HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-16 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 16, 1995 1. Study Session re Council Priorities 1996-98...........77-142 1. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency General Manager Peter Cipolla re Measure A............................77-144 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................77-144 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1995..................77-145 3. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Agreement - Public Review of Compliance...........................77-145 4. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the 1996-98 Budget Guidelines.............77-146 6. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council the approval of the staff recommendation to approve the addition of four full-time employees (one parks supervisor position, one sprinkler repair position, and two parks maintenance positions) to provide maintenance, renovation, and supervision of 20 acres of athletic fields and maintenance services for 25 tennis courts belonging to the Palo Alto Unified School District....77-146 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................77-146 7. Santa Clara County Transit District Request for Palo Alto to Approve Transit Shelter Advertising Program........77-147 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architec-tural Review Board to approve construction of a new 4,400-square-foot commercial building with a financial service use (bank), 22 parking spaces and related site improvements located at 375 Arboretum Road (continued from September 18, 1995)..............................77-153 9A. (Old Item No. 11) Ordinance Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
10/16/95 77-140
Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages at Boulware Park..................................................77-165 10. Utilities Advisory Commission Review of Utilities Organizational Review - Request for Proposals.........77-168 12. Audit of Contract Administration......................77-175 13. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District for Maintenance of School District Athletic Fields and Tennis Courts............77-176 14. Mayor Simitian re Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting of October 23, 1995...........................77-176 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........77-176 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned in memory of Frances Cook Arrillaga, philanthropist, at 11:00 p.m...............77-176
10/16/95 77-141
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:45 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Study Session re Council Priorities 1996-98 SYNOPSIS OF STUDY SESSION RE SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98 Mayor Simitian reviewed the purpose of selecting annual Council priorities and indicated that a list of Council priorities for previous years was available for reference. He advised that as Council Members discussed their preferences for priorities, they should indicate what they envisioned being accomplished and whether the issue selected should be a priority for one or two years. A look at the initial scoring indicated that four issues clearly had the interest of a majority of the Council Members. Discussion ensued regarding whether an issue which was a priority during the current fiscal year and already receiving major attention by Council and staff (e.g., the Comprehensive Plan) should be selected. It could be assumed that the effort would continue, whether or not the Council designated it as a priority again. It was suggested that the Council should select "break through" issues; in other words, issues in which some specific goals could be achieved if heightened emphasis occurred. It was decided that although it was not possible to devote more resources to the Comprehensive Plan, that issue should continue as a Council priority because of its great importance and the need to maintain momentum through the implementation phase. He suggested the Council think of priorities as falling into three categories: 1) starting new priorities, 2) continuing existing priorities, and 3) finishing existing priorities. The Council reached consensus that the following priorities and time periods should be selected: Traffic Management and Safety (FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98); Infrastructure Plan (FY 1996-97 and 1997-98); the Comprehensive Plan (FY 1996-97); Families, Youth and Community (1996-97); and Neighborhood Business Districts (FY 1997-98). Therefore, there would be four priority issues in the first fiscal year and three issues in the second fiscal year. It was noted that the overall list of suggested priorities that had been presented to Council contained many valuable ideas, and although Council could not select them all, it would not diminish their importance. Council appreciated the participation of the boards and commissions and the residents who took part in the Town Hall Meeting. The study session concluded with a request that
10/16/95 77-142
staff refine the scope of the priorities to reflect the comments made by Council and return to Council for formal approval. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
10/16/95 77-143
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency General Manager Peter Cipolla re Measure A Council Member Ted Laliotis, City of Los Altos, representative to the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, said the four cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto had one seat that rotated every two years. He said the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency (SCCTA) responded quickly to the ruling on Measure A and was able to save a portion of the Tasman Light Rail that connected San Jose to Downtown Mountain View. The light rail was now a regional project. Because the SCCTA was an independent regional agency for Santa Clara County (the County), it was able to achieve those results which would not have been possible with the previous structure. Mike Evanhoe, Director, Congestion Management Program of the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, made a presentation regarding Measure A. Council Member Fazzino thanked the representatives who seized the initiative and moved as quickly as possible to assure that funding was available for both the Guadalupe and the Tasman projects which related to the long-range transportation needs of the County. He said there were other decisions that needed to be made by elected officials and the business community regarding light rail and other alternative transit needs. Representatives of the SCCTA and other individuals would be meeting to discuss other ways of acquiring the necessary funds to address the long-term transit needs of the County. Council Member McCown echoed the comments of Council Member Laliotis about the way the decision was reached as compared with the previous structure. She hoped the SCCTA would continue with that decision-making spirit in the future. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic duty (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Victor Frost, Telephone Pole No. 1139, spoke regarding the last proposal for the garden project (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office).
10/16/95 77-144
Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding archaeological artifacts. Irvin Dawid, 3886 La Donna Avenue, spoke regarding bike parking, auto parking, and cars in the Downtown. Jeanette Marquess, 806 Los Robles Avenue, spoke regarding the Baylands/baseball field support. Richard Beckwith, 2325 Columbia Street, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Tyler Sullivan, 439 Maureen Avenue, spoke regarding the Baylands/ baseball fields. Robert McGregor, 831 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Steve Schiffman, 347 Tioga Court, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Lane Smith, 947 Ilima Way, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Aaron Friedman, 3360 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields and poor condition of the Gunn High School field. Andrew Smith, 947 Ilima Way, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Ralph Martinez, 632 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Devin Holloway, 2100 Emerson Street, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Ryan Jeffries, 2569 Webster Street, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. Andrew Austin, 2246 Harvard Street, spoke regarding support for the baseball fields. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of September 18, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen "not participating."
10/16/95 77-145
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3, 4, and 6. 3. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Agreement - Public Review of Compliance 4. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the 1996-98 Budget Guidelines 6. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council the approval of the staff recommendation to approve the addition of four full-time employees (one parks supervisor position, one sprinkler repair position, and two parks maintenance positions) to provide maintenance, renovation, and supervision of 20 acres of athletic fields and maintenance services for 25 tennis courts belonging to the Palo Alto Unified School Dis-trict. Further, approval of the reclassification of one existing park maintenance position to a contracts inspector position, who would oversee the expanding contract work and would allow existing management staff to plan and oversee the new partnership with the Palo Alto Unified School District. Ordinance 4299 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Add Positions to the Table of Organization to Maintain Athletic Fields in the Palo Alto Unified School District" Ordinance 4300 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Create Capital Improvement Project No. 19621, `Equipment for Maintenance of Palo Alto Unified School District Athletic Fields'" MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 3, McCown "not participating." MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 4 and 6. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Simitian announced that Item No. 9, "Appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve a Conditional Use Permit for construction and operation of a new 4,400-square-foot commercial building with a financial service use (bank), 22 parking spaces and related site improvements located at 375 Arboretum Road," had been removed from the agenda because no appeal was filed in regard to the item, and therefore, no action was required. City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2, "Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Advanced Systems Group to Provide Programming and Consulting Services to Develop a Marketing
10/16/95 77-146
Information System Application Software," and Item No. 5, "The Finance Committee recommendation re approval of an additional appropriation of $82,000 for the Police Information Systems Master Plan Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the purchase and installation of a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system and an additional $48,000 for the fire station alerting system," had been removed by staff. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. Santa Clara County Transit District Request for Palo Alto to Approve Transit Shelter Advertising Program (continued from October 10, 1995) Irvin Dawid, 3886 La Donna Avenue, referred to Council Member McCown's previous comments regarding the City's role in the Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD). The SCCTD currently spent $500,000 on maintenance, and the operating revenue could only be increased by cutting service or increasing the fare. The proposal would increase the revenue without doing either of those things. He referred to Council Member Andersen's previous comments regarding the transit user. Transit dependent people appreciated being able to sit at a bus stop, and every amenity made a difference. He said along El Camino Real from the All American Market to Fry's Electronics probably had the highest transit usage in Palo Alto because of the Ventura/Curtner community. The proposed transit shelters for that area would be lit which was needed in the area. From a transit rider's point of view, transit shelters made a difference. The City should not pay for something that the SCCTD was willing to do. He said the aesthetics did not make any difference to the people who drove along El Camino Real. He asked the Council to reconsider its decision. Ellen Fletcher, 777 San Antonio Road, said the current policies in the Comprehensive Plan stated the City "should encourage transit use by having buses run reliably and more frequently and prepare information for passengers, including pocket size maps, schedules, and routing information for display inside bus shelters." The transit shelter program could not provide everything because of the costs. The City had already lost bus service plus the Council had taken a position on extending CalTrain to Downtown San Francisco and upgrading the service which would have come from Measure A funds. The CalTrain service was being funded by the three transit agencies. The Council needed to look beyond the City limits because the transit system affected everyone. Council Member Andersen asked how much it would cost the City to provide the same number of lit bus shelters that it would receive if the Council approved the proposal for Phase 1.
