUDEN: MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to appoint Sandy Eakins to the Planning Commission on a unanimous vote. MOTION PASSED 9-0. City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Sandy Eakins received a unanimous vote and was appointed on the second ballot to the one unexpired term ending July 31, 1998. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS James Morley, 160 Waverley Street, spoke regarding zone parking. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding accountability and responsibility (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Kathy Howard/Beth Wyman, Santa Clara County Collaborative, spoke regarding Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Region Awards. Alan Hirsch, 2539 Ross Road, spoke regarding Palo Alto transporta-tion. Olaf Lidums, P.O. Box 213, Palo Alto, spoke regarding the Urban Ministry. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 24, MAY 1, AND MAY 8, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of April 24, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-2, Fazzino, Wheeler "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of May 1, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Fazzino "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of May 8, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4 - 11.
08/07/95 76-413
4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and HSQ Technology for Water-Gas-Storm Station Equipment, Instrumentation Control, and Telemetry System Project; change orders not to exceed $60,490. 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Robison-Prezioso, Inc. for Interior Recoating and Exterior Repainting of Monte Bello Reservoir; change orders not to exceed $21,900. 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dr. Kelly Jean Fergusson for Continuing Quality Control Procedure Development and Implementation for Geographic Information System 7. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Ralph Andersen and Associates to Conduct a North County Fire Services Consolidation Study Ordinance 4284 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Fund a North County Fire Services Consolidation Study" 8. Amendment to Contract with Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to fix the Employer's Contribution under the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) Health Plans for Active and Retired Employees Resolution 7536 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer's Contribution Under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with Respect to Members of the Palo Alto Professional Fire Fighters Union, Local 1319" Resolution 7537 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer's Contribution Under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with Respect to Members of the Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association" Resolution 7538 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer's Contribution Under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with Respect to Members of the Management, Confidential and Council Appointed and Elected Officers Employee Group" Resolution 7539 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer's Contribution Under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with Respect to Members of Local 715, Service Employees International Union" 9. Ordinance 4285 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 1.04 of Title I by Adding Section 1.04.071 Relating to Time Limits for Judicial Review
08/07/95 76-414
of Administrative Decisions" (1st Reading, 7/17/95 PASSED: 9-0) 10. Ordinance 4286 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 18.85 Regarding Special Regulations for Hazardous Waste Facilities" (1st Reading, 7/17/95 PASSED: 9-0) 11. Ordinance 4287 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 16.09.010 and 16.09.143 of Chapter 16.09 (The Sewer Use Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code" (1st Reading, 7/24/95 PASSED: 8-0, Andersen absent) MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Weed Abatement Charges Mayor Simitian said it was the time and place set for a Public Hearing on Resolution No. 7368 ordering weed nuisance abated. The record should show that notice of the hearing had been given in the time, manner, and form provided for in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. He asked the City Clerk whether any written objections had been received. City Clerk Gloria Young replied no written objections had been received. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. He said the record should show that no individuals appeared or filed written objections against the weed abatement assessments and that any resolution passed by the Council on the matter would reflect that finding. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7540 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties Herein Described" Council Member McCown noted that there were representatives from Stanford University in the audience who should know that there were four parcels on the list of weeds that had not been abated. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RESOLUTIONS 13. Initiative Petition Regarding Growth Management of Non-Residential Areas
08/07/95 76-415
City Clerk Gloria Young said the initiative petition regarding growth management of non-residential areas (the Initiative) filed on July 14, 1995, by the Citizens for Affirmative Planning was checked and found to contain approximately 2,500 valid signatures. The Registrar of Voters stopped checking the petitions once a qualified number was reached. In accordance with Palo Alto City Charter Article 6, Section 2 with respect to Initiatives, the proposed petition was signed by more than six (6) percent of the registered voters as of the last General Municipal Election. Further, the Charter stated that the City Council's action was either to pass the Resolution without alteration or submit the same to the electors at the next General Municipal Election that would be held not less than eighty-eight (88) days from the date of the City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency which was July 21, 1995. If the City Council chose to place the measure on the ballot, it should adopt the resolution before it that evening. She clarified the cost of placing the measure on the ballot was approximately $5,000 to $6,000, plus the cost of the consolidation with the General Municipal Election, which brought the total to approximately $45,000. For Council's information, Santa Clara County's designated "R" for the Measure. Mayor Simitian clarified the $40,000 cost for consolidation would have been borne regardless of the Initiative. Ms. Young said the cost was approximately $40,000, and $5,000 was the cost of the measure. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Resolution included two options for framing the question as it would appear on the ballot. Option A, "Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to limit nonresidential growth by precluding the City Council from making specified changes without voter approval until December 21, 2015," on page 1 of the Resolution was the short version, and Option B, "Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to limit nonresidential growth by reducing California Avenue District floor area rations ("FAR") from 2:1 to 1:1, prohibiting a Sand Hill to Alma connection, and by precluding the City Council, until December 31, 2015, from increasing FAR's or building heights, reducing minimum parking requirements, changing residential land use designations to nonresidential, or creating any nonresidential land use designations with FAR's greater than 1:1," was the long version. He did not feel strongly about which option was better, but Option B cataloged all of the major impacts. Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Street, co-Chair of Citizens for Palo Alto's Future, announced the formation of the Citizens for Palo Alto's Future (the Committee), a committee to defeat Measure R. The Committee was for responsible planning, representative govern-ment, and resource management. The Initiative hijacked the representative process until the Year 2016 and doomed unique neighborhoods to a vote of the entire city electorate. There had been several unique projects within the City that involved individual neighborhoods, and many of the properties that were
08/07/95 76-416
