HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-11 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting September 11, 1995 1. Drawing of the Ballot Order - General Municipal Election - November 7, 1995 ........................... 76-458 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 76-458 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 10, 12, 19, 21, AND 26, 1995 76-458 2. Request for Additional Appropriation of Funds for Computer Aided Dispatch and Fire Alerting System - Refer to Finance Committee ............................ 76-458 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and S. D. Myers, Inc. for Electrical Distribution Equipment Management and Disposal System ................................... 76-458 4. Contracts with Four Seasons Landscape Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance Services, change orders not to exceed $9,592; with Gachina Landscape Management for Landscape Maintenance Services, change orders not to exceed $18,490; and Zongar Johnson Construction for Tennis Court Cleaning Services ........................ 76-459 6. Application for Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide a 26,136-Square-Foot Parcel into 30 Airspace Condominium Units at 2650 Park Boulevard, 204, 228, and 230 Sheridan Avenue (Tract No. 8734) ...................... 76-459 7. Resolution 7547 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Citywide Stop Inter-section System Map .................................... 76-459 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 76-459 8. Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to El Camino Park ........................ 76-459 9. Consultant Agreement with Fehr and Peers Associates for Citywide School Commute Safety Study .................. 76-459 10. 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 Implement Labor Code
∋6404.5................................................ 76-460
09/11/95 76-456
10A. (Old Item No. 5) Agreement with National Parking Corporation for Operation of Attendant Parking Lot at Lot S ................................................. 76-472 11. Contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for Construction of Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project; and Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Agreement No. C404456 with Brown and Caldwell for Construction Stage Services during Construction of Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project ............................................... 76-479 12. Contract with D. L. Falk Construction Co. for Structurally Upgrading and Renovating the Senior Center Project ............................................... 76-480 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 76-482 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. .......... 76-482
09/11/95 76-457
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Drawing of the Ballot Order - General Municipal Election - November 7, 1995 Ballot Order was drawn at random as follows: 1 - Edmund Power 5 - John H. Barton 2 - Joe Simitian 6 - Dick Rosenbaum 3 - Joseph H. Huber 7 - Lanie Wheeler 4 - Andrew L. Freedman ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Watson, 1305 Bay Laurel, Menlo Park, spoke about the Stanford incinerator. Honorable Judge Eugene Hyman, Santa Clara County Municipal Court, 270 Grant Avenue, spoke regarding domestic violence. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding 200 Sheridan Avenue. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 10, 12, 19, 21, AND 26, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of June 5, 10, 12, 19, 21, and 26, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 4, 6, and 7. Refer 2. Request for Additional Appropriation of Funds for Computer Aided Dispatch and Fire Alerting System - Refer to Finance Committee Action 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and S. D. Myers, Inc. for Electrical Distribution Equipment Management and Disposal System 4. Contracts with Four Seasons Landscape Maintenance for Land-
09/11/95 76-458
scape Maintenance Services, change orders not to exceed $9,592; with Gachina Landscape Management for Landscape Maintenance Services, change orders not to exceed $18,490; and Zongar Johnson Construction for Tennis Court Cleaning Services 6. Application for Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide a 26,136-Square-Foot Parcel into 30 Airspace Condominium Units at 2650 Park Boulevard, 204, 228, and 230 Sheridan Avenue (Tract No. 8734) Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Court House Plaza Company for Street Maintenance, Repairs, and Landscaping 7. Resolution 7547 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Citywide Stop Intersection System Map" MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 - 4 and 7. MOTION PASSED 7-1 for Item No. 6, Rosenbaum "no," McCown "not participating." AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Simitian announced that Item No. 8 had been removed from the Consent Calendar and would be heard under ORDINANCES, and Item No. 5 would become Item No. 10A. ORDINANCES 8. Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to El Camino Park Victor Frost, Spokesperson for the Street People, Telephone Pole No. 1139, Palo Alto, said there was a lot of positive support from the street people regarding the organic garden project. Unfortunately, there were major problems between the street people of Palo Alto and the Urban Ministry. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Ordinance. Ordinance 4289 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to El Camino Park" (1st Reading 7/17/95, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED 9-0. 9. Consultant Agreement with Fehr and Peers Associates for Citywide School Commute Safety Study MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to: 1) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the consultant agreement with Fehr and Peers Associates in the amount of $43,000 to conduct Phase 1 of the Citywide School Commute Safety Study; 2)
09/11/95 76-459
authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute amendments for services that occur during the project, related to, or incidental to, the scope of work up to $2,000; and 3) adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $45,000 to appropriate funding for the project. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Fehr and Peers Associates for Citywide School Commute Safety Study Ordinance 4290 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 for the Planning and Community Environment Department for Phase One of a Two-Phase Citywide School Safety Study" Senior Planner Gayle Likens said the Council directed staff in March 1995 to proceed with Phase I of the Citywide School Commute Safety Study. In June 1995, the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee reviewed the Request for Proposal (RFP) and five firms responded to the RFP; three firms submitted independent proposals and two firms submitted a join proposal. A five-member interview panel composed of City staff, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) staff, and Parent Teachers Association (PTA) representa-tives reviewed the proposals and elected to interview all of the firms. The selection committee ranked Fehr and Peers Associates as the top firm based on its understanding of the issues, its comprehensive approach to the study, and its expertise and experience. The study would address school commute safety issues in a multi-disciplinary manner, including an analysis of school commute patterns and modes, existing conditions and traffic controls, accidents, as well as a review and evaluation of existing traffic safety education and community outreach programs. The consultant would develop recommendations for strategies to improve safety, including physical improvements and/or policy or program changes that could be for specific locations or applicable Citywide. Staff would initiate the study immediately following Council action on the item, and two public workshops had been tentatively scheduled for the last week of September 1995. Staff anticipated that the study would be concluded in approximately March 1996. Council Member Andersen asked why the funding for the study was not included in the budget for the current fiscal year. Ms. Likens said the project overlapped two fiscal years. The study was initiated in Fiscal Year 1995-1996, and staff proceeded with the development of the RFP, working with PAUSD. The item was then discussed by the P&S Committee, but an agreement was not awarded by June 30, 1995. Therefore, staff requested that similar funding be appropriated into the 1995-1996 budget. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. 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 Implement Labor Code ∋6404.5
09/11/95 76-460