10/16/95 77-147
Senior Planner Gayle Likens said the total number of shelters under the three phases of the agreement would increase from 24 to 30. It would cost approximately $6,000 to $7,000 per shelter. City Manager June Fleming said there was probably some economy of scale for the SCCTD to build the shelters at the price. Staff had not determined what it would cost for the City to construct a shelter, but the figure should be inflated since the City would not be building as many shelters as the SCCTD. Council Member Andersen clarified the long-range cost for the City to provide an equal level of service and renovate or replace existing shelters could cost approximately $300,000. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said that figure was fairly accurate, but the cost of lighting the shelters had not been determined. Council Member Andersen did not believe the Council would approve as a high infrastructure priority $300,000 for bus shelters and would just maintain the existing shelters. He asked the life expectancy of a bus shelter. Linda Wagner, Management Analyst, Santa Clara County Transit District, said approximately eight years. Council Member McCown referred to the City Attorney's memorandum dated October 11, 1995, in response to the Council's questions at its previous City Council meeting. She clarified the SCCTD had in its agreement with Patrick Media the right to review proposed advertising and deny access to advertising it determined to be unacceptable. Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked how a city would notify the SCCTD if it found something objectionable at the shelters in the future. Kevin Allmand, Senior Assistant Counsel, Santa Clara County Transit District, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, said a specific procedure had not been worked out on a county-wide basis for each of the cities. However, the SCCTD would consult with each of the cities and work out an agreement with clear standards regarding communication and response by the SCCTD should a city want a procedure in place. Council Member McCown clarified Palo Alto would have an understand-ing with the SCCTD about how it communicated with the SCCTD and the process that would be used should the City find that advertising placed in Palo Alto was not acceptable.
10/16/95 77-148
Mr. Allmand said that was correct. The City of Mountain View had requested a side agreement to that effect, and the SCCTD was presently developing processes and procedures. Council Member McCown referred to Item No. 2 in the City Attorney's memorandum and clarified if there were a legal challenge to the City's Sign Ordinance, i.e., the City made an exception under the City's Sign Ordinance to permit the advertising, Patrick Media would have to defend the case. If there were a legal problem for the City's Sign Ordinance, it gave the City the right to terminate its involvement in the program. Mr. Allmand said that was correct. The City also had the right to suspend the program if there were a legal challenge. Also, the City retained the authority over any settlement and could defend the case itself if it chose to do so. Council Member McCown said the City Attorney's memorandum also indicated the City could terminate its involvement in the program "in the event of a default by the District or Patrick Media." She clarified if the SCCTD did not properly carry out its obligations to review and approve acceptable signs, that would be considered a default. Mr. Allmand said that was correct. Ms. Case said it was the first time staff had heard even from the attorneys who had worked on negotiating the agreement that the SCCTD was willing to put in writing a further agreement that would allow the cities to have a review over content. The city attorneys had previously asked the SCCTD and Patrick Media to have a role in the content and/or to have third party beneficiary rights to enforce that part of the agreement, but they had been refused. She was glad that the SCCTD would in fact allow the cities to have a role in reviewing the content. Mr. Allmand said the wording of the Implementation Agreement in terms of content restrictions took the cities out of that role. There was a specific request from the City of San Jose and other cities not to be involved in that process. Those cities wanted to state the standards in the agreement which had been done. The SCCTD had always had the ability under the main agreement to remove objectionable advertising. The SCCTD was willing to work out an agreement with any city. Council Member McCown said the City was being asked to agree to accept eight shelters in the program, six of which were in the City's right-of-way and two of which were in Santa Clara County's (the County) right-of-way. She asked whether the City could veto the County shelters or whether it required Palo Alto's and the County's concurrence to allow the shelters.
10/16/95 77-149
Ms. Case said the City had the right to determine where the advertising would be located. Council Member McCown clarified if the County decided a shelter could be placed on its right-of-way, Palo Alto could decide it was not an acceptable location. Ms. Case said that was correct. Council Member McCown referred to the locations of the shelters on Attachment 1 of the staff report (CMR:451:95) and said four of the shelters were clustered around the Page Mill Road/California Avenue/El Camino Real intersections, and shelters would be added on Arastradero Road. She asked whether it would make more sense to have companion shelters on either side of the intersection rather than to have one shelter on one side and another shelter several blocks away on the other side. Ms. Likens explained that the ridership was in both directions along El Camino Real. Council Member McCown believed the shelters should be placed where it would benefit the greatest number of people, but she did not know whether that was the best planning direction. Ms. Likens said the numbers in the staff report reflected only the SCCTD's ridership, not San Mateo County Transit District bus rider-ship. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Graffiti Removal Program would be impacted if the proposal were defeated. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said staff's analysis showed that due to the present rate of graffiti activity including the bus shelter maintenance for the balance of the current fiscal year with the graffiti program would not significantly impact the program. A weekly cleaning cycle for the shelters would be two days per week, and the Graffiti Removal Program was three days per week. The 24-hour response time on obscenities could be affected, and the time might need to be increased to 48 hours. There was no other significant potential for impacts. Staff would evaluate the process and return to the Council during the next budget cycle. Council Member Kniss asked for a review of the voting from the previous City Council meeting on October 10, 1995. City Clerk Gloria Young explained the first motion proposed by Council Member Rosenbaum and seconded by Council Member Huber was that the City Council reject the staff recommendation and not accept Transit Shelter Advertising Program and that the City of Palo Alto provide funding for maintenance of the shelters, which failed on a 4-4 vote, with Andersen, Fazzino, McCown, and Simitian
10/16/95 77-150
voting "no," and Kniss absent. The Motion to Continue followed Council's discussion. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Graffiti Removal Program budget would have to be increased if the Council did not approve the SCCTD's proposal. She understood that the graffiti problem on the bus shelters in San Francisco was rather substantial. Mr. Roberts said the graffiti on the shelters would have to be removed which was currently done by the SCCTD. The previous staff analysis treated it as an additional cost issue to the City. The current proposal before the Council that evening had been revised to propose including the cost within current budgetary resources that were devoted exclusively to the Graffiti Removal Program and to split the current resources between the graffiti program and bus shelter maintenance. Currently, five days per week were devoted to graffiti activities. There was no cost increase or short-term budgetary impact proposed that evening. Council Member Kniss asked whether the SCCTD had the same standards as the City's for removing graffiti from the bus shelters. Deputy Director of Public Works Operations Mike Miller said based on other County maintenance operations that had been scaled back over the years in Palo Alto, it would not be the same as the City's standard. Council Member Kniss said before the Santa Clara County Transportation Commission was dissolved, graffiti removal was a low priority because of funding. Ms. Fleming said the SCCTD was currently cleaning the bus shelters weekly. There were varying times of response from the SCCTD to remove graffiti, and staff anticipated that with the Patrick Media program, there would be more ability to consistently respond to cleaning and removing of graffiti. Telephone calls from members of the public requesting the City to supplement the cleaning that was done at the shelters were referred to the SCCTD, but sometimes staff had to clean the shelters when the condition was unacceptable. Mayor Simitian asked how often the shelters were cleaned on the current maintenance schedule. Ms. Wagner replied once a week. Council Member Kniss asked whether Patrick Media had provided maintenance for similar programs. Ms. Case said the SCCTD had stated that other cities contacted had been pleased with Patrick Media's performance.