originally zoned residential were changed to accommodate the needs of the neighborhood. That kind of process would not be possible with the Initiative and would be subject to an entire city vote which might not have the same sentiment as the neighborhood. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa Avenue, co-Chair of Citizens for Palo Alto's Future, said she was concerned more about the process of the Initiative than the content. The Initiative would cast in concrete parts of the Zoning Ordinance. She was very involved in historic preservation, and people might expect that she would be opposed to change but that was not so. Some significant ingredients in historic preservation were balance and process. Balance was necessary so that there would not be an ordinance that saved every house in the City that was over 50 years old but rather to retain some of the historic structures so that there was tangible evidence of the City's past. There had to be some process for reviewing individual structures. The City also needed balance and process. The Comprehensive Plan helped resolve the competing goals of the different parts of the City, and it was the process that reviewed the merits of individual projects. The Council had put short-term moratoriums on pieces of the Zoning Ordinance during further review, but it had never been a 20-year moratorium. The Initiative would put a moratorium on significant parts of the Zoning Ordinance unless there was a vote of the entire community to the contrary. The job of the Committee was to provide information to the citizens of Palo Alto to show what the implications of the Initiative would be, and she believed the citizens would agree that the Initiative was not something that should be done. Irene Sampson, 3992 Bibbits Drive, representing the League of Women Voters, said the League had a long-standing position in favor of a process that kept the Comprehensive Plan up-to-date which provided for maximum opportunity for public input at all stages and the use of citizens committees with balanced representation of interest. The League enthusiastically endorsed the formation of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and had followed its work closely during the previous two and one-half years. The League had submitted its comments in support and opposition to specific recommendations at appropriate stages of the process which was a process that should be able to move forward as scheduled. In addition, one of the League's basic principles was a belief in representative government. Restricting the ability of elected officials to make land use and zoning decisions which might become necessary to meet changing circumstances and needs for the next 20 years lessened their ability to serve their constituents. After carefully considering the implications of the Initiative, the League took a position of opposition to the Initiative based not on the relationship to many of its specific provisions but on two overriding concerns: 1) it negated much of the work of the CPAC, and 2) it limited the City Council's ability to respond to changing conditions for the next 20 years. Bonnie Packer, 768 Stone Lane, member of Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, was opposed to the Initiative. If the
08/07/95 76-417
Initiative passed, she would gain nothing and would lose her faith in the intelligence of the Palo Alto electorate who voted against the democratic process. The Initiative would make a mockery of citizen participation for the next 20 years. The CPAC was a wonderful example of opening up government to allow citizen participation, and it produced exciting ideas from the area studies that would be negated by the Initiative. The Initiative would not control growth or traffic but would encourage stagnation in the areas that needed development, e.g., Midtown, South El Camino Real, and would repress the community's input to develop meaningful solutions to the problems that faced the City. Limiting of FARs would do nothing to alleviate traffic problems or revitalize the City and would not change any commercial zoning to increase residential housing. The Initiative would not preserve Palo Alto's values but would only push it backwards. The Initiative rebuffed all the hard work done by the CPAC and any citizen that cared about meaningful planning solutions for the community. John Elman, 4150 Hubbart Drive, wanted to thwart the people who supported the Initiative. The Committee that opposed the Initia-tive were a broad-based group of people with varied interests, and he urged the Council to oppose the Initiative. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton Street, said Measure R was unique because for the first time it allowed a part of the City Charter to require that land use decisions be consistent with the General Plan. Some of the opposition to Measure R that had been expressed previously was wrong and misguided, and he looked forward to a campaign to educate the public. He said the people who signed the petitions, which was about 10 percent of the voters of Palo Alto, had a vested interest in the residential quality of life in Palo Alto. He urged the Council to affirm the Initiative that evening. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Street, spoke about the Edith Eugene Johnson Park and said the Council was not always right. He resented the fact that the process was being labeled divisive. The Initiative would not go against the new Comprehensive Plan, and most of the ideas were wonderful and the vision statement related to traffic. The Initiative asked that the City follow the caps recommended in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (Citywide Study) which was clear about traffic and development. The City had to have a cap if it wanted to maintain the road systems at serviceable levels. The issue was serious and was the future of Palo Alto which was worthy of discussion. The Initiative was a valid democratic process, not a divisive process. Joseph Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, had made a comparison between the traffic density on Bayshore Freeway with the City's major corridors which was not too different, had reviewed the 1989 Citywide Study and the 1993 survey where citizens indicated their major concern was traffic, and had attended the CPAC and Stanford University workshops and raised the issue of traffic. Stanford had not answered his question regarding the cumulative affect on traffic from its planned expansions. The Initiative was not premature because the Comprehensive Plan did not have a traffic
08/07/95 76-418
plan that addressed the traffic that would be generated cumulatively by all the developments that were proposed. Palo Alto's only traffic plan was that all of the major streets in the City would carry its fair share of the new traffic. A comprehen-sive traffic plan would address the traffic. The present traffic conditions were unacceptable, and nothing was being done to improve the situation. Glenna Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, was proud that there was an initiative that citizens could use. If enough people were disturbed about something, they could gather signatures. She was tired of nothing being done about traffic. She had attended many CPAC and other meetings and had tried to get the word "traffic" included in the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation did not carry the same message and it often meant airplanes, buses, trains, etc. Traffic did not get a meaningful redirection but went onto some other street. A real traffic plan was needed. The Initiative wanted to keep the existing Comprehensive Plan and the caps that had been accepted by the City and do something about the major problem of traffic. She hoped the entire community would become more educated through the Initiative. Harland Pinto, 1845 University Avenue, said the Initiative was a conservative measure aimed at protecting the quality of life for the residents of the City. The Initiative gave the power to approve huge projects of major impacts to the people. It was flexible; and if particular projects needed to be approved, a case could be made publicly. The citizens of Palo Alto could make judgments about major projects. He participated in the CPAC process as a member of the public and had been dismayed by the changes that had occurred as the document moved forward. Non-appointed members were marginalized throughout the process, and good ideas had been changed or sacrificed by City staff who seemed to be out of touch with the needs of the residents. He asked the Council to reaffirm the growth limits and values adopted through the Citywide Study of 1989. The CPAC could move forward intact but the Council should give the City staff guidance by adopting the Resolution that evening. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, would endorse Measure R if it became a measure on the ballot, but he preferred the Council adopt the measure that evening. He referred to the staff report dated August 3, 1995, regarding the extension of the commercial use amortization time line of the former Maximart site/Fry's. The Charter and policy previously adopted by the Council clearly stated the Council's legal advice would come from the City Attorney. The City Attorney had advised the Council that the request to extend the commercial use was not an extension of the amortization period. He referred to page 3 and the study areas recommended by staff for the CPAC and said the impact discussion concluded that specific impacts were impossible to determine without doing the studies. There was a question about the Initiative limiting the ability to change residential land to non-residential land even as a part of a land swap. Midtown had thousands of square feet of vacant commercial space and he found it incredulous that people were thinking about changing
08/07/95 76-419