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said when the Ordinance was before the Council in August 1995, staff understood that the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and other business interests were generally satisfied or were not concerned with the provisions that were before the Council at that time. Staff found out otherwise in August 1995; and as a result, there was considerable discussion internally about possible changes to the Ordinance. In addition to those changes and in the course of that discussion, another concern was raised which had to do with signage that he would like to propose as a change to the Council. In 1993, the City enacted outdoor smoking restrictions in "service locations," which were pay telephones, waiting lines, etc. The theory for regulating smoking in those areas was that people were forced to congregate there to do normal business. The Ordinance read literally required sign posting in those areas which had not been done and staff did not believe it was practical to do so. Likewise, the smoking restrictions for entrance and exit to buildings that the Council gave first reading to in August 1995 would require sign posting at each of the entrances. Staff proposed a simple change to the sign posting requirements to eliminate that requirement so that outdoor areas known as "service locations" in the Ordinance would not require sign posting. He referred to the changes at the Council's place that evening which included not only the sign posting provisions but several other provisions as well. Mayor Simitian was bemused at the depth and breadth of feeling on the issue in August 1995. Immediately prior to the Council's action in August, he received several messages that expressed either concern that the Council was about to destroy the City's existing ordinance or that the Council were overzealous health advocates. Much of the concern had to do with the fact that the item had come up unexpectedly to many members of the public on August 14, 1995. There was a lack of information. As a result, when the Council took action on August 14, 1995, he suggested and Council concurred that staff reach out to the business community for additional comments, so that before the Council took action on the second reading of the Ordinance, the Council would know how the community felt on the issue and could determine whether there were other issues that had not been fully considered. He clarified that the item was presented to the Council on August 14, 1995, by the City Attorney who wanted to ensure that the City's local ordinance conformed to state law which had changed since the time the Council enacted the Ordinance two years previously. At the same time, the City Attorney brought forward some issues dealing with outdoor smoking. There was a misperception by the public that the item first came up on August 14, 1995, but in fact the Council dealt with the issue as the City Attorney noted two years previously when it considered the Ordinance at the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee. A range of outdoor smoking limitations was considered at that time and several restrictions were recommended. The Council was prepared at that time to move forward on several other restrictions, including the ones acted on in August 1995, but the City Attorney recommended that the Council delay action on the issues until the state law sorted itself out. Given the fact that the City now had some clarity on state law in
09/11/95 76-461
August, the City Attorney brought forward the issues that had been unresolved in 1993 and indicated it was the appropriate time for Council to give staff direction on those issues. The second reading of an ordinance gave the public an opportunity to be heard if they desired. There was a number of legitimate interests that the Council had to balance, e.g., health, nuisance, business, and personal tolerance. He hoped the discussion that evening would focus on the proper balance of those legitimate interests. Mr. Calonne said the outdoor restrictions, "Areas within twenty (20) feet of the entrance or exit to an enclosed public place, except when the public place is closed, after ten (10) p.m., or when the entrance or exit is for the exclusive use of employees and not accessible to the general public," were contained in subsection (j)(3) of the Ordinance that dealt with "service loca-tions." The controversial portion of the work that was done in August related to entrances and exits of public places. A few changes had been discussed internally that were either nonsubstantive or had a rationale basis from a legislative standpoint. The intent of the first change was to create an exception when the public place was closed. The second exception was after 10:00 p.m. which was an attempt to balance the concerns raised by the evening trade which had developed dramatically in the last few years in the Downtown area and the view from a legislative standpoint that the traffic Downtown had diminished substantially. Most businesses were closed by 10:00 p.m. so the people who needed to conduct business would not be involuntarily exposed to smoke and there was less likelihood that children would be present. The third exception applied when the entrance or exit met two requirements: for the exclusive use of the employees and when it was not accessible to the general public. For example, an "employee only" entrance or exit to a building against the sidewalk on Hamilton Avenue would not meet that exception because it was accessible to the public. However, an employee entrance or exit on a back patio of a business would meet the exception. Hal Lesser, 4045 El Camino Way, opposed adoption of the Ordinance which would ban smoking within 20 feet of the entrance to a public service building. The people who objected to walking through clouds of smoke should put the blame where it belonged and not on the smoker. The Council previously decreed that people could not smoke in the buildings so smokers went outside to smoke. The Council now wanted to push smokers 20 feet from the building which in most cases put the smokers into the street. The Council wanted to force him to give up some of his liberties and deprived him of his right to smoke on the streets of Palo Alto. He felt the Council's actions were a form of tyranny, and he would defy the Ordinance if the Council passed it. Carol Tracy, 1850 Union No. 1114, San Francisco, commended the Council and the citizens of Palo Alto for the recognition of the health of its citizens of all ages. She said the Occupational Safety Health Act (OSHA) regulations stated that nicotine was a super toxic in 1990. Nicotine was a hazardous substances, and she suggested the Council support Dr. Kessler at the Food and Drug Association in Washington, D.C., in his efforts to pass nicotine
09/11/95 76-462
as a declared drug. Hal Michelson, P.O. Box 366, Stanford, Vice President for Govern-ment Affairs, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, said there was unanimous support throughout the business community in the City for the Ordinance in its proposed form. He noted that some restaurants and bars had existing nonenclosed space for their patrons that was within 20 feet of patio doors in their facilities. He understood if the Ordinance passed in its proposed form, those restaurants and bars would continue to be able to have up to 50 percent of the space they occupied or controlled as a smoking nonpublic space for their patrons. Discussion that evening should focus on the amended language proposed by the City Attorney that addressed the 10:00 p.m. signage and "employee only" entrance issues. Some patrons wanted to go outside a restaurant or bar after 10:00 p.m. to have the opportunity to smoke. The City Attorney observed that it was a diminutive exception for the convenience of those people since children were off the street and most businesses were not conducting business at that time. There was an interest by large organizations to have "employee only" entrances not accessible to the public at which smoking could be permitted. The language proposed would handle those two points. The Ordinance could be easily enforced and would be in the interest of the health of all Palo Altans, including the health of the employees of the businesses and business owners. Marion McKay, Lytton IV, 656 Lytton Avenue, read an article in the Palo Alto Weekly that quoted her comments. She felt that ordinances should be passed when smoke endangered people's lives. She suggested certain restaurants could be for smokers which might solve some of the problems. Sharlene Carlson, 129 Emerson Street No. 12, said she had a personal reaction to secondhand smoke. She believed 20 feet was the minimum that should be considered for keeping smoke away from doorways. She did not believe an exception should be made for employees other than the public. Doorways were not always kept closed at employee entrances. She worked for the Santa Clara County Department of Alcohol and Drug Services and had designed programs to deal with nicotine, alcohol, and drug addiction. There were special programs to educate people about keeping children away from secondhand smoke. The restrictions in place helped people become aware of the risks and helped them decide to quit. The issue was responsible smoking, and it was an important public health issue. Articles pointed out that over 50,000 people died each year of exposure to secondhand smoke. She urged the Council to pass the Ordinance. Leta Frye, 1289 College Avenue, volunteer for the American Cancer Society, asked the Council to pass the amendment to the Smoking Ordinance as proposed. The changes made the Ordinance more acceptable and usable for people in the work place. She reminded people that they could stop smoking through the help of the American Cancer Society's classes called "I Can Quit." The City of Palo Alto had been in the forefront for banning smoking and had received awards and recognition statewide in its participation to
