HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-10 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 10, 1995 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with
Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code ∋54957.6.. 77-104 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ........... 77-104 1. Presentation re Stanford University's Marguerite Shuttle System ........................................ 77-105 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 77-106 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 .................. 77-106 2. Initiation of Public Facilities Zone Text Change for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Project - Refer to the Planning .............................................. 77-107 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Tou Bar Equipment Rental and Sales Company, Inc. for 1995 Inert Solids Recycling ...................................... 77-107 4. Ordinance 4297 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Accept a Grant from the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission for the Open Space and Sciences Program ....................... 77-107 5. Ordinance 4298 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish and Change Special Speed Zones for Certain Streets or Portions of Streets ............................................... 77-107 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS .................. 77-107 6. Conference with Real Property Negotiator .............. 77-107 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Proposals for an Option to Lease City-Owned Property Located in the Arastradero Preserve, Also Known as the Arastradero Preserve Main House ................................................. 77-108 9. Santa Clara County Transit District Request for Palo Alto to Approve Transit Shelter Advertising Program ... 77-117
10/10/95 77-102
10. League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolu-tions ................................................. 77-132 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 77-137 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to a Closed Session ............................................... 77-137 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:51 p.m. .... 77-138
10/10/95 77-103
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with Labor
Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code ∋54957.6 Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers Association (PAPOA) Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Susan Ryerson, Leslie Jennings, Lynne Johnson) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Vice Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable or disclosable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
10/10/95 77-104
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation re Stanford University's Marguerite Shuttle System Andy Coe, Director of Community Relations, Stanford University, presented an overview of the programs and said that Stanford University (Stanford) was interested in working in concert with the City of Palo Alto and its other neighbors. He referred to the information packet provided to the Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and he said Stanford had always taken transporta-tion planning very seriously and had aggressively encouraged alternatives to the use of the single-occupancy vehicle. Stanford recognized that responsible transportation planning made good sense for the Stanford community, as well as all of the communities. Stanford was the only private sector employer in Santa Clara County (the County) that charged for parking, and it had learned that market-based incentives were the best encouragement for reducing the reliance on the single-occupancy vehicle. Stanford had stated in its "no net new trips" agreement with the County that for every additional person that Stanford added to its daily campus population, Stanford would reduce by one the use of a single-occupancy vehicle or add one extra housing unit. Through that commitment and with those results, Stanford contributed to the reduction of pollution, easing traffic conges-tion, and preserving open space. Stanford also believed more should be done and was interested in working in partnership with the City and its neighbors. Julia Fremon, Transportation Program Manager, Stanford University, said her job was to make sure that Stanford reached its "no net new trips" goals. She said a planning effort was launched last year that produced a transit plan which called for doubling the Marguerite service in the Fall of 1995 and again in 1996 which would transform the shuttle service into a full-fledged local transit system that would serve as many markets as possible. She described recent and future improvements to the Marguerite Shuttle System (the Shuttle). The City's Comprehensive Plan had suggested that Palo Alto develop a local transit system that would be modeled after and connected to the Shuttle. Stanford looked forward to working with the City staff on the development of some of those ideas. Council Member Andersen was pleased with the presentation and appreciated Stanford's willingness to work with the City. Council Member Fazzino congratulated Stanford for its outstanding Marguerite Shuttle System. A local small-scale transit system
10/10/95 77-105
offered a lot of promise for the future. He asked whether there were some logical routes the Shuttle might expand to in the near future. Ms. Fremon suggested expansion of the Shuttle service further into the Downtown area and the residential neighborhoods near the Downtown to Midtown. Council Member Fazzino asked if Stanford had had any conversations with businesses in the Stanford Research Park regarding the possibility of merging the Shuttle service from CalTrain. Ms. Fremon said she hoped to discuss that issue with the businesses soon. It was difficult to find a route that served the population centers efficiently in a place such as the Stanford Research Park because it was so spread out. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there were any special factors that enabled Stanford to charge for parking, whereas other large employers were not able or willing to do so. Ms. Fremon said universities generally charged for employee and visitor parking. She said Stanford's parking rates were quite low compared to other universities. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there was great objection from Stanford's employees regarding the parking. Ms. Fremon said yes. Council Member McCown asked whether an analysis had been done on how the increased accessibility of the Shuttle would induce more people to use CalTrain and whether there was a relationship between the two. Ms. Fremon felt there was a relationship between the two, but a study had not been done. A late service to the train station would make a difference for the employees and students who had flexible schedules. Council Member McCown clarified there were 350 faculty and students who commuted by CalTrain and used the Shuttle system. Ms. Fremon said that was correct. NO ACTION REQUIRED. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 323 Byron Street, spoke regarding Police Department abuse. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding playing politics (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Margaret Feuer, 1310 University Avenue, spoke regarding the "No on
10/10/95 77-106
R" Committee's paid consultant (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of September 11, 1995, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 5. Refer 2. Initiation of Public Facilities Zone Text Change for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Project - Refer to the Planning Commission Action 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Tou Bar Equipment Rental and Sales Company, Inc. for 1995 Inert Solids Recy-cling; change orders not to exceed $6,650 4. Ordinance 4297 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Accept a Grant from the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission for the Open Space and Sciences Program" 5. Ordinance 4298 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish and Change Special Speed Zones for Certain Streets or Portions of Streets" (1st Reading 9/26/95, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 8, Utilities Advisory Commission Review of Utilities Organizational Review - Request for Proposal, had been removed by staff. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.8 Property: 725 - 753 Alma Street Potential Negotiating Parties: Charles "Chop" Keenan
10/10/95 77-107
Subject of Potential Negotiation: Terms of Potential Option Extension Public Comment None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Proposals for an Option to Lease City-Owned Property Located in the Arastradero Preserve, Also Known as the Arastradero Preserve Main House City Attorney Ariel Calonne corrected a significant mistake in the staff report (CMR:431:95) on page 5, Limitation on Use of the Property, which stated the terms of the settlement agreement that the City entered into in late 1991 and early 1992 with the parties that sued the City when the American Youth Hostels' (AYH) proposal was approved. The staff report suggested that the settlement prohibited anything other than the kind vehicle access associated with a single-family home and that an access for conference or hostel use would not be permitted. The settlement agreement did preclude the AYH organization from an operation on the site but would not preclude the City from making any lawful use of the property. The language probably came out of the two-year period from January 1992 to January 1994 when there were severe use restrictions in effect. Real Property Manager William Fellman said on June 19, 1995, the Council approved a Finance Committee recommendation that staff issue another Request for Proposal (RFP) for a low-impact use of the Arastradero Preserve (the Preserve) main house, that the $90,000 allocated for the demolition of the Preserve main house and caretaker's house remain in the 1995-96 budget, and that the demolition not be considered until after Council had an opportunity to study the responses of the RFP. Before the Council was a staff report (CMR:431:95) which transmitted a RFP for an option to lease the main house of the Preserve for the Council's review and approval. The terms of the proposed lease were the same as those of the two previous lease attempts with the AYH and the Challenge Learning Center which included the stipulation that the use of the house must meet the requirements of a public park, provide public benefit, and have limited public access. The term of the lease was 10 years which was consistent with the previous Arastradero house RFPs and based on the assumption that the prospective tenant would be a nonprofit organization that would invest approximately $200,000 in improvements to the house. The $200,000 in improvements equalled the $20,000 per year amortiza-tion. Staff proposed to advertise the RFP in local newspapers and send copies to those people who had expressed an interest, including the three groups that had spoken before the Council at previous Council meetings. The proposal was due on December 15, 1995, and the responses would be reviewed by a staff evaluation committee with representation from the Planning; Parks & Golf Course; Recreation, Open Space & Sciences; and Administrative
10/10/95 77-108
Services Departments. The review committee would use the criteria listed in the RFP as the basis for eligibility. The neighbors on the Preserve would have the opportunity to review the proposals and provide comments. Eligible proposals and the review committee's recommendation would then be forwarded to the Council for its review. Council Member Schneider referred to paragraph 1, page 5, of the staff report (CMR:431:95) which stated "...any use of the property must be consistent with park policy and meet the limited vehicular access requirements..." and she asked whether the City Attorney's reference to the paragraph under Limitations on Use of the Property would also change that type of limitation. Mr. Calonne said no. The limitation for dedicated parkland still existed, i.e., it had to be non-exclusive use. He said staff could reply to the physical constraints of John Marthens Lane but there were no legal constraints from the settlement. There could be future legal issues that might arise out of the threat of litigation by the residents in the area. Council Member Schneider said one potential group had proposed use of the main house for seminars or classes. She asked how people would reach the area if the traffic were limited to typical single-family use. Mr. Calonne said there was no legal constraint other than the environmental review process that would limit the vehicular access. There was an unresolved dispute over the nature and extent of the City's interest in John Marthens Lane. Council Member Schneider said one of the requirements was that the tenant would be required to do the maintenance on the property during the proposed 10-year period, including taxes, assessments, etc. She asked how much the taxes and the maintenance would cost for a year. Mr. Fellman said the tax was fairly nominal and was based on several different categories. In the past, on a market rent property, it had amounted to approximately one month's rent. Council Member Schneider clarified the tax was not based on the valuation of the home. Mr. Fellman said no. There were several things that went into the valuation, including the term of the lease, the amount of the rent, and tax compilations. Council Member Schneider clarified the 10-year lease with $200,000 for improvements would be $20,000 per year amortized over the 10-year period. She asked whether there was an option to release after the 10-year period. Mr. Fellman said currently there was no proposed option but that would not preclude a prospective tenant from putting it into their bid package.
