HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-14 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting August 14, 1995 1. Annual Report from the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport ................... 76-439 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 76-439 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 15 AND MAY 22, 1995 ............. 76-440 2. Reroofing Civic Center Police and Council Wing - Rejec-tion of Bids .......................................... 76-440 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and 3-J Construction Company for Reroofing Building A at the Municipal Service Center .............................. 76-440 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and 3-J Construction Company for Reroofing Building B at the Municipal Service Center .............................. 76-440 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Casto Roofing, Inc. for Reroofing of Fire Station No. 4 ..... 76-440 6. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement C5050730 between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy-Jenks Consultants for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Copper Corrosion Studies . 76-440 7 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Los Altos for Emergency Animal Control and Sheltering Services ............................................. 76-440 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View for Emergency Animal Control and Sheltering Services .................................. 76-441 9. Resolution 7543 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bill Glazier for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning Commission ............................... 76-441
08/14/95 76-437
10. Resolution 7544 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Records Retention Schedule for the Administrative Services Department, Office of the City Attorney, Office of the City Auditor, Office of the City Clerk, Office of the City Manager, Community Services Department, Fire Department, and Human Resources Department ............ 76-441 11. Resolution 7545 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining the Calculation of the Appropriations Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 1995-96 ................................... 76-441 12. Resolution 7546 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Application for Funding Under the Home Investment Partnerships Program 76-441 13. Ordinance 4288 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 for Capital Improvement Project No. 9630, `Street Maintenance ................................... 76-441 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 76-441 14. Conference with Real Property Negotiator .............. 76-441 15. Conference with City Attorney--Significant Exposure to Litigation ............................................ 76-442 16. The Policy and Services Committee re Installation of stop signs on Forest Avenue at Emerson Street, on Homer Avenue at Webster Street, on Waverley Street at Hawthorne Avenue, and on Northampton Drive at Newell Road .................................................. 76-442 17. The Finance Committee re Approval of the City Auditor's Office 1995-96 Audit Plan ............................. 76-443 18. The Finance Committee re Approval to authorize staff to negotiate a sole source general banking services agree-ment with Bank of America effective January 1, 1996 ... 76-444 19. Smoking Ordinance Update to Achieve Conformity with
Labor Code ∋6404.5 (AB 13) and Consideration of Additional Outdoor Smoking Restrictions ............... 76-446 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 76-454 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. to a Closed Session ............................................... 76-454 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ..... 76-454
08/14/95 76-438
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:06 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Annual Report from the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport Nick Petredis, Chair of the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport, presented a review of the 1994 accomplishments and 1995 goals. Council Member Fazzino thanked the Committee for all its work regarding the Palo Alto Airport. When he returned to the Council six years ago, there was a fair number of complaints from neighbors about flight patterns and other issues. He asked what steps had been taken over the past few years to address the concerns since he had heard no complaints in at least three years. Mr. Petredis said the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport (JCRCPAA) started out as a good neighbor committee primarily to deal with the noise complaints. When a noise complaint was called into the tower, it was actively fielded by the County employee and taken seriously. The calling party was visited or invited to the airport. A brochure was prepared and handed out to all pilots and transient pilots which detailed the noise abatement procedures for the airport. Noise complaints for the past year usually involved police activity, photo surveyors or occasional broken noise limits. Council Member McCown assumed the Committee knew about the conceptual proposal for the expansion of Victor Aviation which was scheduled for Planning Commission review sometime in the fall. She queried what efforts the Committee might engage in to solicit input into the process. Mr. Petredis said a letter was sent to the President of Victor Aviation Services inviting him to the September 12, 1995, meeting of the JCRCPAA. He had also spoken with the City planner responsible for the project in order to review the project. While they wanted to review the project and might have comments or suggestions, they were a creature of the County and the City with no official advisory or approval authority. If the Committee had some valid comments from the airport community and the neighboring community, whom the project might affect, he presumed Victor Aviation would want to know about it. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