09/11/95 76-463
create nonsmoking ordinances. She asked the City to move forward once again and ban smoking in public places. Bill Petersen, 228 Fulton Street, said the Farmer's Market became aware through a September 1, 1995, letter from the Police Depart-ment that the Ordinance would apply to the Farmer's Market. Other people that held outdoor events would also be affected by the Ordinance. The second reading of the Ordinance was a nonstandard place for public input. He was amused by the speed in which the Ordinance went through the process. It appeared to him that when the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) was solidly behind something and there was only lukewarm citizen opposition the Council short-circuited the process. Many people perceived that when arguments regarding traffic came from the public, the full impact of the process was held. Daniel Blumberg, 630 University Avenue, submitted an overview of his concerns about some of the health aspects of passive smoking (letter on file in the Clerk's Office). At his office at University Avenue, the management was not willing to change the location of the smoking even though when he opened his window on the second floor the smoke came inside. He hoped that there could be a distance between public entrances and where people smoked. The Ordinance might do more for the health of people in Palo Alto than he might do during his tenure as a physician. For health and humanity, the Council should pass the Ordinance. Alex Beretta, 3193 Ramona Street, said scientific studies could be used to attack virtually any behavior of a large group of people. People could not lead their lives according to what a scientific study concluded but instead led their lives based on personal observations and common sense. The country was founded on the idea that freedom came before safety, and the country supported a system that protected everyone's rights, including criminals, and thereby put children and loved ones in danger. It was the Council's duty not to cater to extremists, even when the extremists were in the majority. People needed to learn to live together and make allowances for each other. Margo Leathers, Executive Director, American Lung Association, Santa Clara/San Benito Counties, said the agency was also a member of the Santa Clara County Tobacco Control Coalition (SCCTCC) which was comprised of over 20 different community groups and public health advocates and her comments that evening were supported by the SCCTCC. It was a public health issue, not a issue of rights. She said smoking was a privilege, and tobacco had enjoyed a privilege that no other product or substance had enjoyed in America. The present climate in the country was to protect public health, and people had suddenly realized the damage that environ-mental tobacco smoke did; and therefore, the privileges were being restricted. Although smoking had never been a protected right in the country, there was a class of people who qualified under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as having respiratory disabilities. She commended the Council for its past action that showed that it understood the environmental tobacco smoke problem and wanted to protect the health of the people who lived and
09/11/95 76-464
worked in Palo Alto. She said the cities of Oakland, Albany, Fremont, Pleasanton, and Livermore had also restricted outdoor smoking to reasonable distances to entrances and exits. She said a recent article from the Environmental Protection Act stated "smoking should not be permitted right outside the doors or near building ventilation system air intakes where nonsmokers may have to pass through smoke from smokers congregated near doorways." There might not be a great deal of scientific evidence to support the hazards of smoking near doorways, but if environmental tobacco smoke were a carcinogen that caused thousands of deaths each year when used indoors, then sufficient quantities permitted outdoors would also be a great hazard. She urged the Council to add a clause to the "employee only" entrance and exit exception that made it insufficient if there were only one "employee only" entrance or exit. John Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, said Premier Properties was a very active property manager in the Downtown and had responsibility for the physical maintenance and development interest of many buildings in the Downtown. He said the Ordinance would be a good decision and would materially benefit the Downtown. The execution of the details of creating an attractive place for people to gather was the fundamental element of a successful business. The Noah's Bagels/Starbucks Coffee corner was a beautiful gathering place, but because of some of the smoking hazards, people avoided that corner. A significant amount of time, energy, and resources had been invested in the development of the Plaza Ramona, but one business had a smoking problem at front of that business. There would soon be a vacancy next door to that business, but every time a tenant considered leasing that space there was a problem with the gathering of smokers in the adjacent space. He believed the benefits of the Ordinance extended beyond the important issues of health to also the economic viability of the Downtown. He encouraged the Council's support of the Ordinance. Roxy Rapp, 373 University Avenue, said a survey of the Downtown merchants showed the majority of the businesses supported the Ordinance. He urged the Council to support the Ordinance. Doug Collister, Chief Operating Officer, Blue Chalk Cafe, 630 Ramona Street, clarified that both the Blue Chalk Cafe and Left at Albuquerque were nonsmoking establishments. He supported the amended Ordinance and appreciated the Council consideration of the Ordinance. He asked for clarification on the patio issue. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, echoed the comments of Mr. Michelson. Many of the Chamber members she had spoken with during the previous weeks since the issue arose agreed that smoking was a serious public health issue. The Chamber supported the Smoking Ordinance two years previously with only a few exceptions and supported the proposed revision. The City was moving in a direction of a totally smoke free environment, and other cities would follow Palo Alto's lead. The Chamber supported some type of compromise approach that allowed restaurants and other businesses that
09/11/95 76-465
catered to a nighttime clientele in all parts of Palo Alto some flexibility. She hoped there would be flexibility regarding the cost and aesthetics of signage. Since the Ordinance was enforced on a complaint basis and the current law did not require signage, she hoped signage could be made optional. Elliott Bolter, 286 Walter Hays, commended the Council for its sensitivity on the issue and protecting his rights. He was wounded that the Council had to consider an issue which amounted to common curiosity to one another. There was a fear when the City went to a smoke free town that business would go to neighboring communities, but the City was presently a hub of dining of the Peninsula. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said people who subjected other people to secondhand smoke were being anti-social. The Ordinance was a simple public health measure. He commended the Council for extending the Smoking Ordinance and putting in the 20-foot limit. All the buildings where he worked were signed as "no smoking buildings," and people who smoked were required to be at least 30 or 40 feet from all entrances. He suggested the Ordinance be adopted quickly. Mr. Calonne clarified the scope of the amendments that were included in the proposed Ordinance would require another first reading. Council Member Kniss asked for clarification regarding patio areas and if there were only one "employee only" entrance. Mr. Calonne clarified the existing Ordinance forbade smoking on half of an unenclosed restaurant seating area. State law forbade smoking in any restaurant anywhere which was consistent with the Ordinance. State law did not address smoking in bars. If there were an unenclosed patio, i.e., not covered to the sky as defined in the City's Ordinance, half of the area could be smoking. The question was whether there was a conflict and which part of the Ordinance would prevail. He viewed the more specific patio/dining provisions that permitted smoking in half of the area would prevail over the entrance/exit restriction. The Ordinance as drafted would not affect the 50 percent permitted smoking for outdoor dining areas. He did not believe the Blue Chalk Cafe had an outdoor seating area nor did it have any areas when it operated as a restaurant where it offered smoking. Council Member Kniss believed Blue Chalk Cafe thought it had an outdoor seating area. Mr. Calonne understood that the front vestibule entrance had smoking in the evening since during those hours the facility operated as a bar. The Ordinance had an exemption for bars as did the state law. Council Member Kniss clarified the sidewalks in that area were 20 feet wide. Mr. Calonne did not believe the sidewalks were that wide. A