10/10/95 77-109
Vice Mayor Wheeler said the City currently had another property on its availability list where the amount of investment that the City had asked the tenant to provide had led the City to extend the lease period. She asked whether the property had to be a 10-year lease since the other property had the same comparable amount of investment and had a 20-year lease with options. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said 10 years was the City's standard term. For example, the Williams Property was also originally 10 years, but the Peninsula Conserva-tion Center proposed a 30-year term and the City compromised on a 20-year term. The term of the lease could be addressed in the RFP. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified potential proposers could ask for a longer amortization period in their proposal. Ms. Harrison said staff did not know the financial status of a proposer so it was difficult to determine a reasonable amortization period. Vice Mayor Wheeler said previous Council discussions had revolved around the main house, but there had also been discussions about the other structures that were in the vicinity of the main house. She asked whether there was anything that would preclude a prospective tenant from presenting a proposal for the use of the other two structures in the bid package. Mr. Fellman said no. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified the basic finding regarding the lawsuit was that the City had not done an environmental study and that there was some potential that either the City or a potential user of the property would need to assume the responsibility for producing an environmental document. She asked whether the RFP could clearly state that it was the responsibility of the bidder to finance the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or anything less than that if it became necessary. Mr. Calonne said yes. The City staff would have to produce an objective analysis of what the impacts might be which would require Council certification. Council Member Andersen said the staff report indicated that there was a process in place that allowed the neighbors in the area to provide some input into the selection process. He asked whether the neighbors had been contacted regarding that process and whether it had been received favorably. Mr. Fellman said there had been no direct communication with the neighbors, but all of them had received a copy of the staff report (CMR:431:95). No feedback had been received from the neighborhood to date. Council Member Andersen said there was a reference to no net cost
10/10/95 77-110
to the City in the staff report, and he asked whether the amount of money that was previously approved by the Council to demolish the building would be used as part of the no net cost analysis. Ms. Harrison explained that the issue was discussed and staff was directed not to spend the $90,000. Staff anticipated that the Council would make that part of its discussion when the award of an option to lease was made. Council Member Huber asked whether people who requested information regarding the RFP received all of the City's park regulations. Mr. Fellman said everyone had access to the information regarding the parks. Council Member Huber felt everyone should receive all of the information that controlled the City's park lands. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the timing of the RFP only allowed a two-month period for responses, but Bay Area Action (BAA) had worked on its proposal for a long time and other people would only have a short time to present a proposal. He believed the Council should provide explicit policy language regarding park use for the RFP that evening. He provided four suggestions to be included in the RFP (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). The decision regarding the use of $90,000 should be made only after a successful proposal had survived environmental review or litigation. Emily Renzel, The Committee for Green Foothills, 1056 Forest Avenue, referred to the letter from Camas Hubenthal, Legislative Advocate, The Committee for Green Foothills, (on file in the Clerk's Office) and said the Committee supported the kinds of criteria that were in the RFP. The Committee would be concerned if the process again led to creating an in-holding in the Preserve. John Law, 830 Los Trancos Road, said his property was adjacent to the Preserve. He spoke on behalf of several neighbors who were in favor of the main house being used rather than demolished. He noted that there were other ways into the Preserve and he believed BAA's proposal would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. David Smernoff, 340 Palo Alto Avenue, Mountain View, said the Preserve was a valuable community resource and there was a number of good proposals that could be outlined for the property. He noted the RFP stated that John Marthens Lane was a narrow, unpaved road but it was only unpaved within the Preserve. He pointed out incorrect numbers on pages 1 and 7 of the RFP. He urged the Council to accept the RFP. Holly Kaslewicz, 2057 Amherst Street, had been working with BAA on the proposal for approximately one year. The RFP had been
10/10/95 77-111
reviewed carefully and BAA was confident that its proposal would meet the terms of the RFP and that the plan would be successful because it had considered the opinions of a broad range of people. She was responsible for the fund-raising efforts for the project, and BAA was very clear about the financial responsibilities that the project entailed. BAA had begun accepting pledges for its plan and the goal was to have almost the entire amount on hand by the time the proposal was submitted to the Council for review. Mary Davey, 12645 La Cresta, Los Altos Hills, said it was better to utilize a beautiful home rather than destroying it. She offered several suggestions for the RFP: 1) a 20-year amortized lease would be fairer to a nonprofit, 2) $1 per year rent, and 3) consider giving all or part of the $90,000 budgeted for demolition to the renovation of the house, particularly if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were required. Jonathan Scott, Director, Bay Area Action, 12 Maywood Lane, Menlo Park, referred to the last paragraph on page 1 of the RFP, "...the proposed use must meet the limited vehicular access requirements imposed by the physical constraints of John Marthens Lane..." and said there were numerous ways into the Preserve. He asked that the language in the RFP be changed to read: "any reasonable vehicular or pedestrian access." Chris Whitaker, 4284 Manuela Road, member of Bay Area Action, urged the Council to approve the RFP. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member McCown referred to the comments in Mr. Borock's letter dated October 10, 1995, "low intensity and minimal cost park with emphasis on natural and open space amenities of the land and sensitivity to the fragile foothills ecology. Uses planned for the park should not duplicate those provided in urban neighborhood or regional parks." She asked whether there was a reason the language had not been included in the RFP as a description of the use in the Preserve. Mr. Fellman said there was no reason why it was not included. Council Member McCown asked whether the Council would be able to negotiate in the option of financial responsibility for either an EIR or litigation costs or whether there should be explicit language in the RFP regarding those issues. Mr. Calonne said the applicant would bear the application costs, including environmental review, but not the litigation costs if nothing was stated in the RFP. Litigation costs were not routinely mentioned ahead of time. The Council had the option, which it had not exercised in the past, to let the so-called real party of interest bear the laboring ore and to defend the case with minimal participation by the City Attorney's Office. It was not a very savory option because it left the Council less able to represent the public policy motivation behind the decision.
10/10/95 77-112
Council Member Schneider was concerned about the vehicle traffic and additional access to the Preserve. She suggested the number of vehicular trips could be limited as had been done in the past. She felt that Item No. 4 in Mr. Borock's letter dated October 10, 1995, "The RFP should require that the Arastradero Preserve main house be vacant during the hours that the Preserve is closed," was a reasonable request. She said it was Council's intent to have a center, not a residential facility. She wanted the RFP to limit vehicle travel and that the house would only be open during the hours of the park. Mayor Simitian asked whether Council Member Schneider would have a problem with a residential caretaker who might be on the premises even though the facility was not open for general use. Council Member Schneider said a single person should be hired as the caretaker and the facility should not become a home for a family. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) and direct staff to solicit proposals for the option to lease the Arastradero Preserve main house for a term of 10 to 20 years. Council Member Andersen was pleased with the amount of interest the Council had received from the community on the issue. He hoped the majority of the neighbors in the area would support the effort as the City proceeded with a sensitive RFP proposal. He wanted the community and the City to agree on the proposal so the house could be used in a way that was appropriate for the public benefit and sensitive to the community. Vice Mayor Wheeler offered a friendly amendment to the motion that the proposer could suggest or propose an optional use for the barn and/or the caretaker's cottage. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the RFP should include a statement that the proposer had the option to propose or suggest a use for the barn and/or the caretaker's cottage. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, that the RFP explicitly express the financial responsibility of the proposer to bear the cost of any required environmental review. Mayor Simitian said it would be appropriate for a proposer to be willing to share the costs or absorb the costs, but he was concerned that the Council not foreclose any City participation. He was also concerned that past circumstances regarding threats of litigation might be repeated which could scare a potential legitimate user or put the City through an EIR process. He wanted the proposal to address those issues and to give some flexibility so that a proposer would not have to agree to write a blank check if he/she wanted to participated in the process.