neighboring residential areas to commercial. There was a comment about reducing the flexibility of adjusting non-residential parking ratios but the current parking ratios provided too little parking for those areas. Page 5 stated the Initiative would not affect the ability to increase the FAR in the Stanford Research Park, but the range of FAR limits in that land use designation was based on the Zoning Ordinance. A change of the current limit in the Research Park would require a change of the zone district from LM to OR. He reminded the Council that the non-residential FAR limits readopted in the proposed Initiative from Resolution 7151 was adopted unanimously by the Council. He said when the new zone district for California-Cambridge Avenue business district was set up, it was done to provide the commercial area with a lower FAR limit than the CC district, but the current FAR limit was higher than other CC areas which was the reason it should be lowered. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the Citizens for Affirmative Planning (C.A.P.) wanted to reiterate that the primary goal of the Initiative was to reaffirm the growth limits which came out of the Citywide Study. The limits reflected the relationship between non-residential growth and traffic and related that to Palo Alto's street capacities. The limits allowed at the time of adoption were 3.3 million more square feet of non-residential growth. A large portion of that capacity remained. The amount was equal to all the square footage in Downtown Palo Alto. Thirty-eight intersections were identified with those limits that would require modification. The City had not presently reached those limits, but traffic congestion was already a major problem. The CPAC also recommended retaining the Citywide limits, but the problem was that CPAC also recommended the policies and programs which were grossly inconsistent with the Citywide limits. Specifically, the CPAC recommended another 1,704,000 square feet in the Stanford Research Park and a hotel/conference center at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road of approximately 157,000 square feet on a site presently designated for high density housing, recommended 400,000 square feet more at the Palo Alto Medical Center, and 160,000 square feet at the Stanford Shopping Center. The four proposals added 2.4 million more square feet. She believed the Initiative would provide for balanced, reasonable growth and would allow the City Council sufficient flexibility to address special areas such as Midtown and South of Forest by creating specially tailored new zones and land use designations. The Planned Community (PC) zone and variance process could continue to be used as well. The only limits were the 1:1 FAR, the restriction on converting residentially designated land to non-residential use, and the general goal that overall traffic growth be consistent with the street system capacity as contemplated in the Citywide limits. The City's present zoning framework would remain in place. Mr. Schreiber was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News as saying "The City already is developed about as completely as it can be. Most of what will exist in Palo Alto you can go out and see this very afternoon. The increment of change will be a small amount of change given the existing base," so the Initiative should cause no problems for the City and the Council should adopt the Initiative as an insurance policy for Palo Alto's future. Mr. Schreiber
08/07/95 76-420
might believe that 2.4 million more square feet was a small increase, but people whose neighborhoods were already overrun with traffic did not. The 2.4 million square feet of increase represented about 20,000 more individual vehicle trips per day. Unfortunately, all of the draft CPAC policies for increased growth remained after eight months of City Council review. C.A.P. believed that the internal inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan revision should be remedied before the staff spent a year flushing out the Draft Plan. The Council could do that by adopting the Initiative that evening. If the Initiative were placed on the ballot by the Council, she hoped that each of the Council members would declare where he/she stood on the major growth proposals which engendered the Initiative and that the election would result in constructive discussion of the direction in which Palo Alto was headed. She said previous comments indicated that the Initiative was moratorium, which it was not. There was sufficient capacity remaining in the zone to keep the City busy. A public initiative was not a repression of public input, but a expression of public input. An initiative was the ultimate in democracy. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, thanked all the Council Members who had been quoted as agreeing with many of the specifics of the Initiative. The Council was being asked to adopt that evening the things that it had previously agreed upon. The initiative process was the most democratic process possible. Over 4,600 people had signed the Initiative petitions. People were being asked to vote on the measure and to vote again if they wanted a major change in the City's structure to occur in the future. Some of the speakers had overlooked the fact that the Initiative was carefully drawn to allow flexibility for both the Council and the commissions to create new zones and new ways of modifying existing development to take into account changes in the future. Everything would not be frozen for 20 years, and the PC zone was expressly allowed for flexibility. Measure R would not hijack decisions but would allow the Council to change the way things were done if it were done rationally. The CPAC had been hijacked by the Planning Commission, City staff, and Stanford University. Many of the things proposed by CPAC were quite beneficial but had been overturned. The Council had an opportunity as recently as July 15, 1995, to demonstrate that it understood and agreed with the intent of the Citywide Study. Instead of rejecting a 15 percent bonus for Stanford Research Park, the Council decided to study the issue longer. Measure R was intelligent growth, not anti-growth, and would permit more than 2 million square feet of additional development which would create more than 6,000 jobs, a demand for more than 3,500 housing units, and almost 40,000 additional car trips per day. If the Council wanted to validate its previously unanimous votes on almost everything on the Initiative, it would adopt the measure that evening. He suggested that it was important for the citizens of Palo Alto to make it clear that they wished to govern and speak on how Palo Alto was developed. He did not want another entity telling the citizens how they should live, pouring additional traffic onto its streets, and creating the need for almost $60 million in overpasses at El Camino Real/Page Mill Road and Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway. He suggested Palo Alto adopt the motto: "Live free of Sanford or die of traffic
08/07/95 76-421
congestion." Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, said it was not fair to disenfranchise a new generation for 20 years. Computers had changed the way many people did things and would be even more influential in the future. People should be allowed to participate in the governmental process, and it was outrageous to shut everyone out of the planning and decision-making process and keep the old rules. She hoped the Council would keep the future bright for the new generations. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, associated her remarks with the previous excellent statements. Many of the citizens were satisfied that the previous Comprehensive Plan process recognized the Council's commitment to balance the interest of the people who made a huge financial gain from the land uses in the City and the people who sought only a place to live and raise their families while serving the City in a more modest way. Along the way, the Council abandoned that commitment, and it now seemed to Palo Alto citizens that the Council was the exclusive servants of the corporate sector in the City. Many housing proposals had been turned down by the Council. The effect of those decisions had been an unattractive, invisible sign at the city limits that said "paramedics, teachers, waitress, firefighters, and policemen, etc. were not welcome to live among us." Only a few precious housing sites were left, and people were shocked when they were given away in recent years. The Council was a council for all of the citizens of Palo Alto. Traffic was important and the community's comfort in the City was important, but many people realized that Palo Alto was one piece of a big picture. The Initiative was important to preserve the housing sites and the farmlands. Palo Alto was part of the natural and human environment. She was disappointed that the Natural Environment Section of the revised Comprehensive Plan did not place Palo Alto in a larger context. Palo Alto should be able to provide housing for the people that worked in the City. The Initiative was trying to bring some balance back into the people's and the Council's perspective. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, spoke as a member of CPAC and C.A.P. and emphasized that C.A.P. was not an attack on the CPAC process or any individual members. She requested the Council's cooperation in making sure that the discussion that evening and during the next two months did not degenerate into name calling. She hoped the level of debate would be raised in the community about where the proposal would lead the community in the next 20 years versus where the Initiative would lead. She supported C.A.P. because from her experience working on CPAC, she saw little political or financial commitment to changing the transportation infrastructure, either automobile or nonautomible, in Palo Alto. The City could not continue to approve developments if that was true. The 20-year period was no longer than the affect of paving over fields, building new buildings, and the work it would take to remediate the pollution created by the develop-ments that might take place unless more thought was given to the process. The C.A.P. process was started because the citizens believed there had not been enough community discussion about the