09/11/95 76-466
radius of 20 feet from the door was the area being considered. Most areas in Palo Alto would extend into the street and some of it would extend down the sidewalk toward the next building. Open areas between building entrances depended on the location. Council Member Kniss asked about the employee entrances. Mr. Calonne said one of the issues that arose with AB 13 was that there were very few businesses which legitimately did not open themselves to the public. An instance where there might only be one employee entrance not accessible to the general public was difficult to understand. Mayor Simitian clarified there might be both a public entrance that an employee could use for entry or an "employee only" entrance. Mr. Calonne said only scenario he could envision might be a gated facility but he had not investigate the impact for such a facility. Council Member Huber asked whether the Smoking Ordinance applied to the Farmer's Market. Mr. Calonne said it was unenclosed and outdoors and the Ordinance would not apply. The Ordinance applied to enclosed public places. Council Member Huber asked whether there were any comments from members of the public regarding the other part of the 20-foot rule that related to parks and playgrounds, etc. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member Schneider clarified the Ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis. She asked whether the complaint was generally a telephone call to the Police Department. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said that was correct. A complaint would be called into the Communications Center with a request for an officer to respond. Council Member Schneider clarified the first offense received a warning, and the second offense received a $100 fine. Ms. Johnson said for a period of time after a new ordinance became effective, the Police Department issued warnings. Subsequent to that period, citations would be issued. Council Member Schneider asked whether there would be difficulties with the enforcement. Ms. Johnson said the only real difficulty would depend upon the activities of the officers. By the time an officer might respond to the complaint and have a discussion with the potential violator and the reporting party, the parties might have already left the premises.
09/11/95 76-467
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to introduce the Ordinance as amended for first reading as follows: Subsection 2(j)(3): Areas within twenty (20) feet of the entrance or exit to an enclosed public place, EXCEPT WHEN THE PUBLIC PLACE IS CLOSED, AFTER TEN (10) P.M., OR WHEN THE ENTRANCE OR EXIT IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF EMPLOYEES AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC; and Section 9.14.100 Posting of signs required. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SERVICE LOCATIONS, wherever this ordinance ..." 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
Implement Labor Code ∋6404.5" Council Member Fazzino believed the issue was a public health issue--no more, no less. Any smokers' rights to pleasure ended where his right to good health began. Secondhand smoke killed people. For 20 years Palo Alto had been in the forefront of efforts to limit the public's access to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. The City tackled theaters in 1974, portions of restaurants in 1977 and 1981, workplaces in 1983, and restaurants completely in public places in 1991. Each time the City had stepped forward with an additional incremental protection for the public. The City had previously heard from business people who claimed that the Council's actions would impact businesses negatively. There had been tremendous public support each time the City had gone the extra step, and businesses had only continued to prosper when more protection for the public had been provided. The proposal before the Council that evening protected the public in several ways: 1) it protected the public who wanted to enjoy food or coffee when seated at chairs and tables in public streets, and 2) it protected the public at entrances to workplaces. The proposal was not revolutionary. Many outdoor baseball and football stadiums across the country prohibited smoking in outdoor areas. Many of the largest employers in the community already prohibited smoking within at least 20 feet of public entrances. He was aware of one large employer that prohibited smoking within 50 feet of the entrance to the building. He would have preferred to ban smoking 20 feet from all public entrances 24 hours per day. He did not agree with the concerns of some bar owners that prohibiting smoking in front of their buildings after 10:00 p.m. would reduce business. However, given that the state's prohibition on smoking in bars did not become effective until 1997, he was willing to wait before moving forward with the next logical step, i.e., to ban smoking in front of bars as well. Even though bars might offer plenty of vices other than smoking, the Council needed to consider the bar employees' health as well. He was also persuaded that by 10:00 p.m. most food service had ended and most business establishments had closed for the day. He appreciated the efforts of the Chamber to work with the City to craft an ordinance that protected the public's health. He agreed with the Human Relations Commission (HRC) that the Ordinance needed to be enforced fairly and equally. He also
09/11/95 76-468
appreciated the strong support of the public for the Ordinance. He thanked Ms. Leathers from the American Lung Association for supporting the Ordinance, for sharing the important reasons for its passage, and letting Palo Alto know that it was not the first city to move forward with the Ordinance. He spoke with a Council Member from the City of Davis, which had passed the Ordinance, who pointed out that smoking in public places had practically ceased and enforcement had not been an issue. He did not expect that enforcement would be an issue in Palo Alto. He thanked the City Attorney, the Assistant Police Chief, and the Mayor for crafting an ordinance which addressed the issue of public health and at the same time could be enforced on a fair basis without the need for tremendous signage or other bureaucratic measures. He believed the Council would have the opportunity in the future to address the issues which were being postponed at the present time. Council Member Huber appreciated the efforts of Mayor Simitian, Council Member Fazzino, the City Attorney, and the Assistant Police Chief who helped prepare a reasonable Ordinance. Previous Councils and the present Council had approached smoking prohibition incrementally, and the compromise proposed was a good one. In the near future, the Council would be able to do something more stringent to protect the rights of the nonsmokers. The Council needed to deal with the issue because it was a health issue. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked the Mayor to divide the motion for the purpose of voting on the exception regarding 10:00 p.m. separately. She commended the staff and her colleagues who had worked very hard to bring the Council an ordinance which addressed many of the concerns voiced since the Council's previous meeting on the subject. She agreed with the members of the public who had stated that it was 99 percent a public health issue. She felt that people's lungs and hearts could not tell time, and they were as adversely affected by firsthand or secondhand smoke between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. as they were between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. She was concerned and would not support that exception to the Ordinance. Otherwise, she was very pleased to support the Ordinance. Council Member Kniss said previously people were allowed to smoke in theaters, airplanes, and hospital rooms. Ruling out smoking within 20 feet of a restaurant was not such an extreme step since some of the extreme steps were made in 1974. In the early 1990s the Council ruled out smoking in the restaurants. When the Council initially introduced the Ordinance prohibiting smoking in restaurants, the Council Chambers was filled with people that evening who voiced their concern that businesses in Palo Alto would be ruined. The sales tax statistics did not support that belief, in fact, it went in the other direction. More cities had followed Palo Alto's lead. She said the restaurants in the Downtown area were now open to the sidewalk; and as the Downtown became more popular, the after 10:00 p.m. exception would be harder to enforce. She commended the people who worked on the Ordinance. Eventually, ordinances that referred to smoking would be tightened substantially.