10/16/95 77-151
Ms. Wagner said Patrick Media had received very good recommenda-tions for the quality of shelter, maintenance, and responsiveness to the city or transit district from numerous cities she personally contacted. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Implementation Agreement with the Santa Clara County Transit District for the Transit Shelter Advertising Program; 2. Introduce the Ordinance amending the Sign Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to provide for bus shelter advertis-ing; 3. Approve the installation of 8 advertising shelters under Phase 1 of the agreement to be chosen from among the 11 identified sites; 4. Direct staff to establish an interim flat rate for unmetered electric service at bus shelters and return to Council for approval to add that type of service to the electric rate schedule E-6; and 5. Direct staff to return to Council one year after the installa-tion of the Phase 1 advertising shelters with an evaluation report and recommendation regarding the City's participation in Phase 2 of the Transit Shelter Advertising Program. Council Member Andersen said the City had a regional responsibility and the program would aid the SCCTD a great deal. As a result of Measure A, it was imperative that the City move in that direction. He felt the advertising was in good taste and the lighting was a good safety feature for the elderly. An important aspect of the mass transit was the possibility of increasing ridership. Council Member McCown thanked the SCCTD for responding to the Council's previous discussion by returning with a proposal for three fewer shelters for inclusion in the program which meant the City would have six shelters on El Camino Real. She argued that the City's level of participation was small, and she was comforted by the comments that evening that the City would be able to have an agreement with the SCCTD with respect to issues that might arise if the advertising were unacceptable to the City and if the SCCTD were not protecting the City's interest which she believed it would since the SCCTD was made up of elected officials from the entire County. It was an important program to support, and every city was being asked to bear its share. She asked the Council to act on that principal goal and not focus on the dislike for advertising. Council Member Kniss opposed the motion because she could not understand how ridership would be increased by having advertising, and she felt the long-term problem was how the SCCTD had been run.
10/16/95 77-152
She wanted proof that the SCCTD had improved before the City put advertisement along El Camino Real. She did not believe the City would be able to really control what advertisement appeared on the shelters. The City had attempted to clean up El Camino Real for a long time, and adding small billboards to that area would not help. She wanted to make certain that Patrick Media maintained the bus shelters in San Francisco. It was troubling to oppose a proposal that appealed to the region, but she did not believe a shelter with that kind of advertising would add anything to the County. Perhaps lighted shelters could be done without the advertising and another way could be found to pay for the program. Measure A's failure pointed out that there was a long-term problem with transportation. Council Member Fazzino said the program was about a limited number of modest, tasteful advertisements primarily along El Camino Real. The City had been guaranteed by the SCCTD an opportunity to comment and address issues of content if the City found them to be distasteful. He was pleased with the criteria already developed by the SCCTD with respect to appropriate content, and he believed the SCCTD would respond to community interests in that area. Limited resources were available in California at all levels, particularly in the area of transportation. If creative ways could not be found to fund transportation programs such as the proposed program, the cities would not be able to provide adequate level of services to the people who were truly dependent upon bus service in Palo Alto and other communities. The Council had lost sight of that fact and had taken a somewhat elitist view of the issue. Services would suffer, the Graffiti Removal Program would suffer, and transporta-tion programs would suffer if the Council did not approve the program. He hoped the Council would consider the larger picture when voting on the matter. Council Member Andersen reminded the Council that Council Member Rosenbaum's earlier motion included a stipulation that the City would provide funding for maintenance of the existing shelters. He asked his colleagues who opposed the program to come up with an alternative recommendation that would recognize the need for the maintenance and renovation of the existing shelters. The Council needed to make a commitment to the community to provide the services that would be lost if the program were not approved. Council Member Kniss said the size and offensiveness of the panel was quite relevant. Mayor Simitian asked the status of the maintenance and construction responsibilities for shelters if the motion to approve the program were rejected that evening. Ms. Fleming said if the Council voted not to accept the advertising program and the maintenance, staff would check with the SCCTD to determine when the City's responsibilities began in terms of the maintenance of the shelters. Staff would then begin folding the
10/16/95 77-153
maintenance as part of the Graffiti Removal Program. She empha-sized that it was an interim program. Staff would use the time between the start of the maintenance and the next budget cycle to prepare a proposal for the continued maintenance and construction of the bus shelters. MOTION FAILED 4-5, Andersen, Fazzino, McCown, Simitian "yes." 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board to approve construction of a new 4,400-square-foot commercial building with a financial service use (bank), 22 parking spaces and related site improvements located at 375 Arboretum Road (continued from September 18, 1995) Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the proposed 4,400-square-foot commercial building was at the corner of Quarry and Arboretum Roads, was located in a neighborhood/commercial zone, and was surrounded by major arterials as well as commercial uses and vacant land. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved the project on July 20, 1995, and an appeal was filed on August 4, 1995. The appeal was based on the following items which included the appellant's perception: 1) that the project did not conform to the draft shopping center improvement plan, 2) that it resulted in awkward maneuvering in the parking lot, 3) that the parking lot landscaping did not meet minimum standards, 4) that no allowances for future widening of Quarry Road had been made, 5) that the Fire Department comment was not adequately addressed in the Conditions of Approval, and 6) that it was piecemeal and in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The staff report (CMR:447:95) responded to all of those issues. However, staff considered the three most critical issues to be the conformance with the draft shopping center improvement plan and Quarry Road improvements, parking lot maneuvering, and potential CEQA violations. She emphasized that the shopping center improvement plan was in draft form, had not been approved, and was not an official document. The draft was currently being reviewed by the City, and the applicant provided plans which showed how the improvement plans could be implemented. One of the appellant's major concerns was lack of a five-foot landscape strip as well as the five-foot sidewalk. There was room to make those changes when the Quarry Road improvements were approved by the Council. In the interim, the ARB, staff, and the applicant worked out a temporary solution to provide oak trees on private property which would provide the needed and desired canopy over the sidewalk. When improvement plans were approved and landscape strip was added at a future date, there would be oak trees on both sides of the sidewalk which would provide a continuous canopy that was desired. The ARB, staff, and the applicant discussed the parking lot maneuvering in great detail, and the applicant made changes to the original preliminary plan to increase the safety and ease of maneuvering within the parking lot. The amendments were reviewed by the
10/16/95 77-154