10/10/95 77-113
Council Member Andersen wanted to leave the language implicit which would not foreclose the possibility of an assured EIR demand. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the language was standard for most of the City's development applications. She wanted the language to be explicit in the proposal because there had been so much discussion and confusion about what was necessary in terms of environmental review and because there had been suggestions about how the City might or might not contribute to the expense. She believed the Council should indicate for the record whether it felt it was the applicant's responsibility as it was with most of the other development projects that required significant environmental review or whether the City should contribute to the project which was highly unusual for a project that had the potential of requiring a higher level of environmental review. Council Member McCown supported the amendment because it was totally consistent with the Council's practice. She recalled a conversation with a representative from BAA who indicated that BAA had already factored the cost of the EIR into the proposal. She agreed with Mayor Simitian that litigation costs were a blank check request that was not appropriate for the reasons stated by the City Attorney. She believed the amendment was fair and reasonable. It was important to make it explicit at the beginning of the process so there was no uncertainty about the Council's expectation that the cost of the environmental process would be the responsibility of the applicant as it would be under any other situation. Mayor Simitian agreed with the comments of Vice Mayor Wheeler that it was the standard procedure. He pointed out that the Council had been willing to spend $90,000 to demolish a $1 million house and that it was not a standard project, but a project with a unique history. The project was also not about a development application from a private sector developer but about an applicant who would make a proposal that the Council believed would derive some public benefit without an adverse impact on the neighbors. If the Council believed there were some public benefit to the process, the Council might reasonably entertain some participation in the EIR process and might reasonably want to protect any proposer from the threat of, if not litigation costs, environmental assessment costs which might arise. If someone threatened litigation, the City Attorney would indicate to the Council that in order to protect the City against litigation, more EIR work would be needed. He did not want the Council to be in a position where it would not be able to consider a proposal unless the applicant could ward off the potential litigation. He wanted flexibility built into the proposal, but he did not want the City to absorb the costs either. An application that indicated it would cover the EIR costs would have a strong plus over an application that indicated it wanted the City to pay for all the costs. He wanted a range of options rather than foreclose on a good proposal. Council Member Andersen did not differ with the intent being
10/10/95 77-114
described, but he believed it was important to keep the proposal flexible so that it would not preclude a proposal from being presented. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the amendment. Ms. Davey brought up the question of $90,000 and suggested that it might be used for the renovation. The concern was that the EIR process was only a small part of the entire project. Securing the funds to complete the project was the significant part of the project. He felt the Council should not spend any of the $90,000 until it was confident that something would come to fruition with the project, and he did not want to indicate at the beginning of the process that some of the $90,000 should be spent for the EIR process. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-2, Andersen, Simitian "no," Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved that the Request for Proposal include language that limited the use by vehicular traffic to the hours that the Arastradero Preserve was open and also limit the full time use of the house to only a caretaker. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member McCown believed there would be safeguards with respect to vehicular traffic and the use beyond the Preserve's closing hours that would come through the RFP process. She suggested the motion include the language in the RFP regarding specific Council policy with respect to the nature of the Preserve where the facility would be used. Council Member Andersen asked whether that language would come through the RFP process. Council Member McCown said the current language in the RFP indicated that the use should be consistent with a dedicated park. She felt that potential proposers might not be familiar with the specific policy with respect to the Preserve and saw no downside to making sure a proposer knew the Council's policy. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the Request for Proposal include the Council policy for the Arastradero Preserve, "To create a low intensity and minimal cost park with emphasis on natural and open space amenities of the land and sensitivity to the fragile foothills ecology. Uses planned for the park should not duplicate those provided in urban neighborhood or regional parks." Council Member Huber said the RFP needed to be understandable for any interested party that wished to submit a proposal. He had served on the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee when it dealt with the issue and it was through a good deal of frustration that the proposal to demolish the house was recommended because there was no where else to go. He hoped the process would end up with a proposal that was compatible with the Preserve. Council Member Fazzino recalled the hours of frustration over the
10/10/95 77-115
issue. He voted to demolish the house primarily because he recalled all the problems associated with 1986-1987 Y.M.C.A. hostel situation and was still concerned about the possibility of litigation. There was the possibility of some exciting proposals being submitted, and he would give the project one last opportunity for success if a use could be identified that were compatible with the Preserve and did not create traffic levels which were inappropriate for John Marthens Lane or lead to litigation. He still remained concerned about the renovation costs. He looked forward to some creative proposals and would support the motion to move forward with the RFP process. Vice Mayor Wheeler had found herself in the same position of voting for demolition of the house because she did not believe there were any other resources available. She disagreed with Mr. Borock's statement about the swiftness of the process. The formal RFP process was not a lengthy period of time; however, the Council had had previous open discussions regarding the issue of whether to demolish the house. BAA and other groups had made presentations at that time regarding the demolition of the house and had indicated some interest in the project. During the budget discussions, the Council made it clear that it wanted to keep the options open for the Council and the community to present new proposals for use of the property. The potential availability of the property had been known for quite some time, and she felt confident that the project had not been kept a secret from any other group of interested citizens or individual citizens who might wish to present a proposal. She looked forward to a number of presentations on the project and seeing the property restored. Council Member McCown clarified that the property, not the house, was worth $1 million. When the Council acted previously to demolish the house, she was influenced by the fact that the house was not designed for the kinds of uses the Council wanted to have on the Preserve. However, she had become more open to the kind of concept proposed by the BAA which could reuse the structure in a way that was compatible with the Council's goals for the Preserve. She supported allowing the process to move forward. She hoped the Council saw BAA's concept for the structure fulfilled. People should not be quite so optimistic that that particular building was an ideal structure and that the Council should do whatever it could to reuse it in that particular setting. Council Member Schneider said she had previously voted to demolish the house but had reconsidered her original decision. She echoed the comments of Council Member McCown and also wanted the house reused, but she still had some very serious doubts that it could be done. She was hopeful that the right use would be found for the house. Mayor Simitian had a different view about the relative value of the property. The RFP was for a 6,000-square-foot ranch-style house with six bedrooms, four bathrooms, dining and living room, maid quarters, walk-in refrigerator, three-car garage with a workroom, and a swimming pool, in addition to the two outer buildings. He had voted against demolition because he believed it
10/10/95 77-116
was wasteful to destroy the house if there were some use of the site that was compatible with the Preserve and provided public benefit. It was difficult to find space on the Peninsula, and there were many good groups whose work benefitted the community. The Council was looking for the following criteria in the proposals: the most public benefit the City could derive with the least possible adverse consequences both for the immediate neighbors and the larger community, minimized costs to the City, and minimized aggravation to the City. He had previously been frustrated with the item but was not concerned about the possibility of litigation. Neighbors of the site had come before the Council and had communicated with the Council in writing with a range of views. He emphasized that the Council would continue to be mindful of the neighbors' legitimate rights and interests in the process and that potential proposers would also have to be mindful of their legitimate rights and interests. The Council had also heard comments which were obstructionists and that sought basically to abuse the EIR process to protect the narrow interests of a relatively small number of people. The Council needed to send a message to the proposers that the Council was prepared to make sure that that did not happen if a legitimate proposal that had public benefit was submitted and to the people who had a legitimate concern to get involved in the process to help resolve their issue. The Council would not be receptive to either hearing from people who were pushing on those kinds of items or letting the public benefit fold because there were people who were prepared to make an issue of it. That was the worst possible basis for public policy decision making. The Council understood its responsibility to address the concerns of the near neighbors and the Council should be mindful that the previous legal problems were not with the use but with the process. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. RECESS: 8:55 P.M. - 9:05 P.M. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Santa Clara County Transit District Request for Palo Alto to Approve Transit Shelter Advertising Program City Manager June Fleming said staff had some refined figures in connection with the cost for staff to assume the maintenance responsibilities of the shelters. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case had worked on the agreement since its inception and was available to answer questions. Senior Planner Gayle Likens said the Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) had requested that Palo Alto agree to participate in its transit shelter advertising program. Under the program, advertising would be installed in 75 percent of the shelters in Santa Clara County (the County). All of the shelters would be upgraded, would have lighting, and would meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The SCCTD had also agreed to