09/11/95 76-469
Council Member Andersen said the Ordinance would have an impact on the Town and Country Village area which had a large number students smoking there during brunch and the lunch hour. There had been an increase in the number of young people who smoked in the community. Young people who smoked had a sense that there was no tomorrow, but the future was real when you listened to some of the speakers who spoke that evening. He was concerned about the modification of the Ordinance, but he commended the Mayor and Council Member Fazzino for working on the Ordinance. He did not believe the 10:00 p.m. exception was a good health policy and he would oppose the exception. The policy would probably be altered in 1997. He was concerned about the private employee entrance; and before 1997, he would want to know whether people would be exposed to secondhand smoke as a result of that exception. He did not believe there was any violation of process in the effort. He would support the motion. He was happy the community was taking that kind of lead and hoped other communities would do the same. Council Member Schneider was troubled that there was a significant rise in the use of tobacco products by young people. She objected to being called tyrannical because she wanted smoking to cease when it interfered with the good health of the people. The City had always been at the forefront with issues, and the City frequently restrained individuals in the interest of public health. She would support the 10:00 p.m. exception that allowed smoking from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Most of the new restaurants were nonsmoking restaurants, and she had not seen a crowd of people gathering around those entrances after 10:00 p.m. or interfering with the health of the people who were dining there. She strongly supported the amended Smoking Ordinance. Council Member Rosenbaum felt that the 10:00 p.m. exception in the Ordinance devalued the Council's concern about the health of the people who were out after 10:00 p.m. He asked why the exception was important and who would be offended if it were removed. Council Member Fazzino understood the Chamber informally surveyed its members and had a very strong sense that most food establish-ments stopped serving by that hour. The most significant reason why the 10:00 p.m. exception was proposed was because the estab-lishments that were both restaurants and bars moved into a "bar only" mode after 10:00 p.m. Mayor Simitian said part of the problem had to do with the concentration of numbers. It was a very different circumstance when there were stores and office buildings with large numbers of people congregating outside which created a problem that was not seen after 10:00 p.m. when most businesses were closed and a smaller number of people congregated from the modest number of establishments still open, i.e., bars and restaurants. It was a much smaller problem and could be dealt with more easily and avoided if that were a concern. Council Member McCown clarified when the state law went into
09/11/95 76-470
effect that prohibited smoking in bars, the City's Ordinance would be amended at that point because the combination of smoking in bars would be eliminated. Council Member Fazzino said if the establishments did not have effective ventilation systems in place in 1997, bars would have to go to nonsmoking at that point. The Council would have to act in order to change the City's Ordinance to disallow smoking in front of any establishment after 10:00 p.m. Mayor Simitian said the Council had discussed the item two years previously and again last month, and he was pleased that the Council had heard from the public and members of the business community on the issue. He believed it was a balancing of interests between the public health interest and the nuisance issue which was also important. He did not believe every bad behavior could be regulated and sometimes people were better served by a little more thoughtfulness and tolerance. However, the current issue had its thoughtfulness and tolerance limits, and the Council had to move beyond simple thoughtfulness and tolerance toward some regulation in order to deal with the real problems. When the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee discussed the issue two years previously, it tried to avoid people walking into public buildings where there were large numbers of employees congregating outside because smoking was no longer allowed inside. The P&S Committee also believed that if people went to the ballpark to watch their children play and sat in the bleachers, they should not have the problem there either because that was the only place to watch the game. The proposed Ordinance still avoided those issues. At that time, the P&S Committee indicated it was not interested in prohibiting smoking within 20 feet of a newspaper rack or park bench. The P&S Committee tried to address the health and nuisance issues and still be reasonable. He believed reasonableness was important and also believed the success of the Ordinance would depend on the City's ability to enforce it and have the community accept it. When the Council moved incrementally, it had the greatest opportunity for success. He would support the proposed amendments to the Ordinance and the underlying motion to prohibit smoking within 20 feet of an entrance or exit. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING 1ST PART OF THE MAIN MOTION REGARDING "EXCEPT WHEN THE PUBLIC PLACE IS CLOSED, AFTER TEN (10) P.M." MOTION PASSED 6-3, Andersen, Kniss, Wheeler "no." 2ND PART OF THE MOTION REGARDING "WHEN THE ENTRANCE OR EXIT IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF EMPLOYEES AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC; and Section 9.14.100 Posting of signs required. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SERVICE LOCATIONS" MOTION PASSED 9-0. MAIN MOTION RESTATED: introduce the Ordinance as amended for first
09/11/95 76-471
reading as follows: Subsection 2(j)(3): Areas within twenty (20) feet of the entrance or exit to an enclosed public place, EXCEPT WHEN THE PUBLIC PLACE IS CLOSED, AFTER TEN (10) P.M., OR WHEN THE ENTRANCE OR EXIT IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF EMPLOYEES AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC; and Section 9.14.100 Posting of signs required. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SERVICE LOCATIONS, wherever this ordinance ..." MAIN MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS: 9:15 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. 10A. (Old Item No. 5) Agreement with National Parking Corporation for Operation of Attendant Parking Lot at Lot S Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the intent of the attendant parking lot was one part of the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Plan which was to provide a place for visitors to the Downtown area to park for longer than the two- to three-hour limits that were currently provided for on the streets and in the parking lots. Per Council direction in the spring, staff met with representatives from the Senior Center (the Center) and attempted to work out some accommodations for seniors. As part of the lease agreement with the Senior Coordinating Council (SCC), 25 spaces in Lot C directly behind the Center had been designated for use by users of the Center. Additionally, there were four "unofficial" parking spaces to the south of the Center in the alley which were for the primary use of the Center's staff or visitors. Staff was proposing to give the Center 15 additional spaces in the attendant Lot S which was located directly across from the Center. That brought the total of free unlimited time parking spaces for the Center's use to 44 spaces. When staff designated color zones of demarkation, it consciously choose to divide the Coral and Lime Zones on Bryant Street so that seniors could park in lots such as Lot S on the 400 block of Florence Street or Lot L on the corner of Lytton Avenue and Bryant Street which were close by and in two separate color zones. Staff understood there was some concern but until there was some experience with the implementation of an attendant lot, staff would not know what the impact would be. Staff believed that if there were too much change in the finite designation of the number of spaces in the attendant lot for use by the Center users, it would defeat the purpose and the original intent of the attendant lot. During the initial implementation phases, staff would communicate with the members and staff of the Center and closely monitor the impact. If there any significant impacts, staff would return to Council with further recommenda-tions. Vice Mayor Wheeler had reviewed the minutes from the Standing Committee and Council meetings that had led up to the action that was passed by Council which spoke to the adoption of the fee schedule with a nominal fee of $1.00 for the first two hours that allowed for validation. She asked what happened to the validation portion of the motion.