traffic engineer and were accepted as safe and meeting the objectives of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Regarding the potential CEQA violations, staff did not believe it was a piecemealing of the project as the shopping center improvement plan was a draft plan, would be amended in the near future, and would provide for shopping center expansion as well as Sand Hill Road corridor projects and expansion in that area. The use was allowed under the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning, was independent of other projects that were occurring in that area, and would not prevent any improvements to Quarry Road in the future. Staff recommended denial of the appeal. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Architectural Review Board Member Jim McFall said the ARB reviewed the project on April 6, 1995, and there were several issues of concern that had to do with the site planning, parking, and automobile circulation. The project returned to the ARB on July 20, 1995. The ARB decided that the issues raised earlier had been addressed to its satisfaction, and the project was approved on a 5-0 vote, with signage to return to the ARB. The ARB was supportive of the project design as approved. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the project could be viewed as part of a larger project that might involve the Sand Hill Road corridor projects and the Santa Clara County (the County) land that was on the same side of Quarry Road as the project. An environmen-tal review would have to take place for a combined large project which was not possible that evening. The project could also be viewed as one project and would provide all of the environmental review and mitigation. He referred to information at the Council's place that evening that suggested how the project should be treated by itself. The project was surrounded by the "rectangle project" that the City had previously indicated should be residential area, but Stanford University had indicated it should be changed from multiple family to a shared parking structure for the project. Stanford had also indicated that residential should be along El Camino Real in an area that was designated for open space by both the City and the County (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). He believed the use permit should have been linked with the ARB approval. The two hearings were held on the same day, and there was no ARB approval on that day but only a recommendation for an approval. He presented a visual version of his previous comments. He believed the project should be considered alone that evening with the two conditions he suggested, i.e., the Fire Department's recommendations and to widen the right-of-way and change it from a street surface to a five-foot planter strip. Bill Phillips, representative for the project, Stanford Management Company, said there had been substantial interaction with the ARB and the Planning staff that covered most of the issues brought forward by Mr. Borock's appeal. He said it was a major project at
10/16/95 77-155
the Stanford Shopping Center (the Shopping Center) even though it was only 4,400-square feet. Bank of America was a very valued tenant; and it had operated for many years in space that was undersized, technologically inadequate, and inefficient in terms of service to its customers. The ability to move Bank of America to a new site at the gateway to the Shopping Center and the Medical Center would be a much improved retail location which would better serve its customers. Also important was the fact that the old space of 20,000 square feet would be released for retail uses that would provide additional sales and vitality to that area of the Shopping Center. From a site improvement standpoint, it was an immense improvement over what was presently there--the abandoned gas station site. Due to the creativity of the architects, the unselfishness of Bank of America, and the input from the ARB, a quality building was produced that was worthy of the gateway site to the Shopping Center and the Medical Center. The site design also benefitted the community and allowed a view corridor into the arboretum. It was a view corridor that would be desirable under any kind of use condition in the arboretum. Stanford Management Company's experience on the Dream Team effort suggested a shuttle from the CalTrain station that would link the campus and the Shopping Center and the Medical Center. Public and campus parking could possibly take advantage of that linkage with the shuttle which would help the existing parking problem on the Santa Clara County Transit District's site. Every possible policy was considered with respect to the project, i.e., community service, economics to the Shopping Center and the community, the other tenants in the Shopping Center, site and design importance to the community and the surrounding sites, and everything led to that project. A condition that the hoist lift at the rear of the service station would require an additional permit from the Fire Department was a consideration that had always been acknowledged. The adjustments suggested by Mr. Borock to accommodate the five feet of landscape and five feet of sidewalk would put a burden on a project of that size that was not desirable, necessary, or appropriate. Stanford Management Company was optimistic that the realignment of Quarry Road would offer the opportunity to create the five-foot landscaping and sidewalk alternative that had been suggested. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, wanted the project to include the tree landscape because of the distance from the sidewalk to the edge of the street. There would never be a canopy over the street because it was too far away from the street. She believed the project would be more accessible, safe, and attractive if the lane were narrower and there was a five-foot sidewalk and planter. The approval of the Sand Hill Road corridor and its improvements could take many years. She agreed that the project would make a much more attractive site, but that was not a reason for not moving forward with something that would be attractive and would fit with the other side of the road. She was concerned that the comments by
10/16/95 77-156
the Fire Department were ignored and hoped that the condition would be added to the project. Cathy Zelatoris, project representative for Bank of America, said Bank of America (the Bank) was excited about relocating its primary branch business within the Shopping Center to the corner of Arboretum and Quarry Roads. The proposed project was the result of the partnership between the Bank and Stanford Management Company. The Bank currently leased over 20,000 square feet in the Shopping Center, but half of the square footage was underutilized due to the innovation of banking technology. Bank branches rarely required more than 5,000 to 6,000 square feet to conduct full banking services. The existing space needed interior renovation, and the configuration did not allow the Bank to maximize service to its customers. Stanford Management Company's architect and the ARB provided input for the proposed design. The Bank was pleased with the results and looked forward to replacing the existing facility. The location was outstanding and highly visible, and customers would find it more accessible with an exclusive parking lot. The automatic teller machines and the night depository would remain at its existing location, and the Bank would introduce a small merchant services facility to continue to serve the merchant customers in the Shopping Center. The Bank looked forward to introducing to the community the new branch design concept and the latest in banking technology. Owen Halliday, 2439 Parker Court, Mountain View, representing the Nature Company, said that corner of the Shopping Center was currently underutilized. The new location would provide a better access for the community. A change in tenant base at the Shopping Center increased the revenues for the City and also affected his business. Anything that could be done to utilize that space further would help all of the tenants of the Shopping Center and the community. Mr. Borock said Mr. Phillips indicated that the pedestrian walk provided a view corridor into the arboretum, but it would really have a view corridor into the rectangle site which was a multiple-family housing site. He said Mr. Phillips had agreed to one of two of the conditions he suggested which was the Fire Department permit. He had heard no objection from Mr. Phillips regarding his analysis of the available space to build the planter strip at the present time. The alternative was to wait until the Sand Hill Road corridor projects were done. The projects were currently before the ARB for a preliminary hearing with a time line, and the earliest that the Quarry Road project would be done was two years if the current schedule were met. It was practical to put the planter strip at the present time which could be done with minimal construction. He believed it was a reasonable condition to place on the project.