10/10/95 77-117
share half of the advertising revenues it received from the contractor with the local jurisdictions. During the past year, staff, legal counsels for the cities, and the SCCTD had developed an implementation agreement for the program which gave local jurisdictions more control over the locations of shelter within their jurisdictions and provided more protection from liability. During Phase 1 of the program, the SCCTD proposed to convert 11 of the 24 existing shelters in Palo Alto to ad shelters. In Phase 2, the second year of the agreement, the 8 remaining shelters would be converted to advertising and 5 would not. In Phase 3, additional shelters would be added to increase the total number of shelters in Palo Alto to 30, 75 percent of which would have advertising. The SCCTD was requesting that the City agree to the first phase of the program, and the City would have the option not to participate in the second and third phases. Staff had selected 11 of the most heavily used locations along El Camino Real, Stanford Research Park, and the Stanford Shopping Center, and for the locations for Phase 1 shelters in Palo Alto. She mentioned that at the Council's place was a letter from the Stanford's Planning Office dated October 9, 1995, regarding its concern about the locations on Stanford land. Staff recommended that Council give conceptual approval to the City's participation in Phase 1 of the program that evening. Staff's recommendation came only after the SCCTD had worked with the cities to address the local concerns, after the long-term benefits of upgraded, approved, and well maintained shelters in Palo Alto were weighed against the limited number of advertising shelters that the City would have to accommodate, and after looking at the cost if the City operated the bus shelter maintenance program. However, the program was not consistent with the current City sign ordinance that prohibited off-premise advertising and advertising in the public rights-of-way. If Council gave conceptual approval for the program, staff would return with amendments to the sign ordinance and the Implementation Agreement for Council action. Ms. Fleming reiterated that the Council had a letter at places from Stanford that voiced its concern, but she felt it was much more than concern. Stanford indicated it could not support the placement of public advertising at any campus locations which would have an impact on where the City would have shelters under the agreement and would probably put advertising shelters into residential areas. She said that Palo Alto and several other cities had persistently and consistently voiced its concern that the program was contrary to existing ordinances and contrary to the desire that was heard from residents regarding advertising in the community. However, Palo Alto and the other concerned cities were small voices because once there was a large commitment from a city such as San Jose, the SCCTD had enough shelters in place to move forward with the program. She acknowledged that the staff had made every effort to make as many changes as possible to the agreement and had reluctantly come forward with the recommendation that was before the Council that evening. Mayor Simitian said none of the possibilities offered in the staff report (CMR:436:95) appealed to him in terms of the potential visual impact, increased cost, or lower maintenance. He had asked staff prior to the Council meeting that evening what the net cost
10/10/95 77-118
would be if the City wanted to purchase the advertising that would be available in the shelters and use it for the City's own purposes, e.g., public information or public art. He also indicated to staff that the net cost figure should reflect the monies that would come back to the City from its share with the SCCTD. Ms. Likens said Mayor Simitian's query was conveyed to the SCCTD; and the contractor, Patrick Media, reported back that to purchase the advertising space in each shelter would be $750 per month per shelter or $9,000 per shelter per year. The staff report indicated that the maximum revenue received would be approximately $5,800 per year in Phase 1. Council Member Fazzino said page 7 of the Implementation Agreement listed prohibited displays, and he asked whether there was any opportunity to prohibit the content of other forms of advertising that might offend many individuals in the community. Kevin Allmand, Senior Assistant Counsel, Santa Clara County Transit District, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, said the prohibitions that were placed into the Implementation Agreement were consistent with First Amendment cases that recognized certain restrictions that could be placed on advertising. Under the main agreement with Patrick Media, the SCCTD retained certain powers to pull advertising; however, that right was vested solely with the SCCTD. If there were a claim made that that was improper and infringed upon a First Amendment right, the SCCTD was obligated to indemnify the city of any claim made. It was very important for the cities, specifically the City of San Jose, that the restrictions be listed in that manner, and that no other content restrictions generally be designated. It was also important for the SCCTD to retain its rights in more broad language under the main agreement to pull advertising that it felt might be objectionable. The SCCTD bore the responsibility if it pulled an advertisement. Ms. Fleming had conferred with the City Attorney's Office to determine whether the legal advice was sound, and Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case had indicated that that kind of advertising could appear. Council Member Fazzino asked how the SCCTD would handle an objection by Palo Alto to the content of certain advertising. Mr. Allmand said the objection would be communicated to the SCCTD and SCCTD had the ability under the main agreement to require that the objectionable advertising be removed if it agreed with the concern that was expressed by a particular city. Council Member Fazzino clarified it could be objections that went beyond the prohibited displays. Mr. Allmand said the language in the main agreement was much broader. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it would be the
10/10/95 77-119
responsibility of the SCCTD or the City to address any possible graffiti problems associated with advertising. Mr. Allmand said another city had expressed concern that under the Implementation Agreement, weekly maintenance provisions, that graffiti was not specifically referenced. The word "graffiti" would be added to both the weekly maintenance provisions and repair of the vandalized or damaged shelters provisions as well. Council Member Fazzino clarified the SCCTD would assume responsibility for cleaning graffiti. Mr. Allmand said Patrick Media would provide the maintenance for all of the shelters. Council Member Fazzino clarified that Palo Alto had a goal of eliminating offensive language within two to three days and all graffiti on public property within one week. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the SCCTD would adopt a similar requirement of Patrick Media to clean up graffiti. Mr. Allmand said that area was covered in paragraph 6.b.(2), page 5, in the Implementation Agreement which described the minimum weekly maintenance and the word "graffiti" would be added under paragraph 6.c.(1), Repair of Damaged or Vandalized Shelters, so that it would provide that the "contractor shall repair any vandalism, graffiti, or other damage to a shelter within forty-eight (48) hours..." Council Member Fazzino asked whether the SCCTD tried to identify sponsors for shelters as opposed to advertisers. Linda Wagner, Management Analyst, Santa Clara County Transit District, did not believe sponsoring of shelters was previously considered, but the SCCTD was working on such a program to deal with the nonsheltered bus stops. Council Member Fazzino clarified Stanford indicated in its letter that it would not accept advertising in several areas. He asked whether Stanford had the ability to not accept the program. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case understood that the shelters were under a permit from Stanford, and therefore, Stanford had the right to veto the program. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber referred to page 5, Exhibit C, which showed a list of potential Phase 1 shelter locations in Palo Alto, and the four locations that were cited in Stanford's letter were on private property. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was appropriate for the SCCTD to indicate to the City that if it accepted the advertising, it would share some of the revenue which was 9 percent for the City, 9 percent for the SCCTD, and the remaining percentage for Patrick
10/10/95 77-120
Media. However, if the City did not agree to the program, the SCCTD would abandon the City's shelters which did not create a good neighbor policy. He asked what would happen if the City protested the program. Ms. Likens said the shelters belonged to the SCCTD. The SCCTD had indicated it would be willing to give the shelters to the cities at no cost but it had not offered another alternative to keeping shelters without the City's participation in the program. Mr. Schreiber said in one of his first discussions with the SCCTD as part of the Congestion Management Agency's Technical Advisory Committee, the proposal was if the cities did not participate, the SCCTD would sell the shelters to the cities or remove them. Since that discussion, the SCCTD had decided to give the cities the shelters. Ms. Fleming emphasized that she and staff had had the same discussion with the SCCTD and she confirmed that that was the SCCTD's intent. Mr. Allmand clarified that the SCCTD would not be involved in any future maintenance of the shelters. Patrick Media would be handling all the maintenance for the shelters with the program. If a few cities decided not to participate, it would be unfair to the cities that were participating to have the other cities get the benefit of the maintenance that Patrick Media provided. Council Member Huber asked whether there were any City facilities that received a biweekly cleaning. Mr. Roberts said the biweekly proposal was a staff-initiated compromise between the SCCTD's old standard of once a month and the new proposal by Patrick Media for weekly maintenance. Council Member Huber asked how the monthly clean up worked. Mr. Roberts said not well. Council Member Huber asked whether Stanford would be willing to keep the shelters on their own property clean. Ms. Likens said Stanford had not been asked that question. Ms. Fleming said the communication was not received in time for staff to have a discussion with Stanford. Staff would ask Stanford that question. Council Member Huber asked whether the City could hire a private contractor for the maintenance and why was an additional vehicle required. Ms. Fleming believed it would not be necessary to purchase another vehicle. Staff had available that evening the refined costs for Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) to pick up the trash and other costs for staffing.