08/14/95 76-439
John A. Stern, 1849 Webster Street, spoke regarding a photo display in the City Hall lobby. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding accountabili-ty (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Richard Beckwith, 2325 Columbia Street, spoke regarding youth baseball field use in Palo Alto. Wayne McIntyre Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, spoke regarding transit. Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Police Department. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding misinformation in the staff report (CMR:379:95) on Agenda Item No. 20. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding land use designa-tions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 15 AND MAY 22, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of May 15 and May 22, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Item Nos. 2 - 13. 2. Reroofing Civic Center Police and Council Wing - Rejection of Bids 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and 3-J Construction Company for Reroofing Building A at the Municipal Service Center; change orders not to exceed $12,500 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and 3-J Construction Company for Reroofing Building B at the Municipal Service Center; change orders not to exceed $10,500 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Casto Roofing, Inc. for Reroofing of Fire Station No. 4; change orders not to exceed $3,750 6. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement C5050730 between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy-Jenks Consultants for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Copper Corrosion Studies 7 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Los Altos for Emergency Animal Control and Sheltering Services 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View for Emergency Animal Control and Sheltering
08/14/95 76-440
Services 9. Resolution 7543 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bill Glazier for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning Commission" 10. Resolution 7544 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Records Retention Schedule for the Administrative Services Department, Office of the City Attorney, Office of the City Auditor, Office of the City Clerk, Office of the City Manager, Community Services Depart-ment, Fire Department, and Human Resources Department" 11. Resolution 7545 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining the Calculation of the Appropriations Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 1995-96" 12. Resolution 7546 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Application for Funding Under the Home Investment Partnerships Program" 13. Ordinance 4288 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 for Capital Improvement Project No. 9630, `Street Maintenance'" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 20, Approval of Meadows Water Well Closure and Sale, Emergency Water Well System Feasibility Study, and Delaying the Sale of the Middlefield Well Site, had been removed by staff. CLOSED SESSION The item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 14. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.8 Property: 1525 Arastradero Road Potential Negotiating Parties: Jacqueline Bressler or California Security Bank Subject of Potential Negotiation: Price Public Comment Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the Bressler bankruptcy proceedings. 15. Conference with City Attorney--Significant Exposure to Litigation
08/14/95 76-441
Subject: Significant exposure to litigation regarding one matter
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(b)(1) and (b)(3)(E) Public Comment None. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 16. The Policy and Services Committee re Installation of stop signs on Forest Avenue at Emerson Street, on Homer Avenue at Webster Street, on Waverley Street at Hawthorne Avenue, and on Northampton Drive at Newell Road Council Member Fazzino said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee unanimously voted to install stop signs on both the east and west approaches of Forest Avenue at Emerson Street; east and west approaches of Webster Street at Homer Avenue; and on Northampton Drive at Newell Road. On a 3-1 vote, the P&S Committee recommended installation of a stop sign at the intersection of Waverley Street at Hawthorne Avenue. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway referred to the staff report (CMR:351:95) regarding the installation of stop signs at Homer Avenue and Webster Street. He corrected the statement contained in the report to indicate there were existing stop signs on Webster Street and that one was recommended to be added on Homer Avenue. Fran Laurence, 850 Webster Street #1000, lived at Channing House and had been working for three years for the installation of a stop sign because of the number of accidents. She commended staff and the P&S Committee for their work and urged approval of the staff recommendation. Donald Barr, 1249 Cedar Street, emphasized the importance of the stop sign recommended at Northampton Street and Newell Road. It was a main thoroughfare and hazardous for children on the way to Jordan School on their bicycles and rollerblades. The stop sign request was first made by the Jordan Traffic Safety Committee, and he was pleased to see the recommendation. Council Member Fazzino complimented staff on its work. The analyses prepared for the P&S Committee were outstanding, and he looked forward to it being used as a model on an annual basis because it made the issues surrounding each stop sign proposal much easier for the P&S Committee to understand. He also thanked Fran Laurence and Don Barr for their constructive efforts to work with the P&S Committee and City staff to bring forward recommendations. The 3:1 vote had to do with the stop sign on Waverley Street at Hawthorne Avenue. Staff indicated ongoing efforts involving the entire neighborhood. Since that meeting he thought about the issue and suggested the particular stop sign