10/16/95 77-157
Mr. Phillips referred to a view graph of the subject parcel at the intersection which showed the view corridor into the arboretum. He said the project had a five-foot sidewalk to the edge of the curb, and he felt strongly that it was unreasonable and a financial burden on the project to require changes onto and into the Quarry Road right-of-way that might possibly be extended toward El Camino Real. When, and if, Quarry Road was approved as part of the Sand Hill Road projects, it was unknown what transportation would be desired regarding the roadway widths, bicycle lane widths, and other aspects of those particular changes which could impact what had already been done. Any change of that type would end up being a further financial burden on the project which could not continue to handle that kind of imposition regarding the site construction and design that would be extended into the Quarry Road right-of-way. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Huber clarified under ordinary circumstances, the City's regulations would require a five-foot-wide planting strip. Ms. Grote said the City required a five-foot-wide planting strip if the right-of-way were available. At the present time, a right-of-way was not available for the project. Council Member Huber clarified the reason that staff and the ARB did not recommend the planting strip was that it might be something done in the future. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Huber asked what would happen if nothing happened in the future and how the City would obtain what it would have normally obtained previously. Ms. Grote replied that since there would not be a right-of-way available for a five-foot planting strip, staff developed the compromise solution to provide a tree canopy on private property over the sidewalk. If nothing were approved for Quarry Road, the solution proposed for the site would be consistent with what would remain in the area. Council Member Huber clarified it was inconsistent with what the City normally required. Ms. Grote said the City did not normally require additional right-of-way when it did not exist in total for a specific project. Additional right-of-way would be required to put in the landscaping strip. Mayor Simitian asked the reason the City would have to require an additional right-of-way in order to put the landscaping strip in.
10/16/95 77-158
Ms. Grote said there was only seven feet in some areas along that particular frontage of Quarry Road and only five feet in other areas. Mayor Simitian understood the appellant's argument was that the limitation was self-induced by the site design. Ms. Grote said that was also her understanding based on the appellant's comments. However, the maps and documentation that the staff reviewed showed that the right-of-way was not available. The issue was not how the applicant designed the improvements on the site. Mayor Simitian clarified the City's normal requirements were not recommended because there was not sufficient space, and the reason the sufficient space did not exist, according to the appellant, was that of the site design. However, staff did not believe there was sufficient space and would not have made that requirement. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked for clarification of the appellant's request to make explicit the requirement for the removal of the hoist with a Fire Department permit. The staff report (CMR:412:95) indicated that it would happen with or without a specific condi-tion; but the appellant stated it would be clearer if there were a specific condition, and Mr. Phillips indicated that additional condition was acceptable. Ms. Grote said the condition could be added. Staff did not typically include everything that was obvious in the conditions of approval, i.e., the site could not be developed without removal of the hoists and the existing structure. The comment was forwarded to the applicant, and the removal of the hoists was discussed at the Zoning Administrator's hearing. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said several years previously the staff had included that type of a condition as part of the approval; but staff found that it created more confusion to put obvious conditions in the approval, and so it had been eliminated. Mayor Simitian referred to page 4 of the appellant's letter dated October 11, 1995, which stated that "The Fire Department require-ments for removal of materials from the storage/service area asks for a condition on the approval of this project to ensure the proper manner of removal rather than just the fact of removal. You should condition the project as suggested by the Fire Department." He clarified staff viewed the removal as a condition as redundant. He said the issue of manner of removal had also been raised by the appellant, and he asked whether that was also redundant.
10/16/95 77-159
Ms. Grote referred to the comments of Environmental Protection Coordinator Doris Maez which stated "any vehicle hoists or other related materials that exist in the current Stanford Shopping Center vehicle maintenance (to the rear of the property) should be removed per Fire Department regulations, with a permit," and she said it was the same issue and was not needed as a condition. Mayor Simitian clarified that the Council's action should either uphold or deny the appeal. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said that was correct. The Council's procedural rules also stated that the Council needed to articulate any disagreement or alteration of the findings that were in the staff report. He suggested the Council cast its motion as a direction to staff and his office to prepare written findings that would be returned on the Consent Calendar at a later date. Mayor Simitian asked whether the motion to approve, modify, or deny should be voted on that evening with findings to be returned to the Council at a later date or whether the motion should direct the staff to return with findings that would support approval or denial of the application at that time. Mr. Calonne clarified that the action would be effective when the Council voted on the written findings that would be returned at a later date. Mayor Simitian asked when the item would be returned to the Council for approval. Mr. Schreiber said the item would return to the Council on the Consent Calendar at the Special City Council Meeting of October 30, 1995. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to deny the appeal and uphold the Architectural Review Board's approval to construct a new 4,400-square-foot commercial building with a financial service use (bank), 22 parking spaces, and related site improvements located at 375 Arboretum Road, and direct the City Attorney to return to the City Council with the findings as follows: CONDITIONS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT Utilities Department (Electric) 1. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the
10/16/95 77-160
Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444 at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. Public Works Operations 2. The following tree protection measures shall be prepared by a certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition contracts and be imple-mented during demolition and construction activities unless otherwise approved. The following tree protection measures shall apply: PAMC Sec. 8-04-070. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Arborist. a. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department's standard specification detail #505). b. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. d. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection and certify that the tree protection measures have been installed properly. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT Utilities Department (Electric) 3. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #1-3(B)(3), #17-A2(4). 4. All new electric service must be underground. Utilities Rule & Regulation # 19-G(1).
10/16/95 77-161
5. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation # 19-G(2). 6. Location of electric panel switchboard shall be shown on site plan and approved by Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 7. All electrical substructures required from the service point (a new primary pull box) to the switchgear shall be installed by the customer to City standards. Utilities Rule & Regula-tion # 17-A(2). Public Works Engineering Department 8. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec. 16.28.270. 9. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. 10. An underlying lot line exists on the property. The develop-er/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel. Building Inspection Division 11. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 12. Color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building permit drawing set by the applicant. 13. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 14. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto.
10/16/95 77-162
Planning Division 15. A portion of the proposed work is within the State of Califor-nia or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 16. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. 17. Signage shall return to the ARB prior to issuance of building permit. The Board shall review illumination and a reduced entry (approximately 20%). 18. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by Planning Staff and the Resource Conservation Division prior to issuance of building permit. The plan shall include: a. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. c. Irrigation schedule and plan, water use calculations and a statement of design intent. d. Fence locations. e. A detailed lighting plan with photometric data. The lighting must be directional and the source of light must not be directly visible. The light must not extend beyond the site and be sensitive to existing adjacent land uses. f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 19. The applicant shall submit to Planning Staff for review and approval by the Transportation Division manufacturer's specifications for the bicycle racks and lockers and a site plan showing revised locations for the bicycle racks and lockers. 20. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building
10/16/95 77-163
design and setback requirements. Sec. 16.48.120 (a)(13) and (c). Sec. 16.82.060 (c) Utilities Department 21. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the informa-tion requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 22. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 23. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. 24. The existing water meter is in conflict with the proposed driveway. The water meter must be relocated to either side of the driveway by installing new service and abandoning the existing service at the main. 25. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail. 26. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 27. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 28. An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Backflow Preventor Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the
10/16/95 77-164
Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. DURING CONSTRUCTION Building Inspection Division 29. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor's operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor's expense. 30. A 2:1 tree replacement ratio shall be required for any trees damaged or removed during demolition and construction activi-ties. Public Works Engineering 31. The Contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.060. 32. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 33. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution preven-tion in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) PRIOR TO FINALIZATION Planning Division 34. The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscap-ing has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy.