09/11/95 76-472
Ms. Johnson said with the designation of the 15 spaces in the attendant lot, a validation of sorts would occur in that while there were 15 spaces designated for the Center users, once the person went to the Center, upon that person's return to pick up his/her car there would be some sort of stamp indicating he/she had been to the Center. It might not be the extent of the validation that was originally discussed but it was the accommodation that staff had proposed. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether it was staff's opinion that the validation was too complex, was in need of further study, or that the substitute proposal was as good or better than a validation system. Ms. Johnson said staff talked to the potential vendors regarding a validation system for anyone using the lot and had determined that because it was only going to be a one-year trial period, it would be best to get some experience to see how successful the attendant lot concept would work in Palo Alto. If successful, then a validation process could be considered. Staff felt the logistics as to whether validation books would be sold to businesses and whether the City would subsidize it was too complex and aggressive to undertake during the first year of a trial period. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether it was a mechanism that staff would look if the lot appeared to be a successful venture. Ms. Johnson replied yes. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether there was an assurance built in that the 15 spaces set aside for the Center's use would actually be used by seniors that went to the Center or whether 15 seniors could out smart the system and park all day free. Police Lieutenant Don Hartlett said that concerned the vendor because there needed to be tight audit controls. The vendor had proposed to meet with the Center staff and discuss something that would be agreeable to the vendor, the auditor, and the Center staff. One possibility would be that any car going into the lot would receive a parking ticket which would need to be stamped at the Center and returned when the person picked up his/her vehicle. The vendor was flexible and had shown an interest in talking to people in the business community and the Center to work out any issues raised. Vice Mayor Wheeler confirmed that it was the intent of the vendor once the contract was signed to meet with the Center staff to work out the mechanics of how the 15 spaces would be monitored and utilized. Mr. Hartlett said it was added to the contract that community outreach be a part of the requirement for accepting the agreement and that the vendor would work with the Center, the nearby businesses, and City staff to address any unclear areas. Most important to the vendor was to have a tight audit control.
09/11/95 76-473
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there would be 15 particular spaces and whether an attendant would be required or people could drive into the lot. Mr. Hartlett replied that was a question raised by the vendor and the vendor had proposed either to use 15 specified spaces and or use 15 random spaces, whichever could be agreed upon by City staff, the Center staff, and the vendor. Council Member Rosenbaum said that members of the Center had contacted the Council Members requesting unlimited validated parking, whereas what was being proposed was 15 spaces. He asked whether that was the difference between what the Center wanted and what staff had proposed. Ms. Johnson said that was the main difference. Staff's concern with the unlimited validation would be that theoretically at any one point in time, over half the spaces of the parking lot could be occupied by users of the attendant lot which defeated the original intent of the attendant lot. Council Member Schneider asked how Lot S would be physically changed, and what kind of instruments or barricades would be used in the lot. Mr. Hartlett said the biggest change would be that there would only be one entrance and one exit which would be located on Bryant Street. The vendor proposed that a portable ticket booth be used at the location so the entrance an exit on the east side of the lot would be closed which would allow for additional parking spaces. There would also be some additional signage. Something that was much different than the initial proposal was that gates, poles, or fencing was not going to be added. Council Member Schneider asked whether the entire lot was going to be restriped. Mr. Hartlett said it would not be necessary. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said the spaces would continue to be striped as they were currently. The vendor did have a choice of striping some additional spaces at 90 degrees to existing spaces or parallel to the isles if the vendor wished to do so. Council Member Schneider said some of the merchants Downtown had spoken to her about a desire to have validation for their own customers. Kathleen Gwynn, member of Senior Coordinating Council, 769A Loma Verde Avenue, appreciated the Police Departments willingness to engage in discussions over the months and try to reach some accommodation. She was under the same impression as Vice Mayor Wheeler that validation was part of the plan. She had been out on medical leave for a couple of months and had just recently learned
09/11/95 76-474
about the 15 parking spaces. The SCC remained very concerned, despite the work of the City staff, about seniors having to possibly pay for use of the attendant parking lot since it was both the largest and the closest to the front doors to the Center. Seniors had commonly used that lot for many years for their parking needs while participating in SCC activities, using SCC services, and lunching at La Comida. It would be a particular burden during the course of the next nine months while the SCC was located in three different locations that literally surrounded Lot S. The SCC not only believed that the number of spaces in the current proposal was inadequate to meet the needs of seniors, particularly at lunch time, but it would actually inhibit seniors from seeking use of the Center and the other SCC services. It was a financial burden to have to pay to gain access to senior services by virtue of even a $1.00 fee for the first two hours simply because the Center was located in a very busy Downtown area. There was only one senior center in the Palo Alto community, and she felt the City and the SCC should make it the most vital and active place it could be for the seniors. On behalf of the SCC she proposed the following to the Council: 1) given that Lot S was the lot best suited to attempt for parking in the Downtown area, seniors who wished to use a senior service or La Comida's lunch program would receive free parking for two hours with validation, and after the free two hours, seniors would begin to accrue time as if they had just parked in the lot; 2) the SCC would work with the vendor and La Comida to discuss appropriate validation and the SCC was willing to be responsible for validation to ensure that only seniors that had used one of the services were in those spaces; and 3) due to concerns that half the lot might be used by seniors, which it had always been and which the SCC felt was an appropriate use to minimize the use of Lot S when other parking was available, the SCC staff would actively promote and publicize the other options available to seniors based on discussions with Assistant Police Chief Johnson and others. The stated options would include: a) those with disabled placards would be able to park in any legal street spot for any length of time; b) use by the Senior Center Membership Association (SCMA) of the 25 spaces which it had had since the inception of the lease agreement; and c) the availability of other nearby lots and street parking in the Lime and Coral Zones. At the suggestion of a City Council Member, the SCC had drafted some language to amend the Resolution (on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Council Member McCown asked Ms. Gwynn whether the validation approach was in addition to the designation of the 15 spaces. Ms. Gwynn replied no. The SCC's amendment to the Resolution was in-lieu of the 15 spaces. Council Member McCown asked if any thought had been given to the fact that if the lot were successful as a long-term parking alternative for people who were willing to pay $8.00, at 11:30 a.m. the lot might be full and there would be no parking available for seniors going to the Center.