08/14/95 76-442
request be pulled and staff be allowed to look at it as part of the larger traffic problems in the particular neighborhood. City Manager June Fleming said staff had productive meetings with a number of representatives from the Waverley Street and Hawthorne Avenue neighborhoods where the proposed stop sign would be located. The neighborhood raised a large concern about traffic generally in the entire neighborhood. The Waverley Street and Hawthorne Avenue intersection was only one. Another meeting was scheduled to respond to the neighborhood. Preliminarily, staff believed it was a large area which deserved study, and the proposed stop sign would be a part of that study. While staff supported such a study, direction would be needed from Council to undertake it. She believed a request would be before the Council in the early fall. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to remove the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to install a stop sign at the intersection of Waverley Street at Hawthorne Avenue and direct staff to look at the issue in the context of the traffic problems related to that particular neighborhood. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino for the Policy and Services Committee moved to approve: 1) installation of stop signs on both the east and west approaches of Forest Avenue at Emerson Street; 2) installation of stop signs on the west approach of Homer Avenue at Webster Street; and further, to install stop signs on Northampton Drive at Newell Road. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. 17. The Finance Committee re Approval of the City Auditor's Office 1995-96 Audit Plan Council Member Rosenbaum said the Finance Committee reviewed and unanimously approved the 1995-96 Audit Plan. City Auditor Bill Vinson said his 1995-96 Audit Plan continued to focus on operational or performance auditing, which allowed his office to maximize its contribution by providing realistic recommendations to management for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of City operations. The Plan as presented consisted of 13 audits, 5 of which were in progress, 5 new audits, and 3 follow-up audits. Mayor Simitian clarified the new audits of purchase order process-ing and contract payments and change orders grew out of the initial work which was done in contract administration. Mr. Vinson said that was correct. The contract administration audit was the first of the three and consisted of those contracts over $25,000. Mayor Simitian was pleased to see them on the audit plan.
08/14/95 76-443
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum for the Finance Committee moved to approve the City Auditor's 1995-96 Audit Plan. Council Member Fazzino referred to the new audit for Code Enforce-ment and Building Inspection Practices. There had been an effort on the part of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley to work with building inspectors throughout the County to develop better, more efficient procedures. He queried how the audit might reflect the need or the opportunity for new procedures that might be recommended as a result of Joint Venture's efforts. Mr. Vinson said the first step in the audit would be to look at existing practices and procedures. Staff would also try to identify the best practices within Santa Clara County or other cities to see how the City of Palo Alto measured up. Council Member Fazzino clarified "best practices" would include some of the recommendations which came out of Joint Venture. Mr. Vinson said that was correct. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. 18. The Finance Committee re Approval to authorize staff to negotiate a sole source general banking services agreement with Bank of America effective January 1, 1996 Council Member Rosenbaum wanted to reword the last few lines of the motion from the Finance Committee to read: "...including a limitation that any increase in cost of the new contract would not exceed cost of prior contract by more than the increase in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI)." Basically, staff asked to be relieved of the burden of going out for a competitive bid on banking services. By and large the Finance Committee was comfort-able with the recommendation, although Council Member Huber said in three years it might well be time to consider a competitive bid, and Council Member Andersen suggested the language to ensure the cost of the new contract was limited. The Finance Committee believed staff had a good handle on the costs of banking services, that the Bank of America was providing excellent service at a cost which had not increased, and that the potential savings together with the hassle of choosing a new bank was not worthwhile to warrant a competitive bid process at that time. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum for the Finance Committee moved to authorize staff to negotiate a sole source general banking services agreement with Bank of America effective January 1, 1996, for a period up to three years, including a limitation that any increase in cost of the new contract would not exceed the cost of the prior contract by more than the increase in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI). Council Member Andersen noted the discussion at the Finance Committee meeting by Council Member Schneider and others regarding the Senior Financial Analyst's treasury manager position. The City's portfolio was essentially managed by one person as a result