10/10/95 77-121
Council Member Huber asked for a description of the refined costs. Mr. Roberts said staff had done a detailed task and route analysis of the shelters and what it would cost to do a biweekly cleaning. Staff then compared that figure to a weekly cleaning that was being proposed by the agreement, and staff also rolled it backwards to what it would cost to do cleaning once a month which compared to the old standard of the SCCTD. The three alternatives proposed trash collection twice a week by PASCO which would cost approximately $10,000 per year. The labor costs for the monthly cleaning would be about a quarter time activity, the biweekly would be about a half-time activity, and the weekly would be about a full-time activity. The equipment costs were not included in the costs because there were some alternatives that could be absorbed with the functions that were currently being done or proposed. The start up costs had not been assumed. Ms. Fleming said she had asked staff what would be the additional costs if the City took on the service. The staff report (CMR:436:95) showed the total costs which included some costs for personnel that were already available. The start up cost in the staff report should be disregarded. In addition to what was already budgeted for personnel, the new costs would be additional. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Alternative 3 was the richest cleaning possible. She had calculated that it would take approximately four hours to clean each shelter. She asked whether the level of effort to maintain the shelters had been aggravated. Mr. Roberts did not believed four hours was the number calculated. Mayor Simitian asked how many shelters were in the City. Mr. Roberts said 24 shelters. Deputy Director of Public Works Operations Mike Miller said when staff prepared the analysis, it used the work standard that Patrick Media identified in its contract and then took a typical work schedule on a daily basis using a fully allocated rate of $46.21 per hour, which was an employee plus benefits plus the allocated overhead which was charged to the budgets and was the same rate used for calculations for any new assignments or outside work. The schedule included the morning preparation, travel time to the stops which averaged 10 minutes between stops, the time to set up the operation, and the cleaning. The cleaning took approximately 20 minutes per stop and the standard also removed graffiti, weeds, and sweeping within a 15-foot radius. Using that measure as a typical day, staff would be able to clean 11 shelters if there were no extraordinary problems, traffic, or construction. The measure also included planning for other required training activities for an employee which would preclude a regular employee from being outside full time every day. Mayor Simitian clarified if 11 shelters per day were cleaned, all the shelters would be cleaned in 2 days. Mr. Miller said that was correct. The schedule showed that 11
10/10/95 77-122
shelters would be cleaned by 11:45 p.m. which worked out to be 36 hours per month on shelter activities. Staff used 25 stops times 44 minutes or 18 hours for a biweekly program. The numbers were doubled to come up with a weekly program. Mayor Simitian clarified staff indicated that 11 shelters could be cleaned in 1 day or 22 shelters cleaned in 2 days per week. He asked why a full-time equivalent would be necessary for a weekly program. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked the rationale for hiring a City employee. The community had asked the Council during the candidate forums why the City did not use more outside contracting which was more cost effective. The Council had indicated to the community at the time that it had been done and would continue to be done, particularly on routine jobs. The cleaning of the shelters was that type of job that the Council had in mind as a job that could be outsourced which would save some money. Ms. Fleming agreed with Vice Mayor Wheeler that outside contracting was an option, but the cost figures were not available that evening. Mayor Simitian asked whether it would be possible to ask the Urban Ministry to perform the work for a flat fee which could provide a social benefit as well. Council Member Schneider suggested perhaps a service club might be interested in adopting a shelter in exchange for the posting of their schedules for service related events. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Stanford clearly indicated that its four shelters would not be in the program, but the City was still obligated to provide for its shelters. She asked whether there were shelters located in areas that were not within or close to residential areas. Ms. Likens said the City could ask the SCCTD to identify alternate locations that would replace Stanford's locations or the City could indicate locations that would be acceptable. The additional locations that were not included in the 11 shelters were in the Stanford Research Park on Hanover Street, Hillview Avenue, and Deer Creek Road. There was an additional shelter in Midtown on Middlefield Road and three shelters in the Downtown area. Staff suggested that most suitable locations with the highest transit ridership were along El Camino Real and in the Stanford Research Park where there was commute-oriented express service. Beyond the existing locations, the SCCTD might consider converting a bus stop that had no shelter to a location for a shelter. There were additional shelter locations in the Stanford Research Park and in the Downtown and the Midtown areas. The shelter on California Avenue west of El Camino Real opposite Oberlin Street near College Terrace was in close proximity to a residential area. Mr. Schreiber referred to page 5 of Exhibit C in the staff report (CMR:436:95) which identified Phase 1 shelter locations in Palo Alto. Staff had not recommended the Hamilton Avenue location in
10/10/95 77-123
front of City Hall. Ms. Likens said the two shelter locations recommended for approval by the SCCTD were on Page Mill Road between El Camino Real and Hanover Street which totalled 11 shelters. Vice Mayor Wheeler felt that Palo Alto citizens were served better when the City had its own transit system. She said the staff report (CMR:436:95) indicated that the City would receive approxi-mately $5,800 per year, but the SCCTD would save $500,000. She asked whether the $500,000 savings would allow the SCCTD to make improvements to the service in City. Mr. Schreiber said the bus service had been reduced in Santa Clara County (the County) due to budget constraints. The current budget was the first budget in quite awhile that did not involve a reduction in service. Before the decision was made on Measure A, the SCCTD's staff had been hopeful that the present service would be maintained and some service expansion would be possible. Measure A would have paid for about $18 million Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for upgrading the bus system which the current budget and reserves would now have to absorb. He was not optimistic that there would be an increase in bus service either in Palo Alto or anywhere else in the County. Ms. Fleming said the SCCTD's new administration had been extremely cooperative and had come to the County Managers meetings to discuss transit needs and upgrading. The SCCTD was conscious of the fact that riders were not attracted to uncomfortable vehicles that did not go where they wanted to go. It was imperative that ways be found to create savings and more funds. The program was a sound financial move for SCCTD even though it did not meet the City's particular needs and desires for how the shelters should look. Council Member McCown reminded the Council that the 15 cities of the County were the Governing Board of the SCCTD. Unfortunately, Palo Alto did not presently have a seat on the Governing Board; but the Council's colleagues from all of the cities in the County, including her participation on the Policy Advisory Board, had been struggling with the problem. The question regarding whether the SCCTD would be able to provide transit for the North County in the future was a serious matter. She concurred with the comments of the City Manager that there was a different context in which the SCCTD had begun to talk about the problems. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the SCCTD would permit and/or encourage political advertising among the advertising that would be allowed. Mr. Allmand said only to the extent that it was required by law. Mayor Simitian suggested the Council focus its questions on the choices available or on a new alternative for the issue. Council Member Andersen said the staff report (CMR:436:95) implicitly mentioned additional shelters increased ridership. He
10/10/95 77-124
asked the extent to which the City would see increased ridership as a result of the additional shelters. He was more interested in the potential for additional shelters rather than the existing shelters. He asked whether the cost calculations included additional shelters that the City would have if the Council approved participation through Phase 3 of the program. Ms. Likens said the City had 24 existing shelters; and the total would increase to 30 shelters, with 23 advertising shelters, if the City went through Phase 2 and Phase 3. Council Member Andersen clarified the City would receive six additional shelters. He asked whether the calculations included additional shelters or whether it maintained the status quo. Mr. Roberts said the numbers were based upon the existing 24 shelters. Council Member Andersen asked whether the ridership would increase in the City if the shelters increased to 30. Mr. Schreiber said no studies had been done that correlated the increased quality of shelters with increased ridership. There was a widely shared assumption at the Bay Area Quality Management District and other agencies that dealt with transit that one of the obstacles to getting people to use transit was the poor quality of service. One aspect of poor quality service was inconvenient shelters or the lack of shelters. Shelters encouraged transit, and as mitigation measures in a number of developments in the Stanford Research Park, the City had required shelter installations. When the County had been unwilling to pay for the shelters, the City had required private property owners to maintain shelters because of the generally recognized link between the provision of shelters and increased ridership. Ms. Fleming did not believe shelters alone would encourage more people to use the transit, but she saw a different philosophical approach to providing better service and better vehicles. The shelters would be an added incentive, and there was a commitment to add shelters as ridership increased. The coupling of a different philosophical approach with the shelters might encourage more people to use public transit. Council Member Andersen asked whether the community would benefit from additional shelters and whether the City would receive the additional shelters if it did not participate in the program. The cost for additional shelters was substantial. Ms. Likens explained that the SCCTD did not plan to put in any additional shelters unless the program moved forward. If the Council did not approve the program in Palo Alto, no additional shelters would be added. If the City began its own program, the cost per shelter would be $6,500 for the purchase and installation of additional shelters. Council Member Andersen asked whether the 75 percent could be renegotiated if the City stated it would not take a profit.