09/11/95 76-475
Ms. Gwynn said that was the other concern. She understood there had been a lot of work done by the Downtown Parking Committee over many years to propose that Lot S was the appropriate lot to use as an attendant lot. In her personal judgment, it would not have been the lot that she would have chosen, given the existence of the Center. It might be successful and the SCC might have to return to Council, but she wanted the seniors to feel they had free access to the Center. Council Member McCown said the whole issue was an experiment and she was torn between whether or the spaces that would be guaranteed to the Center would be involve a charge as opposed to competing for any space without a charge. Ms. Gwynn said the SCC had concluded that it would be much easier to keep clients using the organization if they did not have to pay a $1.00 fee to park closer. The SCMA had discussed the item at length and there was a particular concern since Lot S was the center of their "Downtown campus" for the next nine months during the relocation. The SCC did not want seniors to think that they only had 15 spaces. Money mattered to the seniors, and she felt they would get creative and find available parking by coming earlier than usual. Council Member Schneider asked what the average length of time was that seniors spent at the Center. Ms. Gwynn said a transportation survey had been done in January and based on 229 responses to the survey, close to 50 percent of the seniors stayed for two or more hours. Council Member Schneider asked with regard to the colored zone parking, what the seniors did after two hours. Ms. Gwynn replied being between the Coral and Lime Zones, the seniors would park in one for two hours and then go across to Lot S for the next two hours. The seniors were moving their cars from in front of the Center in the morning to Lot S because it was close and convenient. Most of the seniors stayed for three hours but they had to move to the colored zones for that third hour. Council Member Schneider said City staff stated it ranged from 12 to 58 spaces and she confirmed that with the 15 spaces, the Center would be 14 spaces short at the highest usage time. Ms. Gwynn said of the 229 survey responses that looked at the 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. time slot, the numbers on Monday through Thursday went from 50 to 80 to 55 to 62 and only on Friday down to 43. If the Friday were taken out, though the City staff said 58, there were 80 people. There were approximately 135 seniors who went to lunch at La Comida every day and most of them drove in. City Manager June Fleming was concerned that Council was trying to work everything out that evening. City staff had worked very hard to try and accommodate the seniors and to make the experiment work. She understood that Ms. Gwynn was speaking of two hours yet
09/11/95 76-476
the written proposal did not refer to that. She had checked with staff and felt that staff could talk to the vendor and get some extension. It might be a better use of the Council's time if staff went to the vendor to see if a compromise could be reached and return to Council rather than to have the Council pick it apart that evening. She did not know if it could be accomplished, but staff was willing to try. Council Member Kniss said one of the reasons the Center was located Downtown was so seniors could walk, take the van, etc. She asked roughly how many seniors drove Downtown and was there more than one per car. Ms. Gwynn said the survey response indicated 80 percent of the seniors drove in. The good news was they were coming to the Center from outside the Downtown area but not many seniors carpooled. Council Member Kniss asked if the seniors came primarily for the companionship at lunch or because it was inexpensive. Ms. Gwynn could not speak for the La Comida's Board, but she understood that the seniors came for both the socialization process and a nutritious lunch for a supplement of $1.50, but the major attraction was the inexpensive lunch. The SCC did some work scientifically surveying clients and almost 50 percent of them had annual household incomes of less than $25,000 and out of that group more than half had annual household incomes of less than $15,000. Council Member Kniss was surprised that so many seniors drove. She thought more would come by some other means of transportation. Adding $1.00 to $1.50 did not seem like a dramatic difference but perhaps it was. Ms. Gwynn said if Council Member Kniss saw the age of the cars, she might be more persuaded that the seniors were low-income. The noise generated by seniors who had nothing else to do with their time during the day except to complain about fees would have to be dealt with by all if the fee went into effect. Fees would cause huge problems and she was trying to find a creative way to resolve the issue. Council Member Kniss said she was not suggesting the seniors were not low-income and thanked Ms. Gwynn for helping the Council get to the real issues. Barbara Carlitz, Vice President of Board of Directors and Chair of Retrofit Committee of Senior Coordinating Council, 2291 Ramona Street, said it had been her pleasure to work with City staff and the Council in getting the Center relocated. Part of the problem was timing. With Lot S identified as the center of the "campus," all of the buildings circled that lot. The SCC staff had settled into their relocated quarters, but the clientele was much older and still tried to find the Center at the old 450 Bryant Street location. Anything that could be done to not further confuse the
09/11/95 76-477
seniors during the next year would help and that was why the timing of the proposal was so unfortunate. The SCC was willing to be flexible and asked for the City to be flexible too. She felt it was a good idea to see whether there was another way to solve the problem. There were other parking lots such as Lot L or something closer to the Center. The worst time was lunch time and things had gotten worse with Stars Restaurant opening in the immediate neighborhood. Parking was a real premium. She wanted to share the concern of the Board as well as the staff. Council Member Huber referred to a survey which stated "average amount of vehicles range from 12 to 58" which Ms. Gwynn had stated was higher. He asked whether the vehicles were in Lot S or whether the vehicles were used by people who went to the Center. Ms. Johnson replied the vehicles were driven by people who used the Center, and that was also based on another nonscientific survey done by the City's parking enforcement officers as recently as that day looking for vehicles displaying the MA stickers. Actually, since the retrofit process had begun, staff had found more seniors parking in Lot F which was on Florence Street and Lot L on the corner of Lytton Avenue and Bryant Street. Council Member Huber clarified staff did not know when the Center was running at full capacity in Lot S and how many senior vehicles were parked in that lot during the heavy use times. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Council Member Huber asked whether an estimate could be made because he saw it as a kind of ratio between the old and the new and he did not know how to gauge the old. Ms. Johnson replied was not sure it was possible but would work with Ms. Gwynn and try and make a determination. Council Member Huber said 15 spaces above the 25 spaces might be more than the old ratio of use in the lot and the Council needed to have some sense of that. The interests of the seniors needed to be protected in using that lot and if it had not been all that great because of normal use, then he would have a different feel for it. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with National Parking Corpora-tion in the amount of $62,670 for 1995-96 operation of the attendant parking lot at Lot S and to provide for discussion and negotiations with the Senior Coordinating Council regarding attendant lot issues. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and National Parking Corporation for Operation of Attendant Parking Lot at Lot S Ms. Fleming said if the Council approved the contract that evening, staff would negotiate a compromise before the contract was implemented.