08/14/95 76-444
of a Hughes, Heiss & Associates recommendation, and a cut was made in that department for cost savings purposes. He had some concern about whether the position reduction was a cost effective arrangement. He could not conceive of Hughes, Heiss & Associates making the recommendation if it had been after Orange County. While he was not particularly concerned about the security of the City's portfolio, Council might want to examine more carefully the cost effectiveness of the current arrangement. While an examination might not indicate the need to add a full-time position, there might be a need for a contract person or part-time staff, and the City Council might decide it was comfortable with the current arrangement. When working with an $80 million portfolio, it seemed more than one person should have some responsibility. AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Huber, to direct staff to report back to the Finance Committee on alterna-tive approaches with regard to the City's portfolio management, including the present arrangement, for the purpose of considering cost effectiveness and security of the portfolio. Council Member Rosenbaum took issue with the comment that Hughes, Heiss & Associates would not have made its recommendation after the Orange County problems. No one would claim the Orange County problem was due to any shortage of personnel; it was due to the absence of policy and oversight. It was important to point out the City of Palo Alto had a strict investment policy and senior management oversight of what went on. More importantly, it was clear the City was not seeking to get the maximum return by making risky investments. He believed those were the three elements necessary to ensure the safety of the City's portfolio. Ms. Fleming clarified if the motion passed, staff's intent would be to return with the alternative approaches regarding the City's portfolio management as part of the budget process given the existing work assignments and timing. Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the motion partially because she was currently going through a banking change in a much smaller operation than the City of Palo Alto and was sensitive to how time- consuming the task was. Given the duties of the Finance Depart-ment, she believed its analysis indicated the City would make better use of its resources if it did not go out for a competitive bid at that time. She agreed with Council Member Huber's comments that after the expiration of the current time period, no matter what the tasks in the Finance Department, it would be incumbent on the City to go out for a bid process. City Auditor Bill Vinson clarified the possible concern over a single party's having a lot of control over the City's investment portfolio. An audit was done five or six years ago of the City's investment practices. He suggested his office return with its first quarterly report as it had done in the past and include a review of the City's investment practices.
08/14/95 76-445
Mayor Simitian clarified its inclusion in the first quarterly report was in addition to the audit plan approved earlier. Mr. Vinson said that was correct. Council Member McCown was concerned about jumping from an item on the agenda that had to do with entering into a banking agreement into whether to audit the City's investment policy. She was not prepared to think about whether to audit the City's investment policy and preferred to see a staff report which discussed when an audit last occurred and the pros and cons of doing another. Mayor Simitian suggested if the City Auditor believed the issue of investment practices should be pursued, perhaps sending it to Council by way of the Finance Committee might be the way to do that. Council Member Andersen said given the suggestion that the matter could be worked into the budget process, it could work concurrently with the Finance Department and the City Manager's Office. Council Member Fazzino said Council Member McCown expressed his comments on the investment policy. For many good reasons, particularly because of competitive fees, he supported the motion. It would be nice some time in the future to have a Palo Alto based bank provide the services at a competitive rate. AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. ORDINANCES 19. Smoking Ordinance Update to Achieve Conformity with Labor
Code ∋6404.5 (AB 13) and Consideration of Additional Outdoor Smoking Restrictions City Attorney Ariel Calonne said effective January 1, 1995, state law was amended to enact some substantive indoor smoking restric-tions. The League of California Cities (LCC) was very active in the process to assure that local control was not lost in the process. The result was AB 13, and while the legislation itself was fairly extensive, because of the Council's previous work in developing the City's own smoking ordinance, Palo Alto's ordinance was consistent with state law. There were about four areas where Palo Alto's ordinance needed to be revised to avoid confusion on the part of businesses and others trying to conform to state law and Palo Alto's local ordinance. The recommendation was for a few changes to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section which established smoking exemptions. Many of the current exemptions were essentially preempted by state law. Bingo, billiards, and bowling were preempted by state law in that where the City's ordinance allowed smoking in bowling alleys and billiard parlors, state law did not. Likewise, where Palo Alto had an exemption for smoking in bingo games, state law only allowed an exemption if no