10/10/95 77-125
Mr. Schreiber explained that if the City did not want its share, it would not pay for one shelter's advertising per year. Council Member McCown asked the status of participation of other cities in the County. Ms. Likens said the City of San Jose had given conceptual approval of the program and would return to the Council on October 17, 1995. The cities of Mountain View, Gilroy, and Cupertino had approved the program. All of the other cities would be going to their City Councils on October 17, 1995. The City of Los Gatos rejected the program in 1993. Mr. Allmand said that City of Los Altos approved the program on September 19, 1995. Council Member McCown understood that by turning the program over to Patrick Media, the SCCTD would save $500,000 and receive 18 percent of gross revenues which was estimated at $545,000. The SCCTD would receive approximately $250,000 and the cities that participated would share the remaining $250,000. She assumed that if one of the cities declined to participate, the impact would be on the 18 percent revenue sharing, i.e., the SCCTD would still save $500,000 by turning the maintenance cost over to either Patrick Media and/or the cities but would get less revenue. Mr. Allmand said the Implementation Agreement required 150 shelters to implement the program. If that did not occur, there would be no agreement as presently written. Palo Alto was an important city, and it was critical that the SCCTD have Palo Alto's participation in the program in order to reach the goal of 150 shelters. Council Member McCown said the program would phase in new shelters were ADA compliant, and she asked whether any of the existing shelters in Palo Alto were compliant with the ADA requirements. Ms. Likens said the SCCTD had upgraded the signage to ADA standards for the bus stops throughout the County. Ms. Wagner said the information was not available that evening. Council Member McCown asked whether the City was obligated to bring the shelters up to ADA standards if it took over the responsibility for the shelters and declined to participate in the program, Ms. Case said when the shelters were replaced or renovated, there would be an ADA requirement. Council Member McCown asked what entity had the decision-making authority within the City regarding the location of the shelters in any of the phases, including the last potential phase of adding shelters. Ms. Likens said the City of Palo Alto would have approval rights
10/10/95 77-126
under each phase of the agreement. The SCCTD would propose locations, and the City had the right to approve or reject those locations. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, that the City Council reject the staff recommendation and not accept the Transit Shelter Advertising Program, and that the City of Palo Alto provide funding for maintenance of the shelters. Council Member Rosenbaum said that program had nothing to do with bus transportation. The amount of ridership was small, and the program could possibly distract the drivers of cars along El Camino Real and cause a safety hazard. He did not believe the program was appropriate for the community. Council Member Huber agreed with the comments of Council Member Rosenbaum. The total cost for the biweekly cleaning was minimal compared to the other things that were done in the community. The City should work with Stanford to assume responsibility for their own shelters. The community did not need the program, and the City could develop its own program in the future if necessary that could involve nonprofits. Council Member McCown opposed the motion and believed the Council should support the program. Advertising was simply the mechanism that would allow the SCCTD to provide better transit service in the community by entering into an agreement with a company that would take over the responsibility and relieve the SCCTD of the cost it incurred to maintain the shelters as well as providing the SCCTD with additional revenue. The advertising program was not an ideal solution, but it was the alternative that the SCCTD was faced with. She was concerned that if individual communities rejected the program, it would preclude the SCCTD from achieving an important goal which was better transit service and physical shelters in the County for the people who used the service. The SCCTD had reluctantly been willing to allow advertising as the means to accomplish those goals. The Council was losing sight of the SCCTD's goal when it focused on whether or not it liked the advertising. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. The sign ordinance was in the process of being amended, and until that was done, it did not make sense to begin the program. Palo Alto did things differently, and there were many opportunities for maintenance of the shelters, particularly in conjunction with Stanford. She wanted staff to explore how the City of New Orleans maintained its streetcar stations and how other communities cost effectively maintained their shelters. Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the motion. She did not believe it would provide better transit service and more ridership around Palo Alto. The area south of Palo Alto would probably be the only area that would benefit from the program, and the City would be contributing to their improved transit but would not get anything out of it except ugly advertising. The Council and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) had given a lot of time and
10/10/95 77-127
attention to some of the design issues along El Camino Real, and the Council was now faced with a proposition that would make El Camino Real appear to be even more tacky than it presently looked in terms of its signage. The Architectural Review Board consis-tently enforced very strict signage standards on the City's businesses, and the community had strived very hard for a long time to have attractive sign program. The proposal contradicted everything that the City had tried to accomplish in terms of the size and aesthetics of signage that occurred in the community. Council Member Andersen opposed the motion. The Council needed to go beyond the issue of the community's interest and look at the proposal as a regional issue as well. If the Council wanted to support mass transit, it needed to recognize some of the challenges that the SCCTD faced as well as the recognition that ridership would increase as the number of facilities increased. He believed Palo Alto would be able to financially maintain and increase the shelters in the future and that some creative ideas might come forward that would be even more cost effective than the SCCTD, but it would not happen Countywide. If Palo Alto did not support the program, it could influence the entire regional system. Council Member Fazzino opposed the motion and supported Council Member McCown's comments. The program would provide an avenue of funds for transit programs in the County. He was more concerned about available transit funds as the result of the U.S. Supreme Court's Measure A decision. There were no funds to support those kinds of programs. He would be very concerned if the State of California or some other agency took responsibility for the advertising program, but the SCCTD represented the cities. If Palo Alto had a serious concern about the advertising content, the Council had the influence to address the issue with its colleagues and resolve any concerns that the City might have. He saw very creative advertising on bus shelters and subways throughout Italy and felt the shelters were much more attractive than the shelters without advertising in Palo Alto. The advertising could be done creatively. He believed that some of the suggestions from his colleagues regarding alternative ways to raise funds to support additional shelters in the City were excellent ideas. He encour-aged the Council to move forward in that direction. He believed it was a relatively benign program if the Council limited the support to Phase 1. He also believed his colleagues had some legitimate environmental concerns about the aesthetic impact the signs would have in Palo Alto. He had struggled with those concerns but felt that the funds were badly needed and that the SCCTD would be responsive to environmental concerns that the City might address during Phase 1 of the program. Mayor Simitian said he did not like any of the three choices he could make: 1) condone an aesthetic assault along El Camino Real, 2) pay a large sum of money to have the shelters cleaned, or 3) have shoddy shelters that would not attract people to transit. He asked for a description of the proposed shelters. Ms. Fleming described the shelters as a current shelter with full- length advertising on the end panels.
10/10/95 77-128
Mayor Simitian referred to the picture of the shelter in the staff report (CMR:436:95) and he asked whether both end corners would be covered with advertising. Ms. Wagner said the advertising would be on both sides of one end of the shelter. Mayor Simitian clarified that one end of the shelter would be open. Ms. Wagner was uncertain whether one end would be open or it would have a glass panel. Mayor Simitian clarified there would be advertising on both sides of one end of the shelter and the rest of the area of the shelter would not have advertising. Ms. Wagner said that was correct, but one area would have schedules for the buses. She noted that there would be lighting in the shelters. She explained that the ad space that had not been sold to advertisers would be available for City use at no charge. Mayor Simitian asked whether Patrick Media expected to sell all the advertising space. Ms. Wagner understood that Patrick Media expected 75 percent of the space to be sold. Mayor Simitian opposed the motion. He was concerned that the City was not given a fair choice regarding the issue. He agreed with Council Member McCown's comments that the shelter had to be paid for by someone and that if the City did not support the program, the service would suffer. There was a real cost to providing the service and the shelter, and the City could pay it in dollars or in a less attractive landscape. His decision was based on the cost and how intrusive the advertising would be. Based on those assurances, he would oppose the motion. As Council Member Fazzino indicated, the Council should send the message to the SCCTD that it should expect Palo Alto to be very difficult if the City got a series of advertisements that it thought were intrusive or inappropriate. MOTION FAILED 4-4, Huber, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler "yes," Kniss absent. Council Member McCown asked whether the City could cancel its participation in Phase 1 if the City became dissatisfied with the way the advertising was being handled and if the concerns expressed were to no avail. Ms. Case said there was no way to cancel the present agreement as written unless the SCCTD would accept a conditional approval on the City's part. Council Member McCown clarified after the billing, the City was locked into the program.