08/07/95 76-422
basic issue facing the community. Steve Player, 1874 Guinda Street, spoke as a supporter of the Committee for a Future Palo Alto and said people had different opinions on what the City should do about growth and how it should be developed in the future. The issue was the future of Palo Alto. He had studied the Initiative carefully and was concerned about how it would affect the City's ability to govern itself in the future. He had looked at the many changes that had occurred in the City over the last 20 years, and there would be many more changes during the next 20 years which no one could anticipate. The Initiative would take away the power from the Council, the Planning Commission, and staff--the individuals who the voters had charged with the responsibility to be responsive to those changes--to govern the City's future on certain aspects. He was really concerned about those aspects and was also concerned that the Initiative would take away the opportunity for debate by the people who had to make the final decision. During the previous two years, the community had debated the CPAC process at a level of intensity that had never been done in the history of Palo Alto. He opposed the Initiative because he wanted the tools of governing the City to remain as flexible as possible to allow the City Council, the Planning Commission, and staff to be as responsive as it needed to be in order to meet the many serious problems that he anticipated would be forthcoming over the next 20 years. He did not want the issue to be divisive and wanted more of a debate. He urged the Council to put the issue on the ballot. There was a large coalition of citizens in the community who felt the Initiative was not the appropriate way to govern the City for the next 20 years. R. J. Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane, agreed with the comments of Mr. Moss and Ms. Renzel. He said an initiative was a law that allowed citizens to control their legislative group. People moved into Palo Alto to have a quality of living. Many years previously the people had gotten control of the General Plan back to the citizens which was what the Initiative would do. RECESS: 9:10 P.M. - 9:20 P.M. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt the Resolution as revised to approve the question of the measure to read: "Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to limit nonresidential growth and to preclude the City Council from making specified changes without voter approval until December 31, 2015." Resolution 7541 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling A Special Election for Tuesday, November 7, 1995, for Submittal of a Measure to the Electorate and Ordering Consolidation of Said Election" Council Member McCown said the comments by members of the public that evening touched on the issues that revolved around the measure. Planning by initiative was rarely used in a community because that method of making zoning changes or locking in
08/07/95 76-423
planning elements was a very extreme tool. The measure proposed to lock in place certain policies for 20 years without any ability on the part of the Council to change it in that time frame without holding another election. Several speakers mentioned that that was good because large major projects should be approved by the voters. She said the staff materials previously submitted pointed out that the kinds of projects that the measure would preclude, absent a vote of the entire community, were exemplified by some very small changes that were made in the last decade for a variety of commercial uses on Middlefield Road--the Century Liquor Store, the South Peninsula Emergency Veterinary Clinic, and the Arco Gas Station. Residentially zoned land was changed back to a commercial designation due to the outgrowth of a very strong neighborhood sentiment to make those changes which the City Council responded to. That kind of change would be precluded absent an election in the future. The measure did not just affect certain major growth proposals that might happen in the future. She disagreed with the proponents that the City had reached a point that an initiative was justified on specific areas where the proponents' measure differed from some of the ideas that came out of the CPAC process. It was a very specific measure and could be narrowed down to some areas worthy of debate, but the Council had not taken preliminary or final action on some of those items yet. It was unfortunate the ballot measure focused on a process that had not been completed. As commented on by a number of people, the CPAC process had 37 plus members that began in early 1993, and hundreds of people had participated in related work of that process. The Council had been given a very complex interrelated set of policy recommendations, and she agreed that some of them were inconsistent with each other which would need to be sorted out. It was unfair that the Initiative implied that those policies had as a purpose, goal, or intent the promotion of significant growth or traffic increases. Many of the members of CPAC would be startled to hear how their work was being character-ized. The unfortunate thing about that type of measure was it set up the prospect for significant additional growth and increase in traffic impacts when, in fact, that was not the proposal that had been presented or acted on. She reaffirmed a quote by her in the newspaper that she agreed with many of the substantive policy choices that the measure promoted; but she felt strongly that that type of ballot measure was not the right way to proceed, was not justified, was unfortunately an attack not on individual CPAC members but on what the members had brought forward, and was an attempt to not allow that process to be completed. She would argue that the right approach was to allow the community, the CPAC process, and the Council to participate and complete the process. She agreed with the comments of a number of speakers that putting the measure on the ballot would result in a debate on the substance of where the City was headed, but she hoped ultimately the community would decide that it did not need to be enacted by initiative. Council Member Andersen endorsed the comments of Council Member McCown. He agreed that it was premature to proceed in that manner when the draft Comprehensive Plan had not been completed yet. Nothing should not be locked in before the Council had voted on
08/07/95 76-424
the document. There were some inconsistencies in the document, and those inconsistencies needed to straightened out before the final draft. The measure rebuffed the hard work of the people who had served on the CPAC. He appreciated the support of the League of Women Voters. As a former government teacher, he felt it was poor government to have such a measure at the present time and to lock in the present Council and future Councils for 20 years. He was disturbed that many portions of the measure implied that the present Council and future Councils would not agree and it was necessary to place a lock on their decisions. Council agreed with many of the items in the Initiative and, therefore, he believed it was appropriate to continue to allow the Council the flexibility necessary to carry out the direction that it received as elected officials. The measure's lack of flexibility might have made the Council's previous decisions to approve the former Times Tribune site as a housing site or moving forward with Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing on Alma Street and using commercial land for housing more difficult. The Council must look at fiscal impacts, and in the Year 2007, the contracts with the Western Area Power Agency (WAPA) would be due for renewal. He queried what would happen if the City were unable to obtain the same kind of favorable contracts that it had had in the past with regard to the utilities, if the state imposed legislation which had been proposed for the current year that would have restricted a city's use of utility funds, or if a future Council were unable to consider some of those facets as it made land use decisions. It was not a developer versus residentialist proposal and it was not the way to reduce traffic. The Council agreed with many issues in the measure, but it did not agree on that issue. He encouraged the community to study the details and recognize the implications of the measure. Palo Alto was an intelligent community, and he was certain the citizens would reject the measure. Council Member Fazzino joined his colleagues in support of the motion. He understood why many people in the community signed the petition to qualify Measure R for the ballot. He did not impugn the motives of the measure's advocates and, in fact, he applauded their success in qualifying the measure for the ballot. He shared many of their frustrations which was the reason for the measure's qualification. There were many legitimate concerns about the negative impacts of increased urbanization, particularly traffic congestion. The City was engaged, however, in significant regional and local efforts to build an adequate alternative transportation system. Former Mayor McCown was very active in those efforts which he believed, combined with new market disincentives to use a single-occupancy automobile, were important long-range opportunities to address Palo Alto's traffic problems. The City was also grappling with other short- and long-term ways to reduce traffic, including reduction of development potential through the current and dynamic Comprehensive Plan process. Given the fact the Council was currently in the midst of a citizen-based General Plan process, he also believed the measure was premature and should wait until the process had been completed before voters were asked to approve or reject any initiative of that nature. The Council had already indicated its support for many of Measure R's specific provisions, including a 1:1 FAR for the California