08/14/95 76-446
minors were present. While Palo Alto's rules did not allow minors to engage in the bingo games, they could be present. The other significant areas were with restaurant bars and hotels. While the City had a blanket exemption for private rooms in hotels and motels, state law allowed the exemption only if 35 percent of the other rooms in the hotel were set aside for nonsmokers. Finally, regarding the restaurant bar issue, the City's ordinance was interpreted to permit smoking in full service bars of restaurants, full food service, and restaurant bars. State law clearly ruled it out so that incidental food service meant a limited snack menu. The proposed ordinance also authorized the City Manager enforcement authority of the new Labor Code provisions. While there was question about whether the enforcement authority was strictly required, staff believed it was a good idea. The last part of the package was a matter for Council consideration. In 1993, staff proposed a series of extensions to the smoking regulations that broadened the definition of public places to include some outdoor areas. The Council accepted some of those outdoor area proposals including service waiting lines, ticket lines, taxi and bus shelters, or pay phones. To a degree, the City already regulated outdoor smoking. In addition, there was the 50 percent restriction in outdoor dining areas. Within the last six months, there were requests from various business owners to address one of the outdoor smoking restrictions proposed in 1993, e.g., smoking in and about the entrances to buildings. In 1993, staff proposed a prohibition of smoking within 20 feet of the entrance to a building. He believed Council left that issue open on staff's suggestion to let state law sort itself out. While staff had no recommendation on the matter, the attachment entitled "Excerpt from March 31, 1993 Proposal," contained the relevant outdoor smoking language. Council Member Fazzino understood that provisions of AB 13 would apply to bars in two or three year's time. Mr. Calonne said there was a 1997 phase-in. It might also depend on the adoption of some Occupational Safety Health Act (OSHA) regulations. The City's existing rules would cover bars in the meantime. Council Member Fazzino understood the City's rules and also understood that under AB 13, there was a blanket prohibition on smoking in 1997 or 1998. Mr. Calonne did not have the text of the statute at his place and did not recall the specifics of the blanket prohibition to which Council Member Fazzino referred. Council Member Fazzino asked to have that information return to Council. He asked for clarification about what was meant by "prohibition on smoking in areas within 20 feet of entrances to enclosed public places." He queried whether a public place was any work place entrance or exit. Mr. Calonne said public places were basically any place the public would ordinarily have reason to do business. It was virtually
08/14/95 76-447
every building in town other than a single-family residence. Council Member Fazzino clarified it would include a manufacturing facility and a research facility in the research park as well as buildings at Town and Country Village. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Andersen queried what would happen if the California legislature were heavily lobbied and decided to dilute AB 13. If the City went ahead with the proposed changes, he asked whether it would be able to keep what it put in place. Mr. Calonne said within the limits of the constitutional municipal affairs authority, the City could do what it wanted. The law was unprecedented in that AB 13 said if the law were repealed by legislature or court in the future, local agencies could regulate where it currently regulated. The law went out of its way to make it clear that it was not taking away any local authority. Council Member Andersen said the City was proposing to modify its own ordinance to be in compliance with AB 13, and yet it was not specifically stating that fact in its own ordinance except in the exemptions. Mr. Calonne said the only area of the City's ordinance being deleted was the workplace smoking prohibition because in his opinion, it was no longer enforceable. It was fully preempted by state law. There was a school of thought which said to leave the preempted ordinance on the books; however, in Palo Alto's case, the workplace smoking rules allowed smoking and the state law did not. It seemed more confusing to the regulated public to leave a misleading local ordinance on the books, and to him, the risk of that confusion outweighed the risk that the City's regulatory authority might be lost. Council Member Andersen was interested in some type of verbiage which simply said in the event AB 13 was watered down, what was put in effect that evening stayed in effect in the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto's new position regarding the workplace was what was currently contained in AB 13. Mr. Calonne said the suggestion was really for a clause that would revive the workplace smoking provisions in the event AB 13 went away. Such a clause could be added for a second reading. He suggested a direction in the motion that staff add a provision calling for the workplace smoking restrictions to be retroposed in the event of state action to remove them from AB 13. Council Member Andersen referred to the prohibition of smoking within 20 feet of the entrance to a building and queried whether other communities had less or more distance and how it was received. Mr. Calonne believed the City of Davis was the first city to prohibit smoking within so many feet of the entrance to a