10/16/95 77-165
Public Works Engineering 35. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 36. The unused driveway located on Arboretum Drive shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. 37. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. 38. A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at the corner of Quarry Road and Arboretum Road. Curb ramps for the disabled will also be required at the driveway entrance on Quarry Road. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to bring forward Item No. 11 to become Item No. 9A. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 9A. (Old Item No. 11) Ordinance Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages at Boulware Park Police Chief Chris Durkin said that during the previous six months, there had been a significant increase in alcohol related incidents at calls for service at Boulware Park. The incidents included vandalism, drunkenness, fighting, loud noise, urinating in public, and intimating behavior. The police calls for service at Boulware Park were significantly higher than other calls in the City due to the consumption of alcohol. Boulware Park was situated in a residential neighborhood and was frequented on a daily basis by mothers and small children. The problem had been compounded by intoxicated individuals touching or attempting to touch young children. Residents had become reluctant to visit their neighbor-hood park because of the disturbances. The Police Department had increased its response to the area to help mitigate the problems. Staff had met with the Ventura Neighborhood Association concerning the activities. Both the Ventura Neighborhood Association and individual residents contacted by staff supported a prohibition of alcohol at Boulware Park. Council Member Schneider was concerned that if people were moved from that area, they would move closer to the Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) facility.
10/16/95 77-166
Mr. Durkin said some of the people lived in the area and were not transient. Council Member Schneider asked whether PACCC had authority under its lease with the City to prohibit the use of alcohol at that site. Mayor Simitian asked whether Vice Mayor Wheeler should not participate in further discussion of the issue due to her employ-ment. City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained that the Council could not directly involve PACCC in the decision that evening due to the Brown Act requirements. The threshold for Vice Mayor Wheeler's participation would be that the effect of the decision on Boulware Park's alcohol consumption ban would have increased or decreased the gross annual receipts of PACCC by $100,000, expenses by $25,000, or value of assets by $100,000. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that any action the Council might take that evening would not be related to the situation at PACCC. Mr. Calonne said enacting an alcohol consumption ban at Boulware Park would have to be analyzed in terms of its financial impact on the PACCC, and the thresholds were fairly high as stated previously. Vice Mayor Wheeler would not be able to participate if the Council looked at ways on a future Council agenda to assist PACCC in dealing with alcohol at its site. He was confident that PACCC retained the authority to control the site but would review the issue further if the Council so directed. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Police Department had previously experienced a direct cause and effect between problems in parks associated with recent actions taken by the Council to prohibit alcohol use in another park. Mr. Durkin believed it would have very little impact on other areas. Council Member Fazzino said the staff report (CMR:444:95) indicated that as a result of the Council's action, there was a reduction of alcohol-related problems in Johnson Park as well as a reduction of other problems associated with that park. He asked whether that was the case in other parks when the Council had enacted a ban on alcohol. Mr. Durkin replied yes. When the Police Department could seek a person's compliance to leave the park and stop drinking alcohol, it helped resolve the problems.
10/16/95 77-167
Council Member Fazzino asked the percentage of alcohol-related problems that comprised the total problems at a small park such as Boulware Park. Mr. Durkin replied 66 percent. Council Member Kniss asked whether any members of the public had complained about not being able to have alcohol at a park. Mr. Durkin was unaware of any complaints about the prohibition of alcohol in a park. The City had a permit system at Rinconada and Mitchell Parks for special events when people wanted to consume alcohol. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked how the Police Department would inform members of the public if the Council approved the Ordinance and how the complaints would be handled in the future. Mr. Durkin said the Police Department communicated with the people individually so that they would understand the change in law. Police officers kept a record of the people involved so that if another police officer came upon the individual the following day, he/she would know that the person had had a reasonable opportunity to understand the change in law and to stop drinking alcohol in the park. The Police Department would continue to focus attention on the behavior of people in the Ventura area, especially Boulware Park. Vice Mayor Wheeler recalled that when the Council enacted the Ordinance that related to Rinconada Park, there was a period of time between the time of the Council's action and the effective date of the Ordinance that an educational effort took place to inform members of the public that the Ordinance would become law in a two- to three-period week. She asked whether a similar effort would take place for Boulware Park. Mr. Durkin said signs would be posted at Boulware park as well as talking to people who frequented the park. Odile Disch-Bhadkamkar, 369 Matadero Avenue, said her children had to be taken to Peers Park by car because Boulware Park was not safe. Some people came to the park daily at 9:00 a.m. and drank alcohol all day. The park was a poor site for neighborhood children and had become a magnet for activities that she did not want her children to witness. The neighborhood encouraged approval and enforcement of the Ordinance. She believed information regarding enforcement of the Ordinance would spread very quickly because the group of people who caused the nuisance was very small. She thanked the Police Department for its cooperation. Sarah Kim Mason, 390 Matadero Avenue, said she went to Boulware Park daily with her children but had to leave when the people who
10/16/95 77-168
drank arrived. She believed there was illegal activity going on at the park. The park had also been vandalized by graffiti recently. She urged the Council to approve the Ordinance because alcohol increased other undesirable activities. JudyAnn Edwards, 231 Chestnut Street, said because of the shape of Boulware Park, it was extremely hard for the Police Department to police the park. By the time the police officers arrived, the people in the park had rushed away by car which made the street very unsafe for children. The neighborhood wanted the police officers to have the Ordinance as a tool to help clean up the park. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, representing the Barron Park Associa-tion, said the Barron Park Association (BPA) voted unanimously to support the Ordinance banning alcohol in Boulware Park. It was inexcusable that people could not bring their children to a public park and feel safe. He had also noticed an increase in graffiti activity recently. The Ordinance would be a step toward alleviating some of the problems in the South Palo Alto Ventura and Barron Park neighborhoods. He urged the Council to approve the Ordinance. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages at Boulware Park" Council Member Kniss said the Ordinance would provide protection for the neighborhood. Council Member Fazzino enthusiastically supported approval of the Ordinance. Previous Council action had demonstrated that a ban on alcohol at the parks had a significant impact on crime and associated activities at the parks. He was concerned about the possible impact on the Ventura neighborhood and was also concerned that there might be problems in other parks as the City moved from park to park with a ban on alcohol. He wanted to know the current situation at Bol Park which was not listed as a park with an alcohol ban. The Council would have to address in the future the possibility of banning alcohol usage at most of the City parks, but he was comfortable with moving ahead on a park-by-park basis at the present time. He said the neighbors had provided tremendous leadership by bringing the issue to the Council's attention and working closely with the Police Department. The Police Department had been very responsive on a regular basis throughout the summer working with the neighbors to address the problems at Boulware Park.
10/16/95 77-169
Council Member Andersen endorsed the comments of Council Member Fazzino. The permit process worked for the larger parks, but the smaller parks were not in neighborhoods where people would go to have a picnic with alcohol. He hoped the Council would consider in the near future the possibility of limiting alcohol in the small parks. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS: 9:55 P.M. - 10:07 P.M. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 10. Utilities Advisory Commission Review of Utilities Organiza-tional Review - Request for Proposals Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) at its April 1995 meeting reviewed the assignment received from the City Council regarding the Organizational Review of the Utilities Department. At that meeting, the UAC approved a letter that was sent to the commercial customers in the City, and an advertisement was placed in the Palo Alto Weekly inviting customers to participate in a committee to review a Request for Proposal (RFP) and to select a consultant. At the UAC meeting in July and September 1995, the RFP was reviewed by the UAC and its committee, and the comments were incorporated in the report before the Council that evening. The Council was being asked for additional comments that evening and approval of the draft RFP. Utilities Advisory Commission Chairperson Paul Grimsrud said the UAC selected an excellent group of four people to help the UAC review the RFP. There were two review meetings, and staff responded to the comments which resulted in the RFP. The UAC unanimously felt it was an important proposal due to potential competition and the need to review the Utilities Department's efficiency and the organizational structure. The UAC urged the Council to approve the RFP. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked how many applicants expressed interest in the advisory committee and how the applicants were selected. Mr. Grimsrud said there were eight or nine applicants, and four applicants were selected to be on the advisory committee. Two applicants were from commercial/industrial companies and two applicants were private citizens. He also participated on the advisory committee as a representative from the UAC. The UAC reviewed the applications and made a selection. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether interviews of the candidates were conducted.