10/10/95 77-129
Ms. Case said that was correct unless some litigation stopped the program. Council Member McCown clarified that the City was not committed to anything beyond Phase 1. Ms. Case said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked whether less than 11 shelters could be done. Ms. Case said the number was based on a fair share. Council Member McCown asked whether the locations of the 11 shelters had been clarified in light of Stanford's position with respect to 4 of the shelters. There were 5 locations proposed on El Camino Real, 2 locations in the Stanford Research Park, and 1 location Downtown. Ms. Likens said with the exception of the shelter Downtown, those were the locations proposed by the SCCTD, including the four shelters on Stanford's property. The two locations on Page Mill Road were on the County's list. The remaining locations of existing shelters could be chosen for alternate sites. The SCCTD would propose the locations and Palo Alto would have the right to approve or not approve the sites. The locations were preliminary and no intensive site evaluation had been done by Patrick Media to determine the feasibility of installation. If none of the alternate existing locations were acceptable, the SCCTD could consider locations where there were presently no shelters, including additional bus stops along El Camino Real. Council Member McCown clarified the City had veto power on the shelter locations. She said it appeared that at a conceptual approval level, the program was still conditioned on a variety of further implementation steps that had to be satisfactory to both sides. Ms. Case said the terms of the contract had been negotiated, but the number of shelters in each city had not been finalized. Further negotiation would probably be based on whether there were other cities that were willing to take up the slack. Ms. Wagner said there were some cities that were willing to take on a larger number of shelters so those cities could take off the slack for cities such as Palo Alto if the SCCTD were not able to find the number of sites that were needed for Palo Alto. Council Member McCown clarified if the Council stated it only wanted to concentrate on the shelters on El Camino Real and Stanford Research Park and did not want to pursue other locations, other sites in other cities could be explored for availability. Then Palo Alto would not have to do 11 sites. Ms. Wagner said the SCCTD would not know what sites or how many sites for each city until all the sites had been measured and the
10/10/95 77-130
private property owners had been contacted. The SCCTD had provided its best guesstimate how the sites should be distributed for each city. Ms. Fleming said the SCCTD would be faced with a much larger problem if Palo Alto did not participate in the program. If Palo Alto reduced the number of shelters, the redistribution of the shelters to some of the larger cities would be less of a problem. Ms. Case said the language in the current agreement indicated that all the agencies counting for a certain number of shelters had to be signed up by October 31, 1995, or the agreement was void. Therefore, the City of Palo Alto should make certain there were alternatives before it signed up by the deadline. Otherwise, the City might not be in a good legal position for doing fewer shelters at that point and could end up taking shelters that it had not planned on if the negotiations did not work out. Council Member McCown said the Council could decide it wanted a smaller participation of shelters in Phase 1, and by October 31, 1995, the City would either be signed up on that basis or not. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City was obligated to absorb four more shelters due to Stanford's rejection of the program or whether the shelters could be absorbed by other cities. Ms. Wagner said the shelters on Stanford property were part of the number of shelters that needed to be maintained and improved. The SCCTD wanted to work with Stanford and with Palo Alto staff to come to some resolution of Stanford's disapproval of advertising on certain shelters. Council Member Andersen asked what would happen if Stanford were very rigid on the issue. Ms. Wagner said if Stanford were very rigid on the issue, the SCCTD would consider those shelters not available for Palo Alto to use as advertising shelters. The SCCTD would then try to find other shelter locations in Palo Alto, including bus stops, which would be possible. Council Member Andersen asked whether it could go beyond Palo Alto's borders so that the City did not have to absorb Stanford's unwillingness to accept the advertising shelters. Ms. Wagner said the SCCTD would go to another city if the additional shelters could not be found in Palo Alto. Mayor Simitian asked whether the four Stanford shelters were on private property in the City of Palo Alto. Ms. Wagner said yes. Only three locations were proposed for an advertising shelter. The location at Blake Wilbur Drive would not be considered for an advertising shelter. Mayor Simitian said two issues were important to him: 1) the product that the City would end up with, and 2) how the City could
10/10/95 77-131
get out of the program if it turned out that Patrick Media was a less than desirable contractor. He wanted assurances that the City would get the product as described. Mr. Allmand said the Implementation Agreement was tied into the main agreement between the SCCTD and Patrick Media and was subject to extensive negotiations. The main agreement provided very specific requirements for the shelter design, including the advertising. Also, the plans and designs would be submitted to each of the cities for their review. Cities had the ability to choose a different design; however, additional costs would have to be incurred by the city. One of the provisions indicated that the panel was a 4-foot by 6-foot lighted panel at one end of the shelter and the minimum size of the shelter. Mayor Simitian asked whether the main agreement could be amended. Mr. Allmand said the main agreement could not be amended. One of the provisions of the Implementation Agreement stated that the agreement could not be changed to affect any of the rights of the cities. Ms. Case said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked how the Council could terminate its participation in the program if it found the service by Patrick Media to be less than acceptable in terms of the maintenance of the shelters. Mr. Allmand said there was an ability to terminate the agreement if Patrick Media defaulted. Patrick Media's responsibilities had been delineated in both agreements so that there would not be disagreements about how much maintenance needed to be done. Mayor Simitian asked whether there was a termination date on the contract with Patrick Media. Mr. Allmand said 15 years unless there was a default or a legal challenge that resulted in a bill that held that the sign ordinance was invalid and then the program would be terminated in that particular city. Mayor Simitian clarified that the City would not have the ability to sever its relationship and buy back the right to its unsigned shelters under the two agreements. Mr. Allmand said that option would have to be negotiated. Mayor Simitian asked what it would cost the City to maintain the shelters. Mr. Roberts said staff had estimated the cost incorrectly on Alternative 3, and the City's cost would be approximately $50,000 per year with in-house activities, not outside contracting. Mayor Simitian clarified the City could spend $50,000 per year and not have the signs but it might jeopardize the program for the
10/10/95 77-132
SCCTD or the City could take the advertising signs and save $50,000 per year which would help the viability of the program. Ms. Likens clarified that the cost would be for weekly cleaning which was comparable to Patrick Media's proposal. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to the Regular City Council meeting on Monday, October 16, 1995. Mayor Simitian said the staff would provide clarification on costs at the meeting on October 16, 1995. He asked the City Attorney's Office to check the City's ability to enforce the standards in terms of what was or was not displayed and to review both agree-ments to determine whether there was any "wiggle room" if the City wanted to terminate its participation in the program. Council Member Andersen encouraged the SCCTD to determine whether there was any flexibility regarding the issues that the Council had brought forward that evening. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. 10. League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin said the resolutions before the Council that evening were the manner in which the League of California Cities (LCC) determined what its work program for the ensuing year would be. The City had had several opportunities to play a direct role in the development of the LCC resolutions. Several members of City staff and the Council had served on policy committees: Council Member Andersen on the Environmental Quality, City Clerk Gloria Young on the Administra-tive Services, City Manager June Fleming on the Community Services, Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case on the Transpor-tation and Public Works, and Council Member Kniss on the Housing, Community, and Economic Development. Council Member Kniss had also been appointed to serve on the Resolutions Committee. All of those opportunities had led to the final action which would be taken by the voting delegates at the General Assembly of the LCC's conference. Staff had reviewed the proposed resolutions and the staff report (CMR:436:95) conveyed the recommendations to the Council. The staff report also indicated the resolutions that the staff felt should most appropriately be discussed by the Council without a staff recommendation due to the nature of some of the resolutions. She noted that at the Council's place was another initiative resolution that had just been received and would be circulated at the LCC Conference. The Council might want to address that initiative resolution in addition to the resolutions presented that evening. The initiative resolution at the Council's place proposed a limit on the number of presidential appointments to policy committees and an increase in the number of division appointments as well. Staff had not made a recommendation for Resolution Nos. 4, 5, and 6 because it was a manner in which the LCC did its business. She recommended that the Council follow the steps in the staff report as it addressed the resolutions.