08/14/95 76-448
building. There was a practical limit on what could be done in terms of whether smoke was actually going to affect any further away. Council Member Huber said some recommendations were being made, and the Council had to essentially be in conformance with AB 13. He queried what Council was being asked to do over and above that. Mr. Calonne said nothing. All of the outdoor restrictions currently on the books went beyond what AB 13 regulated, e.g., service waiting lines and bus, train, and taxi shelters, and were included because of interest from various businesses and Council Members. Council Member Huber clarified if Council did not want to include some additional outdoor restrictions, it was basically adopting AB 13, which it was compelled to do. Mr. Calonne said in his view, the City would be tightening its existing ordinance to match the new provisions of AB 13. Vice Mayor Wheeler said her reading of the packet and the comments that evening gave her the impression that bringing the City's ordinance into conformance with the provisions of AB 13 strength-ened the measures currently on the City's books. There seemed to be some confusion about it. She received some correspondence from members of the public who were under the impression that Council was going to take action to weaken the City's current ordinances. She asked for clarification. Mr. Calonne said it would be categorically wrong to say the proposed actions would weaken the ordinance. The actions made tougher smoking restrictions. Council Member Andersen assumed the vending machines or the lockup of cigarettes in supermarkets would continue. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Ron Wilson, 45 Bear Paw, Portola Valley, managed Town and Country Village, Palo Alto. Because of Palo Alto High School's no-smoking rule on campus and Town and Country's proximity to the campus, the shopping center had all of the smokers during the brunch break, lunch time, and after school, congregating mostly in front of the airline center, the pharmacy, and the market area. The situation created a tremendous amount of smoke and he received many com-plaints from the airline center and other businesses within Town and Country Village. One tenant had moved as a result of the unacceptable situation. He referred to a letter he wrote to the Council, dated February 14, 1995 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). The problem had become very serious over the past two years. If the 20-foot restriction were imposed, the shopping center would put signs up and hire full-time security to ensure that students or anyone else would be asked to smoke in the parking lot. He appreciated Council's work to get skateboarders out of the shopping centers and urged approval of a change in the
08/14/95 76-449
smoking ordinance to limit smoking within 20 feet of an entrance to a public building. Roxy Rapp, 373 University Avenue, was a developer and landlord in downtown Palo Alto. Many establishments in downtown Palo Alto had outdoor seating, and he had received several complaints about the smoking and litter outside. He was pleased to see the proposal to prohibit smoking within 20 feet of an entrance to any retail establishment. He queried how signage and enforcement would be handled. Council Member McCown said when the matter was considered before, some Council Members hesitated to move forward because of the lack of appreciation for potential unintended consequences. She queried whether the potential unintended consequences were considered. While there were specific examples of where the additional restrictions would be good, she was concerned about all the additions to the ordinance that Council would hear about. Mr. Calonne recalled the effect of the 20-foot restriction up and down University Avenue. The present ordinance exempted people passing through the area, e.g., one could lawfully walk by with a cigarette. He recalled Council's concern about the idea that the entire University Avenue business district would be perceived as off limits to smoking. Council Member Andersen asked for comments regarding Mr. Rapp's questions of signage and enforcement. Mr. Calonne said sign posting would be required as specified by the ordinance. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said enforcement would be on a complaint basis. Council Member Andersen queried whether the hot spot areas would initially have some monitoring. Ms. Johnson said as time permitted, the Police Department was already working with Mr. Wilson and the Palo Alto Unified School District on the Town and Country issue. As mentioned by the City Attorney, the ordinance allowed for a person to be walking from one destination to another with a cigarette. In talking to at least one other agency with a similar ordinance, the provision posed some problems with enforcement. A person almost needed to be sitting down for the ordinance to be enforceable because one could always argue he/she were moving from point A to point B. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the first reading of the revised Ordinance with the addition of subsection (j)(1), "Areas within twenty (20) feet of the entrance or exit to an enclosed public place." Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
08/14/95 76-450