10/16/95 77-170
Mr. Mrizek said at the May 1995 UAC meeting, the résumés were reviewed, and the candidates were selected from that list without an interview. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that the advisory committee would function only through the consultant selection process, and then the committee would have accomplished its task. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked whether that process had been explained to the advisory committee. Mr. Mrizek replied yes. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked the role that the UAC envisioned taking in the contract management arena. Mr. Grimsrud said the UAC did not have the ability to manage contracts. The UAC would provide technical oversight and would review and provide comments on the report. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the City went through a similar review with the operating departments. The parallels were that the Council had had its Finance Committee receive the reports, and that process was similar to what the UAC envisioned as its role in the process. The Finance Committee was also assisted throughout the process by a blue ribbon task force which would not be part of the present proposal, and the day-to-day management was overseen by an independent auditor which had not been suggested for the present proposal. She was slightly sensitive that the day-to-day manager of the department which was being analyzed closely could perform the job of contract management. She asked for assurance that it was a different audit from the one the Council had undergone in the General Fund. Mr. Grimsrud said the concern was legitimate since sometimes there were semi-conflicts of interest. The UAC would have enough interaction with the project team to encourage an independent and insightful review. A contract manager might be worthwhile if the cost were not significant. City Manager June Fleming said there were two levels of the contract: 1) to make sure that the work done was not biased and 2) to make sure that the contract was administered, the bills were paid, and sufficient reports were returned in a timely manner. She understood the Council's concern and the perception that the contract was being managed by the department that was being reviewed. The UAC would be involved in the most crucial part of the contract which related to the work that would be done. She was open to recommendations from the Council.
10/16/95 77-171
Vice Mayor Wheeler said she could support the recommendations, but if any of her colleagues shared her concern, she would be willing to discuss some alternatives. Council Member Fazzino referred to page 7 of the RFP, Conclusions and Recommendations/Final Report, Item No. B, "Identify factors that are most likely to affect the Utilities' competitive position with respect to other suppliers..." He asked how independent the analysis would be that the Council received from the consultant with respect to the larger competitive issues. The consultant could easily obtain information from other sources to develop an analysis of the larger political competitive environment. Mr. Grimsrud said he shared the concern about the larger issues, and he hoped that the consultant would provide a significant amount of independent information which should be indicated by the proposals received. The funds would not be committed if the proposal were not adequate. The discussions by the UAC had indicated that the utility of the future would need to be effi-cient. The City could not compare itself with past performance of other municipal utilities but had to compare itself against all types of corporations. He hoped the consultant would consider a broader arena of competition and put the City's future direction in line with what an efficient operation should be in the next 20 years. Council Member Fazzino asked whether a major emphasis of the report would be to compare the City to other municipal utilities in California due to the assumption that the issues facing municipal utilities were similar in nature. Mr. Mrizek said it would be a major part of the report. Staff had done internal studies in the past, and the consultant would be asked to compare Palo Alto with similar size utilities and the cost per mile, construction, capital programs, etc. It was important to keep the operating costs down in a competitive market. Ms. Fleming said benchmarking was requested in Item No. F on page 7 of the proposal. Council Member Fazzino recognized that that was a significant part of the study, but he wanted to know whether there would be an assessment of how the competitive environment affected Palo Alto as well as how it affected municipal and private utilities. Mr. Mrizek said the competitive issue would not only compare Palo Alto with other utilities. The competition in the future was not with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) but with the major supply corporations.
10/16/95 77-172
Council Member Andersen asked whether the report would give suggestions or directions on how the City might deal with that new competitive environment. Mr. Mrizek believed the study would provide data on the cost effectiveness of the staff and the operating area rather than the supply area, i.e., the maintenance costs compared with other similar type utilities and the ancillary services received from other departments. Council Member Andersen said the competitive environment was a dynamic area, and the changes were very dramatic. The study might indicate that the City had an efficient operation, but he believed the analysis should also include some recommendations on how the City should proceed in the future in that dynamic environment. Ms. Fleming said the study would be an organizational review and would provide indications as to how the City as an organization functioned in that environment, but it would not be an in-depth study on that extremely important issue. The study would show how the City should be organized to address the issue, and it would compare how the City functioned in that environment. The City might need to do more in-depth work in that area. Mr. Mrizek said with the deregulation in the electric utilities, the Utilities could not wait for the study to make a decision. Staff had recently brought forward an extensive report to the UAC that was prepared by staff and a consultant on Palo Alto's status at the present time in the competitive market and the City's plans for the near future and the next several years not only on deregulation competition but also on the sale of power marketing agencies. All of the issues changed weekly, and staff responded to those changes on a weekly basis. The consultant would be asked whether the Utilities Department was organized and whether it had the staff to continue to perform the level of work that would be needed for the Palo Alto Utilities to remain competitive. Mr. Grimsrud said efficiency over the long term was important. He hoped the study would provide some insights on how the job could be done better, and there was an interest to be able to motivate employees to do excellent work. Council Member Rosenbaum said the staff had pursued the competition area very carefully. He said there was some very useful informa-tion in the executive summary which dealt with the issues that had been raised that evening. Mayor Simitian referred to the comments on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:428:95) that "compensation is not included in the RFP. The area of compensation is not an organizational issue and has no relevance as to the most effective/efficient way to organize staff resources." Mr. Grimsrud previously indicated the potential for restructuring the organization in a way that would create a greater
10/16/95 77-173
measure of incentives. He asked how Mr. Grimsrud felt about the fact that the study would not look at compensation issues. Mr. Grimsrud said he was interested not in comparing compensation at various levels with other utilities but in how to provide incen-tives for the staff to do excellent work. Mayor Simitian asked whether the RFP addressed the issue of how to build incentives for performance. Mr. Grimsrud said no. Mayor Simitian asked whether the consultant could look at ways to provide incentives in the operation which he believed was an organizational issue. Ms. Fleming said the issue was an organizational concern and was not limited only to Utilities. Utilities did not carry a number of individual classifications that ran across the organization. The study should be done separately after the organization was put in place and should not deal just with Utilities. Mayor Simitian disagreed. The difference was that it was an enterprise fund, and it was different from the rest of the City's operation. The Recreation Department was not expected to produce a return nor compete with private sector which was reflected in the minutes in terms of the issues about incentives. He asked where the cost savings were articulated in the document and what the staff's expectation was about cost savings being identified as a result of the effort. Mr. Mrizek said nothing was added in the document on cost savings. The consultant was being asked to look at the operation of the Utilities Department and determine whether the department was organized properly for the competitive markets in the future. If the benchmarking analysis found that the Utilities Department's costs were higher than other utilities, staff would then look at how to reduce the costs. Mayor Simitian believed that cost savings should be found if it did not compromise the level of service even if the costs were not excessive as compared with other benchmark utilities. Mr. Mrizek agreed. Mr. Grimsrud said the cost savings could be incorporated into the rate analysis; but revenue requirement was a very relevant issue, and it would be worthwhile to specifically point that out. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Request for Proposal.