10/10/95 77-133
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council: 1. Endorse the preliminary recommendations of the League of California Cities (LCC) policy committees concerning the Annual Conference Resolutions with the exceptions of Resolu-tion Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11, 19, 23, and 25; 2. Disapprove Resolution No. 11; 3. Instruct the Council's voting delegate accordingly. Mayor Simitian explained that Resolution No. 5, "Resolution Relating to Petition Resolutions; Bylaws Amendment," recommended the designated voting delegates that signed a petition be increased from 10 percent to 20 percent of the number of member cities. The resolution was a way for the LCC to determine whether a resolution had significant support. Resolution No. 4 was similar to Resolution No. 5. He had no opinion on Resolution No. 6 which was a Southern California intramural politics resolution. AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the City Council approve Resolution Nos. 4 and 5 and take no position on Resolution No. 6. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian asked the Police Chief's view on Resolution No. 16, "Resolution Relating to Use of Photo-Radar Equipment," which proposed that photo-radar be used for officer-free ticket by mail programs. Police Chief Chris Durkin said staff recommended approval of Resolution No. 16. Apparently, some people ignored the citations and sometimes even had the citation dismissed because there was not a physical signing of the citation in the presence of an officer. Mayor Simitian clarified the Police Department supported the use of photo-radar for speeding purposes. Mr. Durkin said he supported the use of mailing the citations to enhance the photo-radar process if it were decided that photo-radar was the correct direction to go. Mayor Simitian asked how photo-radar citations were issued if mail notice were not used. Mr. Durkin said all photo-radar citations were mailed, but people failed to appear and a failure to appear action could not be taken by the Court because they had not signed the citation. The resolution would create legislation to correct that problem. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, that the City Council approve Resolution No. 16.
10/10/95 77-134
AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian referred to Resolution No. 19, "Resolution Relating to Parole of Violent Offenders," and asked for a definition of a violent offender. The resolution related to lifetime parole although that was curtailed to a minimum of seven years parole. He asked who absorbed the cost of the parole. Mr. Durkin said the California Penal Code Section 1192.7, Subsec-tion C, defined a violent offender as "those people who have been convicted and incarcerated in a state prison, not a county jail, for murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, and sexual offenses." He had checked with the California Department of Corrections that day and found that approximately 2,300 violent offenders were paroled from the state prison system every month. The violent offenders were either people who had been returned to prison because of violating a provision of their parole or being paroled for the first time. Mayor Simitian clarified an extra increment of time would be added since the people were already being paroled for the remainder of their prison sentence. Mr. Durkin said that was correct. Approximately 50 percent of the offenders did not serve out their full time and the balance usually became the parole. When a sexual offender was convicted, served time, and then was released, he/she must register with the municipality, police department or sheriff's department, in which they live. Mayor Simitian clarified if a person had served their full sentence, there could be an additional increment of at least seven years of parole. Mr. Durkin said the resolution had that possibility, although the Parole Board had the determining factor. Mayor Simitian asked what it cost to have a person on parole. Mr. Durkin said it depended on the level of supervision and that decision was made by the Parole Board at the time of the person's release. Council Member Andersen had a problem with subjecting a person who had already served his/her time to another additional stigma. AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved to disapprove Resolution No. 19. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council approve Resolution No. 19. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by McCown,
10/10/95 77-135
that the City Council take no position on Resolution No. 19. Mayor Simitian said there were limited law enforcement resources and the question was what was the best use of those law enforcement resources. He agreed with Council Member Fazzino's amendment since he had a concern about violent offenders and would feel more comfortable if there was some way to keep tabs on the people, but he could not make a judgment without additional information about the level of supervision, the cost, and what a city would have to sacrifice for the cost. Council Member Fazzino said Mayor Simitian had raised some legitimate concerns, but he felt comfortable with supporting the resolution. He did not believe there was any more important public safety objective than to keep violent offenders from harming citizens of the state. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Fazzino, Schneider, Wheeler "no," Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian referred to Resolution No. 21, "Resolution Relating to the Need to Better Regulate Firearms." He asked whether the Police Chief was familiar with the objectives contained in the position paper entitled, "Confronting The American Tragedy - The Need to Better Regulate Firearms." Mr. Durkin said on February 2, 1995, the California Police Chiefs Association adopted a position paper concerning the need to address firearm violence, death, and injury. The document entitled, "Confronting The American Tragedy - The Need to Better Regulate Firearms," was an accumulation of a year-long study by the police chiefs throughout the state. The one thing that all the police chiefs had in common was that citizens had an increased fear of violent crimes involving firearms. He reviewed the information that the police chiefs obtained as they developed the position paper. The position paper covered objectives in four areas: the mandatory registration of all firearms; ownership and possession would be limited to individuals 18 years or older with thorough background checks and completion of the state-approved training course; firearms would have a magazine capacity of only six bullets; and firearms must be locked, stored, and unloaded when not under the control of a responsible adult. The police chiefs also recommended that firearms be subject to consumer product safety standards; that the authority be retained at the local level with uniform standards and qualifications for concealed weapons; that assault weapons be clearly identified and defined and that ownership, possession, and the sale of assault weapons be prohibited; that it would be unlawful to purchase, sell, possess, or use a firearm and make it chargeable as a felony rather than a misdemeanor; and that there would be a mandatory destruction of firearms which would be controlled by the police by way of being unregistered, found, unclaimed, or used in the commission of a crime or surrendered. AMENDMENT: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, that the City Council approve Resolution No. 21.
10/10/95 77-136
AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Council Member Fazzino commended Police Chief Durkin and the other police chiefs for their leadership on the issue. It was absolutely essential that the leaders of the police departments play a leadership role so the cities would be successful in combating the organizations that were opposed to those kinds of societal decisions regarding manufacturing regulations of firearms. AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the City Council disapprove Resolution Nos. 23 and 25. Council Member McCown said the ongoing process of the California Constitution Revision Commission was the place where those issues should be debated and resolved. Mayor Simitian said the state had not made much progress in the previous 15 years by having one local government agency criticize another agency. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian referred to Resolution No. 24, "Resolution Relating to Reallocation of Traffic Fines," and said the "RESOLVED" clause did not clarify the traffic fine code sections. Ms. Rudin said the legislation referenced in the "RESOLVED" clause which was enacted in 1991 took the revenues from traffic, parking, and other fines away from the cities and reallocated them to the counties and the state for a number of programs that were loosely related to the traffic and parking offenses. Cities were left with one-fourth to one-third of the revenue that they had prior to enactment of that legislation. Mayor Simitian clarified the resolution would repeal that legisla-tion and reallocate the funds generated through traffic enforcement effort back to the cities. Ms. Rudin said the distinction between that resolution and the two previous resolutions that the Council had disapproved which also dealt with where revenues were allocated was that the money had only recently been taken from the cities' pockets. The other two resolutions dealt with changing something that had been a long-standing arrangement. AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the City Council take no position on Resolution No. 24. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian clarified there was no Resolution Committee recommendation because it came through a petition process. Ms. Rudin said the initiative resolution was introduced at the September 1995 meeting of the Housing, Community, and Economic
10/10/95 77-137
Development Committee by one of its members. The Committee was noted as the source, but the resolution technically could not move forward until it received the appropriate number of signatures at the LCC Annual Conference. AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the City Council disapprove the Initiative Resolution relating to Government Financing. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the City Council take no position on the Initiative Resolution for limiting the number of presidential appointments of League of California Cities' committees. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Council Member Fazzino said the Council had previously discussed the issue of traffic safety. There had been some interest in reviewing the 85 percent law in terms of the appropriate speed for streets. The second issue was the possibility of a stricter fine for red light violators. He wanted those issues brought to the attention of the appropriate LCC's traffic committee for discussion and possible action. Ms. Rudin said the regular procedure was to propose a resolution for consideration at the following year's LCC Annual Conference. Each of the LCC's policy committees would be developing a work program that would constitute its work during the year. If the issues were close to an issue on the work program, it could be accelerated by getting a resolution supported within the work of the committee for the current year. The Council could work through the legislative process and introduce some legislation at the beginning of the next session. Council Member Fazzino wanted to know who should be contacted within the LCC structure to advance those issues. He believed the LCC needed to address the issues before they would be considered seriously by the state legislature. City Clerk Gloria Young suggested the League of California Cities Peninsula Division could also be used as a tool to work through the resolution process. Mayor Simitian said as President of the Peninsula Division of the LCC, he would be happy to work with Council Member Fazzino on those issues. COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian directed the Council's attention to the memo
10/10/95 77-138
regarding a social gathering with the Youth Council. Council Member McCown reported on the request of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Congestion Management Agency for the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Board to provide its priorities by the end of the week regarding Measure A. She noted that a special Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Board Meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, 1995, which included the commitment of the City of Mountain View. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 6. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 6. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:51 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.
10/10/95 77-139