Implement Labor Code ∋6404.5" Council Member Andersen believed it was clear the 20 feet was not a panacea in terms of some of the issues raised. He hoped the Town and Country Village management would work to provide benches possibly in the City's easement where people could sit. He believed many problems would go away if there were space available to sit down. It was time for the City to tighten its ordinances and to comply with what was happening in the rest of the state. When the City first adopted its smoking ordinance, many merchants complained and urged the City not to proceed. That evening merchants were asking for more restrictions to be put in place. While there might be unintended consequences, he believed people were clearly anxious to see to it they did not have to breathe secondhand smoke. He urged support of the motion. Vice Mayor Wheeler endorsed the motion and the comments made by Council Member Andersen. Part of what she remembered about the 1993 discussion was some Council Members were inclined to support the measure but were waiting to see how the state situation clarified itself and to what extent the City would be able to go in that direction. In the meantime, she believed everyone experienced people gathering immediately outside the entrances to public facilities and subjecting the public to a great deal of smoke, and that needed to be dealt with. She also proposed the City include some of the areas in subsection (j)(5) from the March 31, 1993, proposal. She was concerned about the situation in which parents went to the athletic facilities to watch their children play softball or baseball or took their children to the park and had to sit next to the play areas in order to give proper supervision to the children. Those people were not free to pick themselves up and move to a different park bench if they did not like the fact that someone sitting next to them was smoking a cigarette. People should be able to properly supervise their children and enjoy the athletic endeavors and pursuits of their children. She asked the maker of the motion to include as a friendly amendment from subsection (j)(5) areas in dedicated parks or other publicly accessible areas within 20 feet of bleachers, backstops and play structures. She did not include benches because if it were one of several in the park, everyone had an opportunity to move. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to approve the first reading of the Ordinance with the addition of subsection (j)(5), to read: "Areas in dedicated parks or other publicly accessible areas that are within twenty (20) feet of bleachers, backstops, and play structures." Council Member Fazzino believed it was worthwhile to recognize the pioneering leadership of Council Member Rosenbaum and his City Council which enacted the first antismoking ordinance in the Palo Alto community in movie theaters in 1974. In terms of the 1993 discussions, he did not recall the entry way issue the same way as others did, and while there was tremendous concern about control-ling smoking on University Avenue at that time, he did not believe Council saw it as an issue on which it needed to act. Since then,
08/14/95 76-451
there was plenty of evidence that smoking in entrance ways to buildings was a problem. Town and Country Village was probably the greatest concern where the smoking problems had forced some businesses out, and he would be very concerned if the travel center in Town and County Village suddenly relocated to Menlo Park or Los Altos as a result of the problems of public smoking. The corner of University Avenue and Bryant Street had become terribly unpleasant for many to a significant degree because of the smoking problem. He was pleased to point out that a number of private employers in Palo Alto had already enacted a rule to prohibit smoking within 50 feet of front entrances, and he applauded their efforts. It was not that long ago when the amount of money the tobacco interest put into the legislative coffers made it impossible to imagine state law in the area of smoking. Many of the businesses in Palo Alto initially complained about the lack of a level playing field and the competitive disadvantage since Palo Alto's smoking regulations were tougher than those of Menlo Park and Mountain View, and it was delightful that AB 13 established a level playing field across the state in the area of smoking. Hopefully, since President Clinton seemed willing to take on the tobacco interests in the South, there might be some significant federal action in the area as well. He supported the proposal. He thanked the City Attorney and the Police Department for bringing it forward. Council Member Huber associated with all of the comments of his colleagues. With regard to Vice Mayor Wheeler's additional language, he was prepared to accept all of the language of subsection (j)(5) because basically the areas referred to were City parks. The Palo Alto Unified School District already prohibited smoking in the areas designated in subsection (j)(5), and consistency with those regulations was appropriate. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Town and Country Village and queried whether the operator could ban smoking and whether the walkways there were private or public property. Mr. Calonne said the operator might be able to ban smoking in the walkways. The enforcement mechanism for shopping center rules and regulations was somewhat of a morass given the first amendment rights attached to that kind of public forum. He would question the effectiveness. It would probably be enforced through a request to the City to enforce the state trespass law. He was not sure that the private restriction took the City out of the picture in any meaningful way. Council Member Rosenbaum said the proposed amendments to the ordinance would make it simpler for the City to be of assistance to the Town and Country Village. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance was set up as an infraction, and the state trespass law was generally a misdemeanor which carried a right to a jury trial and was a much more cumbersome process. Council Member Rosenbaum said a number of City employees gathered on Level A to smoke. He did not know whether that was considered