08/07/95 76-425
Avenue area and might well if given the opportunity to proceed and complete the process include many more of Measure R's major provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. However, for him the most problematic aspect of Measure R was the requirement regarding a public vote on any change from residential to non-residential, including nonprofit uses such as the Gamble Garden. The public already had the right to referend major projects. Palo Altans had diligently exercised that right since 1948 with the first of two referenda on a new city hall, in 1960 on Ampex, 1962 Oregon Expressway, 1964 Whitefront, another city hall in 1966, Superblock in 1970, Palo Alto Hospital in 1971, Holiday Inn in 1972, and the Reller/Cox project in 1982. Minor change approval by the public flew in the face of representative government. Governor Johnson gave the people the power of the referendum, initiative, and recall in 1911, and the citizens in Palo Alto could use those tools as well as regular elections to address serious disagreements with Council decisions. Otherwise, he suggested the City simply abolish the current form of government and instead adopt the Massachusetts and New Hampshire town hall meeting concept--the Council would meet once a year in Lytton Plaza and vote "yes" or "no" on thousands of measures that came before the Council, and the City Manager would decide on a weekly basis what needed to be done. He did not believe that process would work for a city the size of Palo Alto. He was also troubled with the inflexibility of the measure, and it could prevent the Council from developing housing and creating a dynamic business district in the Midtown area which served local residents. He believed the real target of the measure was Stanford's multi-faceted development proposal, and such a major proposal deserved a community debate. However, he respectfully suggested the citizens of Palo Alto would be best served by a healthy debate over the Stanford proposal once all the facts were in and once the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been completed. He and a number of Council Members had already committed themselves to a public vote on the Stanford proposal. The Stanford proposal should have an open debate and not be part of a premature ballot measure campaign. He also believed it was important to allow Comprehensive Plan process to be completed. The Council and the community should continue to debate, agree, and disagree on scores of policy issues that were still awaiting decisions. Once the Comprehensive Plan had been completed, the public could then decide whether steps needed to be taken to address the final philosophies with the City Council. He believed the majority of the community would support what the Council eventually approved, but if it did not, the community had the power of recall, regular elections, and the initiative process. The advocates had used a legitimate democratic process to qualify the measure for the ballot, and he looked forward to the community debate and discussion during the fall election campaign. Council Member Schneider felt the Initiative was a personal attack on the Council, the Planning Commissioners, members of the Boards and Commissions, and the 37 members of CPAC who had spent countless hours reaching out to the community to get as much input as possible. She hoped it would not cause divisiveness in the community and that the Council's discussions during the election
08/07/95 76-426
campaign would be kept at a high level. There were a number of people who took the measure personally and felt they were not being trusted. Council Member Rosenbaum did not believe the Initiative was a personal attack, but it did show a certain lack of confidence. He could only think of one general and several specific actions by the Council during the intervening years that would have created the need for the measure. The most important was the Council's adoption of an economic resources plan. If a city were very wealthy and had a stable population but the City argued that more and more development was required in order to support the City's services, the City could expect the public to be skeptical about the City's concerns over traffic since increased development and traffic did not go together. More specifically, the CPAC process had unfortunately recommended that the City maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Study. Those limits were the centerpiece of five years of work. The staff recommended that those limits be removed from the Draft Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission concurred. The fact that the Council unanimously put the limits back in the Draft Plan might have been too late. In a casual manner with no public debate, the linchpin of a process that had been adopted was recommended for deletion for a short time. Another significant issue was CPAC's recommendation that the Stanford Research Park be allowed a 15 percent increase in FAR which was also affirmed by the Planning Commission. The Council had not yet voted on the issue, and he did not sense any great enthusiasm for that recommendation by the Council. He would not be surprised if the Council removed that recommendation from the Draft Plan. He felt the areas in the Initiative that he agreed with were City policies that future Councils might want to change, and he did not want to bind future Councils. He believed the eternal vigilance was the price of controlling what people wanted in the City. The Council had not made a decision on the big land development issues proposed by Stanford University. He was uncertain what the Council would do with the hotel site or with the plans for the shopping center and housing; but if the public disagreed with what the Council did, the right of referendum was available. If he eliminated his concern about the Stanford projects and the limits in the Citywide Study, he was left with parts of the proposed Initiative with which he disagreed. He did not believe it was necessary to adopt the Initiative in order to get what he was interested in which was the absolute prohibition of conversion of residential to non-residential land and to maintain the present limits on FARs and parking. There was a lack of flexibility, but he did not believe it would be practical to ask the public to vote on every small thing. He was sympathetic to the goals of the people who had worked on the Initiative and he welcomed the debate; but he could not support the Initiative and would support putting it on the ballot. Council Member Kniss agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum that a healthy debate in the community was welcomed. That was what elections were about and that was what the Initiative would be about. She said it was hard to vote on something and have a debate without eventually making a decision which might in some
08/07/95 76-427