09/11/95 76-478
Vice Mayor Wheeler wanted assurance that action would not delay the project. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that staff would return to the Council with a compromise negotiated with the Senior Coordinating Council before the contract was implemented. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the attendant lot was one of the key elements to the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce's 13-Point Parking Plan which had been presented to the Council. As an individual Council Member she had not received mail on any issue in greater quantity than she had revolving around parking problems in the Downtown in general and most specifically to run errands, attend business appointments, or a combination of lunch and errands and needing to park for a longer period of time than the two-hour limit permitted. The real key element of that parking plan was to permit people to spend more than a two-hour period Downtown which was a better solution for everyone concerned than chalked tires and constantly moving vehicles. On the other hand, she was concerned about the potential impact on the Center and glad those issues would be dealt with up front. She felt part of the problem was that the item took a different turn from the motion and the direction that staff received from the Council which was confusing to the people who felt they were being adversely impacted. It was confusing to her as a Council Member when she was first contacted about the issue because at that time there was no mention in the staff report of the fact that there was a different conclusion after the study. She asked that in the future if staff ran into problems with implementing the Council's action that it be mentioned in the staff report so the Council would be aware of it. Council Member Andersen appreciated Vice Mayor Wheeler's comments about the way the item was handled. It may have been a matter of interpretation, but it was very disturbing when the Council had provided a specific direction and staff took another turn. Mayor Simitian felt staff had responded to Council direction but it was a difficult situation because staff had to deal with a policy issue through a contract award which was not a very good vehicle to deal with policy issues. He was in the same place as he was previously on the issue that no one should be charged for the first two hours. In terms of the specific issue with the SCC that costs needed to be recovered, a dollar would not make the City rich and the way he looked at it the City was looking at 40 extra spaces and at $20,000 a space that was $800,000 that the City did not have to spend to create those spaces. The lot was across the street from the Center which was probably heavily used by seniors during lunch time, and it did not make sense to put a 65 percent surcharge on what was supposed to be an affordable subsidized lunch. He felt the issue had gotten more complicated than it needed to be, and he hoped staff would keep his comments in mind while trying to resolve the problem. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
09/11/95 76-479
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 11. Contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for Construction of Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project; and Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Agreement No. C404456 with Brown and Caldwell for Construction Stage Services during Construction of Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said the item was one of the first items being awarded under the major storm drainage program and one of the largest contracts, $3,000,000, awarded by Public Works Department in many years. Staff was asking for the award of the contract as well as an additional agreement with a consultant for consultant stage services. It would address the City's first priority need for upgrading the pump stations in Palo Alto and ensure flood protection in regional areas of the City. Since the failure of a pump station was quite catastrophic to the City, it was being taken as a first-priority project. Staff was looking at having all of the pump stations in the City retrofitted. City Manager June Fleming called attention to the fact that it was a regular award of contract which was usually put on the Consent Calendar, but given the magnitude of the contract and the impor-tance of the issue, she had made the conscious decision not to put the item on the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to: 1) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in the amount of $3,002,000 for the Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project; 2) authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for related but unforeseen work the total value of which change orders shall not exceed $300,000; 3) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Agreement No. C404456 with Brown and Caldwell in the amount of $104,000 for construction stage services during construction of Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project; and 4) increase the City Manager's or her designee's authority to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the agreement with Brown and Caldwell for related but unforeseen work, the total value of which change orders shall not exceed $90,000 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for Construction of Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Agreement No. C404456 between the City of Palo Alto and Brown and Caldwell for Construction Stage Services during Construction of Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project MOTION PASSED 9-0.
09/11/95 76-480
12. Contract with D. L. Falk Construction Co. for Structurally Upgrading and Renovating the Senior Center Project Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said staff had been working on the project for approximately four years and asked for Council's approval of the contract that would structurally upgrade and renovate the Senior Center building which would take place over the next year. The bids were very competitive on the project. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by to Fazzino: 1) approve the contract with D. L. Falk Construction Inc., in the amount of $625,461 for structurally upgrading and renovating the Senior Center building at 450 Bryant Street; and 2) authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract for related but unforeseen work with D. L. Falk Construction Inc., the total amount of which change orders shall not exceed $125,100 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and D. L. Falk Con-struction Co. for Structurally Upgrading and Renovating the Senior Center Project Mayor Simitian noted the City Manager was authorized for a 20 percent change order which was a significant variance over the initial bid. He appreciated the explanation that had been given and felt the Council was receiving the kind of information necessary to act on bids of that size. He noted, however, the significant potential for change orders. He recalled from the City Auditor's recent work plan that two additional audits were anticipated from the initial work on contract bidding and award of contracts which had to do with purchase orders and change order impacts. City Auditor Bill Vinson said that was correct. Mayor Simitian clarified the City Auditor's Office would be reviewing how the process worked and the percentage of dollar amounts that went over the initial bid. Mr. Vinson said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked whether the process would provide the Council with information on the Palo Alto's overages compared with other jurisdictions and whether or not the City's end costs were 1, 5, or 10 percent over the bid awarded. Mr. Vinson said information would be included in the scope of the audit. Palo Alto's experience would be benchmarked with those of other cities and counties. Mayor Simitian asked whether a benchmark of the difference between communities that had prevailing wages and communities that did not and whether or not that had any impact on the cost overrun figure could be included in the audit.
09/11/95 76-481
Mr. Vinson said information would be included in the scope of the audit as staff did the survey and tried to obtain justifications why certain bids were higher than others. Council Member McCown referred to the engineer's estimate and the bids and said the structural steel estimate was radically differ-ent. The engineer's estimate was $200,000 but all the bidders estimated a fraction of that figure. She asked what staff did when the City received that kind of discrepancy. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said a review process was done as staff looked at the bids submitted and tried to analyze why there were differences. On the proposed project, staff went back to the consultant on the job and asked that a very detailed review and analysis be performed. He said sometimes contractors unbalanced their bids; and while the total dollar amount would be correct, they assigned a greater dollar value to the items that occurred earlier in the work to help their cash flow. Most contractors engaged in that good business practice. Mr. Bagdon said staff spoke to the contractor about that issue, and he/she returned with the quotes that had been received from the subcontractors which ranged from $61,000 to $240,000 on the structural steel item. Council Member McCown said the successful bidder was not radically different from the other bidders on that item. The City's engineer estimated the item at $200,000, and the estimate from the other bidders was in the range of $44,000 to $66,000. There was a significant magnitude of difference between the amounts. Mr. Bagdon said when the engineer's estimate was prepared, staff probably checked with one subcontractor that gave the $200,000 estimate and he did not get the job. The range was $61,000 to $240,000, but the successful contractor as well as the other contractors found a cheaper source for the steel. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Police Chief Chris Durkin said a series of assaults had occurred in Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale. He reported the specific incidents and announced that a multi-agency community post center had been established. He said the hotline number was 329-2307. He said the Guardian Angels had made their presence known in the City of Palo Alto. City Manager June Fleming said the Police Departments had mobilized their resources in an unprecedented effort. She applauded the Police Departments' efforts to date. Council Member Fazzino personally apologized to the veterans in
09/11/95 76-482
the community for the exhibit which was displayed in the Civic Center Lobby because of the fact that the exhibit had a one-sided view. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 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 available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
09/11/95 76-483