08/14/95 76-452
outside and queried the City's reaction to the ordinance. Ms. Fleming said the area would be covered by the ordinance discussed that evening and the City would comply the same way as any other agency. That meant the smokers would have to move. Council Member Rosenbaum said clearly, there were people who would continue to smoke, and he queried where they might go. Ms. Fleming was not good in estimating how far the smokers would have to move, but it would probably be so far that they would have to go to the plaza. She discussed the matter briefly that morning with the City Attorney, and the Assistant Police Chief agreed the people would have to relocate to the plaza area. Council Member Rosenbaum raised the point because clearly other employers would face the same problems. He was willing to go along with the motion. He was there at the start, and they were getting to a point of diminishing return, and the regulations before the Council might turn out to be more of a hassle than what Council thought or perhaps what people would adjust to. Council Member McCown said her office did not have a break room where it was possible for someone to smoke. The small number of employees who smoked went outside into a patio area that was not 20 feet away from the door. She assumed they would have to go out and stand in the middle of the parking lot. Up and down University Avenue there would not be any legal location where an employee in a business could go outside and smoke. They would have to wander down some side street to figure out where they were 20 feet away from the door of a business. Council Member Rosenbaum might be right that Council would not hear any complaints about it, but she was concerned about the City's gain. Mayor Simitian said the Council would not hear the second reading of the ordinance amendment until after its break on September 11, 1995. The absence of people in attendance that evening might reflect an unbridled enthusiasm for the proposals before the Council, or people could be clueless about what Council was discussing. The item had not been in front of a Committee recently and was agendized only recently. If Council took action that evening, he suggested a friendly amendment to communicate with members of the business community, in particular through the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Marketing Committee and any other business organizations to apprise them of what the ordinance would mean. If Council were going to hear from folks, he preferred to hear from them before final action was taken to ensure their thoughts were considered rather than pass it without anyone paying much attention and then having folks swarming down immediately thereafter. He wanted to make sure the public was well informed before action at the second reading. Council Member Fazzino believed Mayor Simitian's suggestion was a sound approach. However, he believed Council would be underwhelmed by the comments received by businesses given his experience as a private employer. Employers were glad to have the
08/14/95 76-453
issue behind them and to no longer have to struggle with the competing rights of smokers and nonsmokers. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct staff to communicate with the business community, including the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Marketing Committee, before the second reading of the Ordinance. Council Member Andersen said he had left a message with the Chamber of Commerce that morning so that anyone concerned on either side of the issue might participate. He believed Council Member Fazzino was correct regarding Council's being underwhelmed. Ms. Johnson said in at least one other jurisdiction, the ordinance was interpreted to mean that as long as a person was moving, they were not considered in violation. It was important to remember the Police Department's enforcement of the ordinance would be on a complaint basis, and if a person were standing and smoking for any significant period of time, by the time an officer arrived at the scene, the issue might be moot depending upon what other calls for service there were. For another example, if a person were walking outside of A level and walked out of the garage around the Civic Center, that would not be interpreted as being in violation of the ordinance. If the person were just standing or sitting outside the entrance to A level, he/she would be in violation. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian announced that pursuant to Council direction, he appointed Council Members McCown and Huber, Vice Mayor Wheeler, and himself to author the Council's ballot argument in connection with Measure R on the November 7, 1995, ballot. Council Member McCown agreed to serve as chair of the ad hoc committee. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential negotiation and significant exposure to litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 14 and 15. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 14 and 15. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor
08/14/95 76-454
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 available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
08/14/95 76-455