ways divide the community. Part of the election would indicate where the community stood, and a clear message would be sent by that process. The Initiative was most problematic because it shortchanged the process that Palo Altans held near and dear. The second piece of the Initiative was the Council's ability to respond when something changed within the community. The number of changes that had taken place since 1975 were unfathomable in many ways. She saw the Initiative as a reaction to the CPAC process which saddened her. The CPAC process had been an exciting, challenging, and learning process. Because it was a new and different process, it had sometime been challenging to stay within that process. The Council was only half way through its review of the entire product, and she doubted that the limits that were put in place in 1989 would change dramatically. She believed that when Stanford University presented a project that the Council would be willing to put that out to a public vote. The Initiative was not as much about content but about whether the process should be freeze-dried or whether the Council would have the ability to respond even to small changes that might take place in the community. Frequently, neighborhoods came forward and asked for small changes, and she did not want a whole community to have to vote on small changes which might take place that made a big difference to a neighborhood. That was the kind of thing that worked toward a "walkable neighborhood." The League of Women Voters mentioned its concern about negating the process midway and limiting Council's ability to react. The City had a representative form of government, and it was important that representatives be able to react and that the community could come to an elected body and ask for its support. It was tempting to believe the Initiative would control growth and traffic, but she was concerned that there might be other possibilities or solutions for problem areas in the future that the Council would not be able to change if the Initiative passed. She was troubled that the Initiative would be a vote about foreclosing on the future. She would support the motion. Council Member Huber agreed with the goal statements of the Initiative. There was no quarrel with the fact that the City had to watch what it did in terms of limiting growth and had to be careful about traffic, pollution, etc. He had the pleasure of serving on the Planning Commission when it concluded the Citywide Study which was an excellent study and was still applicable. He would certainly support retention of the Citywide Study in the Comprehensive Plan. He had also served on the Downtown Study as a neighborhood representative, and he believed that it was a reasonable study and saw no need to change or remove it from the Comprehensive Plan. Height limit was easy to be applied by the Council, and it was a reasonable way to approach any type of construction. If the Sand Hill Road connection were ever to occur, it should not go through to Palo Alto Avenue or Alma Street. There were other items in the Initiative that bore some discussion, and he recalled that when the Citywide Study was done, representatives queried why California Avenue was not studied. He remembered discussions at the time about 1:1 FARs which might be a reasonable limitation. There had been discussions and recommendations about hotels and everyone was aware of what
08/07/95 76-428
Stanford wanted to do. He was uncertain of his position on any of those issues. He recalled the discussions that occurred regarding the 65,000-square-foot cap at Stanford Shopping Center and the fact that it might change if the circulation patterns changed. Perhaps 65,000 square feet was appropriate, but the Council and the community should look at the projects as they came forward and preserve the Palo Alto process. As Council Member Fazzino suggested, if something came about that was not reasonably satisfactory to the community, it could be put on the ballot. He was concerned about flexibility, and he understood the proponents suggested the Initiative had sufficient flexibility. He said the lawyer in him suggested that when reasonable people disagreed over what something meant, there should be some concern. He was concerned about what the Council might or might not be able to do in the Midtown, South of Forest Avenue, and other areas that needed to be considered area-wide rather than to limit pieces of property. The Council should be in a position to maintain some flexibility. The principal problem he had with the Initiative was the 20-year aspect of the process. He was concerned about limiting future Councils who might need to deal with unforeseen circumstances, and he would not have limited past Councils either. He suspected that if the Initiative passed, it would have little affect on the Council during the next four years. The Comprehensive Plan in the past had been amended, when appropriate, by Councils which he believed was a reasonable process and should not be locked up. He did not have a problem with the initiative process in terms of the legitimate democratic process, but he philosophically did not like it because the Council could not discuss and make modifications to a situation. He had always been frustrated with the problem of voting an initiative up or down. If he agreed with 100 percent of the specifics in the Initiative, he would still have a philosophical problem of locking it up for 20 years. The flexibility that existed for future Councils was an important one to keep. He would support the motion to put the issue on the ballot. He looked forward to participating in the discussions, and the Council would live with whatever the voters decided in November 1995. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she predicted that in the Year 2006, some of the Council Members would be in the audience telling that Council what it should do on the subject of their neighborhood. As many speakers had mentioned that evening, the Initiative and the arguments pro and con fell into several general areas. One was the substantive issues raised by the Initiative. Ms. Renzel had asked the members of the Council to clearly enunciate where it was on the substantive issues. Her views on the issues had been on the record for the last 13 or 14 years, both as a member of the Planning Commission and as member of the Council. She supported the items in the Initiative which were under discussion by either one of the bodies while she was a member, and she continued that support. Her discussions during the Comprehensive Plan debated to that point at the City Council level and had reaffirmed that she was in support of the substantive issues that appeared in the Initiative. However, as strongly as she felt in support of those issues, she could not disagree more vehemently with the process issues as put forth by the proponents of the Initiative. She
08/07/95 76-429
supposed it was disingenuous as a member of the Council, an elected official, a former appointed official, and certainly not very politically correct in the Year 1995 to ask the proponents of the Initiative to trust her that she would do the right thing. As a citizen of Palo Alto rather than as an elected official of Palo Alto, she, as had all of her colleagues on the Council, had run for the position out of a genuine concern, interest in the community, its continued well being, and a wish to earn the trust of the residents of Palo Alto. Some members of the Council had previously eluded to some of the difficulties that might be faced if the Initiative passed. For example, in the late 1960s or early 1970s a prior Council determined the appropriate zoning for the Century Liquor Shopping Center at the corner of Loma Verde and Middlefield Road was residential; and it started the clock on amortization for that property. It was a rational and appropriate decision for its time; however, some years later as the end of that amortization period approached, not only the owner of the property but also the neighbors that lived in the area, came to the Planning Commission and begged the Planning Commission at that time to stop the amortization process and allow the neighborhood to retain the services that they felt the complex offered their neighborhood. The little shopping area offered many services where people could meet and talk with each other--the same kinds of things that were being presently discussed as being important elements to retain a feeling of community. The Planning Commission and the Council at that time were very responsive to the requests of the neighbors. She was disturbed that the Council of the future might not be able to do the same thing. That type of thing would not happen for the next 20 years in Palo Alto if the Initiative passed. It might happen if the Greenmeadow, Barron Park, or Downtown north neighborhoods said it was okay for the neighbors at the corner of Loma Verde and Middlefield Road to have their little shopping center; but in order to find out, an election would be necessary which hopefully would come around the time of a City Council election and cost only $5,000. If it did not cost $5,000, it could cost $130,000 in current dollars, according to the figures received from the City Clerk. She queried who would pay the $130,000--the taxpayers of Palo Alto or the developer who wanted to retain a small neighborhood shopping center and the neighborhood that would pick up the bill for $130,000--all of those scenarios would be absurd. She did not believe the community wanted to do that to themselves. There were some modern-day examples of planning efforts that were born out of a city staff which was presently more open to increase citizen participation and input and were born out of a city council which was also likewise more open to having an active and involved citizenry and inviting the stakeholders in planning decisions to take a very active and meaningful role. The Dream Team exercise was a recent example that was very successful. She said 30 or 40 stakeholders presented their ideas to a panel of professionals. Those 30 or 40 people represented many viewpoints in the community and came from very different points of view. When the plans were drawn, everybody who had participated embraced the concepts that were involved. That was the kind of planning that she believed was appropriate for Palo Alto. There were other areas in the City that needed to be addressed in a similar or more in-depth fashion.