10/16/95 77-174
AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to amend the Request for Proposal, Scope of Work, on page 5 to add a new fifth recommendation as follows: "and 5) to achieve maximum cost savings consistent with appropriate levels of service." Council Member Fazzino opposed the amendment as an objective. He queried whether it was incorporated in Item No. 1, "to determine if Utilities are performing at the optimum level of efficiency and effectiveness..." Mayor Simitian said the Council had some conversation along that same line during the course of three years with respect to the organizational review that was done of other areas, and when the end of the organizational review was reached, most of the Council Members believed that the issue of cost savings had not been a significant component of that review. If the Council believed that the proposal was significantly about cost savings, he wanted it articulated in addition to the other important issues so that the Council would not be disappointed with the end results. Both Mr. Mrizek and Mr. Grimsrud had indicated that it had not been specifically shown in the document. Council Member Fazzino believed that efficiency and effectiveness broadly captured the cost control issue. More specifically, the language in Objective No. 2, "to propose any recommendations to improve service levels and/or costs," could be changed to read "to improve service levels and lower costs" to address Mayor Simitian's concern. Mayor Simitian did not want the issue to be included as an objective unless there was support for it by the Council. If the Council believed cost savings should be a significant part of the effort, the language could read "to propose any recommendations to improve service levels and/or identify cost savings" which could be part of Objective No. 2 if Council desired. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to amend the Request for Proposal, Scope of Work, to revise the second recommendation as follows: "2) to propose any recommendations to improve service levels and/or identify cost savings." Council Member Rosenbaum said he was not unsympathetic to Mayor Simitian's point, but it might be going to the wrong people. The RFP was for a consultant, and he did not believe that the City had any trouble with Hughes, Heiss & Associates' identifying cost savings. The problem was with the staff recommendation and perhaps even more seriously with the Council's response. He expected the consultant's report to identify certain things, and the Council would have to decide whether to adopt the recommendations.
10/16/95 77-175
Mayor Simitian explained that was the reason why he recommended a language change to the document. When the Council reviewed Hughes, Heiss & Associates' report, Council believed the language was already in the document. The Council should be on record if it wanted the goal of the effort to achieve cost savings. Council Member Andersen was concerned that the language was not consistent with the scope of service. The Council's debate with the previous organizational review was about whether or not the recommendations were consistent with the appropriate scope of service. The Council was concerned about cost savings and would have to decide whether it wanted to cut services. Mayor Simitian recalled that a number of Council Members felt that cost savings was not the primary objective of the previous organizational review. He wanted the language in the proposed document to be clear. Council Member Andersen asked whether the amended motion included the appropriate scope of services. Mayor Simitian reiterated that Objective No. 2 would be revised to read: "2) to propose any recommendations to improve service levels and/or identify cost savings." He asked the Council whether it believed a primary objective of the effort was to identify cost savings in the Utilities Department. The Council should indicate the language in the document if the answer was "yes" and leave the language out of the document if the answer was "no." Council Member Kniss clarified the Council wanted to identify cost savings, but the question was whether the Council wanted to have a choice of making the cost savings versus the service level. It was a different issue if the Council wanted to identify and implement those cost savings. She clarified the intent of the motion was that the Council would identify the cost savings, but the document would not indicate that when the Council identified the cost savings, the cost savings would be made. She wanted the cost savings identified, but she wanted the option left open as to whether or not to reduce the service levels. Council Member Huber said he wanted possible cost savings identi-fied which the Council would make a choice at a later date. There were many objectives he wanted from the review, and he was uncertain whether that would be his primary focus for the report. Council Member Schneider said it was possible that the review would identify cost savings that could be achieved without reducing service levels. She believed it should be a major goal of the study. Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the language that was incorporated into the motion as identified by Council Member Fazzino. The
10/16/95 77-176
Council should not undertake a study of that magnitude and not at least identify potential areas of cost savings. However, she would not approve any specific level of cost reduction recommendations before she saw what the potential trade-offs would be. AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to include in the Request for Proposal review of the methods of providing incentives for improved performance within the organization. Mayor Simitian said the staff report (CMR:428:95) indicated that compensation per se should not be in the organizational review. Mr. Grimsrud's comments that evening indicated that to the extent the City was dealing with private sector competition, there was an issue about how to provide incentives for improved performance within the organization. He was not interested in the consultant's providing information regarding the salaries in the department. The issue was whether there were methods that could be put in place in the organization which might involve a compensation-based scheme that would lead to improved performance in the organization and provide a more competitive organization. Council Member Schneider said the private sector had been rewarding employees for efficiencies for a long time. It worked well for ongoing efficiencies and streamlined the processes. Council Member Rosenbaum opposed the amendment. He felt the issue of incentives was closely tied to the issue of salaries and benefits and should be handled through a salary and benefit study of the Utilities Department. Council Member Andersen opposed the amendment. The Council had made decisions in the past that related to incentive issues, but he was prepared at that point to consider the issue at level. Ms. Fleming believed incentives were appropriate for all parts of the organization, not just the Utilities Department. She agreed that it was tied to salaries and benefits and did not believe it was appropriate as part of the proposed study. Mayor Simitian believed the Utilities Department could not have the issue both ways. The Utilities was an enterprise fund and could not be compared to other departments in the organization. The Council looked at the Utilities Department differently on a whole range of issues because of that reason. He believed it was like apples and oranges to suggest that the Council would think about ways to proceed with incentives in the Utilities Department in precisely the same way as the other departments. There might be a number of ways to provide incentives, e.g., suggestion box, employee of the month award, or variable compensation for certain positions without a recommendation for salary.
10/16/95 77-177
Council Member Fazzino said the issues were legitimate to explore, but it felt like a qualitatively different study and that someone needed to be hired who had specific expertise in personnel and compensation issues to address those concerns. He wanted informa-tion with respect to the impact of the agreement that was recently signed by Southern Cal Edison and the Northern California Municipal Electric Association (NCMEA) would have on Palo Alto. He had difficultly with the same consultant also providing incentives such as a suggestion box. He felt the work proposed needed to be done, but he was uncertain whether it could and should be addressed as part of the scope of the proposed study. He opposed the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Schneider, Simitian "yes," McCown absent. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 12. Audit of Contract Administration MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Simitian, to continue the item to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-1, Andersen "no," McCown absent. 13. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District for Maintenance of School District Athletic Fields and Tennis Courts MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for City assumption of maintenance of 20 acres of athletic fields and maintenance services for 25 tennis courts belonging to the PAUSD. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Mayor Simitian re Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting of October 23, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to cancel the Regular City Council meeting of October 23, 1995. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian announced that two calendars submitted by Palo Alto students Lauren Sahagian, Jordan Middle School, and Chelsea Lenz, Ohlone Elementary School, were selected by the San Francisco Water
10/16/95 77-178
Department as part of the Water Awareness Month's poster contest, "Use Water Wisely - It's A Way of Life." Council Member Kniss said that Fran Arrillaga's passing would leave a void in the community; her good deeds would be well remembered. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned in memory of Frances Cook Arrillaga, philanthropist, at 11:00 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.
10/16/95 77-179