08/07/95 76-430
The Midtown, California-Ventura Avenue, and SOFA areas were crying out for help. In each of those areas, the Council had promised the stakeholders of those communities a very significant role in planning for their neighborhoods. She did not believe the plans of those people who were most affected by the changes in their neighborhoods should be subject to a vote of people who lived five miles away from their neighborhoods. Another issue in the proposal that was very important and was a very significant issue in the City of Palo Alto was the control of the growth of traffic and the behavior of motorists. Those pieces of the C.A.P. measure that were suppose to address traffic growth had been in place for at least six years and in some cases more. No one would argue that over the last six years traffic had not improved in the City. The Council and CPAC were cognizant of the fact that none of the measures in place had improved the traffic. CPAC proposed and the Council accepted significant measures to help get people out of their single-occupant vehicles. In addition, the Council had received a very thorough report from City staff on traffic and traffic safety. The Council had already take action to add a motorcycle police force in order to help enforce the traffic regulations. The Council was grappling with the issue of speeding, particularly controlling speeding on its arterial streets. The Council was currently engaged in the study of school commute issues and was working very actively with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and with school PTAs to address those issues, and individual neighborhoods to try to control traffic within each neighborhood. She believed the Council had confronted the traffic issues head on. She felt an overwhelming sadness when she thought about the Initiative--a sadness that the community had come to that point. She moved to Palo Alto 30 years previously when the City was going through one of its darkest times in its history. It had taken many years to heal some of the wounds that were caused at that time. She believed that Palo Altans prided themselves on being able to work things out thoughtfully and together as they did in the Dream Team process. She did not want the City to return to the way it was 30 years previous, and she believed the community could work together to forge a future for Palo Alto that it could be proud of. She wished the Council could devote all of its time and energy, both in the fall and in the future to the positive challenge of working together to make Palo Alto the community it wanted it to be. Mayor Simitian said all of his colleagues had indicated that he/she declined to adopt the measure that evening and would instead vote to place the measure on the ballot which would also be his vote. The arguments that had been made covered comprehensively the subject matter and points of view. He wanted to revisit earlier comments made by both the proponents and the opponents. He believed it was important to maintain a level of civility during the course of the debate over the next few months because there was real impact in terms of the way the Council comported itself during the debate. If the Council debated the process and the content of the Initiative and kept away from personality and motives of proponents or opponents, there would be a much better discussion that would illuminate a very complex set of subjects and leave the Council and the community in a far
08/07/95 76-431
better position to make progress on a common set of goals for the community. He underscored and reiterated the plea that came from both sides of the debate that evening for maintaining some sense of civility because the net product would have some real impact in terms of the quality of life in Palo Alto. He also underscored and reiterated the call for civility in the debate because as Vice Mayor Wheeler had indicated the results would be final on November 7, 1995, and after that there would be host of issues, some related to the Initiative and some not, that everyone would have to work together on. The ability to work together as a community would be enhanced by a more civil rather than less civil tone in the course of the debate. Many of the people who spoke that evening who were proponents of the Initiative were disappointed in his sharing the views of his colleagues on the issue. They were people whom he had great regard for and whom he had some fair measure of affection. A number of them were people who had supported his views for affordable housing over the three and one-half years he had served on the Council. He looked forward to working with those same people the day after the election regardless of the outcome on the issues that were found in the Initiative and other issues that were important to the community that would continue to affect the quality of life in the City for many years in the future. He declined to place the measure on the ballot and opposed the Initiative. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 14. Ballot Arguments Procedure - Special Election, November 7, 1995 City Clerk Gloria Young said the staff report addressed the requested City Council action. She noted for the record that the period for filing a direct argument was from Friday, August 11, 1995, to Monday, August 21, 1995 and the word count was 300 words. The rebuttal argument period was from Monday, August 21, 1995, to Thursday, August 31, 1995 and the word count was 250 words. She said that the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis was due on Monday, August 21, 1995 and the word count was 500 words. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the following: 1) that the City Council prepare a ballot argument in opposition to the measure; 2) that the Mayor shall appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of three Council Members to prepare the Council ballot argument; 3) that the ad hoc committee be authorized to identify who shall sign the Council argument on behalf of the City and to offer the Council argument to other qualified persons or groups for signature; 4) that the City Attorney be authorized and directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure; and 5) that the ad hoc committee be authorized to retain independent legal counsel on behalf of the City Council, if necessary, to advise on legal issues associated with the Council argument, at a cost not to exceed $2,500. City Attorney Ariel Calonne strongly supported Item No. 5 of the motion that authorized the ad hoc committee to retain independent
08/07/95 76-432
legal counsel if the committee believed it needed legal advice. In the past, the City Attorney's practice had been not to give that kind of advice on the theory that there might be the appearance of an impropriety or a conflict of interest between the function of the preparation of the impartial analysis and the process of giving advice to the people preparing a policy argument in opposition to the measure. The budget amount and an outside counsel would be identified for the committee's assistance. Council Member McCown said the element was in the motion not because the committee anticipated that it would need that assis-tance or that there were any legal issues that would arise with respect to the argument. The City Attorney's comments were correct that he should not be put in the position of having to take a position one way or the other on the matter. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15. Response to Council Request on the Legality of City Payments for Conflict of Interest-Related Real Property Appraisals Council Member Fazzino stated that he would not participate in the current issue because of a possible conflict of interest that related to his employment at Hewlett-Packard. Council Member Kniss stated that she would not participate in the current issue because of a possible conflict of interest that related to her husband's employment with Hewlett-Packard and her relationship with Sun Microsystems. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the item was a proposed resolution that followed up on the Council's preliminary discussion of how to handle a situation of the City paying for real estate appraisals that were necessary under the conflict of interest law when an individual Council Member had a financial interest potentially at stake in a city decision. He gave the Council an opinion in June 1995 that stated that it was an appropriate expenditure of City funds to pay for the appraisals. The theory behind that opinion was that the City staff time spent on conflict of interest analyses was appropriate on behalf of the City entity because the decisions of the City could be impaired and could potentially be overturned if a conflict of interest were found. Real estate appraisals were necessary to obtain a complete opinion and could be paid for by the City. The Council discussion in June 1995 focused on how that could be done. He raised the concern that if the Council put itself in the position of having to approve every expenditure, it might defeat the purpose because it would put the Council in the position of arguably thinking about the potential outcome of having a Council Member participate or not. The proposed procedure indicated that if the City Attorney concluded that he could not give a complete conflict of interest opinion without a real estate appraisal, he would advise the Council Member involved. At that point, the Council Member would ask for a city-paid real estate appraisal. The City Attorney's obligation at that point would be to notify the City Council within 10 days of being requested by an individual City
08/07/95 76-433
Council Member. The Council could then agendize the matter if it wished to veto that use of City funds. If the City Council did not take action to agendize the matter at the first available opportunity, it would be deemed approved and he would move forward and authorize the appraisal work needed to complete the conflict of interest opinion. The procedure gave the Council the opportunity to review the request, but it did put some time burden on the Council and did not require the Council to review every request for an appraisal. He believed it was a good balance between the need to retain Council control and the Council being forced to decide the issue before the matter was complete. He referred to the Appropriations Section of the Resolution which stated the City Manager would make a recommendation to the Council regarding the budget which was another control point for the Council. The proposed resolution did include a specific authorization to handle Council Member Fazzino's pending request because the staff would not have time to follow the proposed procedures in that instance. Council Member McCown said a typical range of cost might be useful so that a Council Member would know what the expenditure would be for an appraisal. She felt it could influence her decision to ask the City to pay the expenditure if it were not within a set range. She suggested a range of cost be set that was typical so that the Council had some guidance for the situation. Mr. Calonne could report to the Council on what he expected the cost to be. He said page 2 of the Resolution stated that when the Council was notified, the individual request would provide a cost estimate. He expected to have cost estimates at that time. Council Member McCown wanted a range of cost before the individual situation arose. If the Council had a basic expectation of what appraisals typically cost, an individual Council Member making the request would have an indication as to whether his/her situation fell within a typical appraisal range or whether it was outside of the ordinary. Mr. Calonne suggested the Council should wait and see how many situations arose. He believed because of the availability of the procedure, there might be some greater demand for appraisals. In many past instances, Council Members chose not to participate, hence were excluded from the public debate by the force of cost rather than any legal decision. He wanted to develop a contract relationship with an appraiser who would be benefitted by having expertise in those kinds of appraisals. It was a unique form of appraisal, and he had made references to manner specified by the City Attorney primarily because the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) called for a certain form of appraisal. There might be an opportunity to standardize the cost over time. His guesstimate on the cost would be $2,500 to $5,000. Council Member Huber referred to a statement in the Appropriations Section of the Resolutions that "the City Manager shall include in the proposed budget" and asked if each of the expenditures would come back as a Budget Amendment Ordinance.
08/07/95 76-434
Mr. Calonne said no. An appropriation would be added to the Council's budget that would be used for the expenditure. The Resolution included the words necessary to meet the City's contracting authority so Council approval would not be necessary for each contract. City Manager June Fleming said in addition, when the next budget was brought back to the Council, the item would be included the Council's budget with suggested guidelines for its use. That seemed the appropriate place in the budget so that it could be controlled. Mayor Simitian asked if a Council Member felt an appraisal was necessary and desirable but the City Attorney took a contrary view about whether it was necessary for a decision, how would the Council Member deal with requesting an appraisal. Mr. Calonne said there was nothing to preclude an individual Council Member from agendizing that matter. The issue that would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis was whether there was some benefit flowing to the City as an entity from that kind of appraisal. He reminded the Council that the reason he gave that kind of advice was to protect the interests of the City rather than the interests of the individual Council Member. If he concluded that an appraisal was not necessary, he would have also concluded that the interests of the City were adequately protected. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, asked the City Council to reconsider its tentative decision to have such appraisals paid for by the City. Appraisals benefitted the applicant, and he believed there should be a fee for service with the applicant paying for the appraisal. He said the timing of the Council's decision on whether or not to disagree with the City Attorney's decision to have an appraisal should be clarified. Mr. Calonne said his intent was that if a notice went into the Council's packet under Council Comments, Questions, and Announce-ments, the Council could make a direction to agendize the matter for the next regular City Council meeting. Additional lead time could be provided but he was concerned that it would begin to contract the process. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7542 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Procedures for City Payment of Conflict of Interest-Related Real Estate Appraisal Costs" Council Member McCown said the problem area was not when the applicant was an individual Council Member's employer, but when the City initiated something in a broader area which affected an interest that was not a direct applicant in the situation. The variability to give the conflict opinion in that situation was
08/07/95 76-435
even more challenging. She recalled other situations that had surfaced that were not quite a general plan but were area planning-type issues where a Council Member was within the circle of the impact of something. It was a "fuzzy" area in the law which tended to dissuade people from trying to figure out whether there was really a conflict or not. Mayor Simitian said it was appropriate for the City to absorb the cost. The City Attorney had presented a masterful way to balance the issues in terms of who had the responsibility for making decisions and at what point. The Council's decisions created a healthy tension between not only the desire but the importance and expectation of the citizenry to make sure that every single individual they elected participated in the process. There was also a strong commitment to ensure that nobody participated in that process who had a conflict of interest. The tension could not be resolved unless the Council had all the information available to make a sure that Council Members made informed judgments. If the goal were to make sure that everyone participated that was elected to participate, no one participated that had a conflict of interest, and that there was no question about the absence of impropriety, the cost was money well spent. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." COUNCIL MATTERS 16. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member McCown referred to the survey from Assistant City Manager Bernie Strojny regarding potential dates for review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and expressed concern about the schedule. Council Member Andersen suggested that the Council review portions of the Draft Comprehensive Plan at the Regular City Council meetings. Vice Mayor Wheeler concurred with Council Member McCown's concern. Council Member Rosenbaum noted the November Election and dates for events which had not been scheduled as of yet. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 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 recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
08/07/95 76-436
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
08/07/95 76-437