HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-20 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting February 20, 1996 1. Interviews for Public Art Commission..................78-210 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................78-211 1. Ordinance 4329 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.79 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require all Newsracks to Display Identifying Informa-tion and to Restrict the Display of Material That is Harmful to Minors.............................................78-211 2. Ordinance 4330 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.32.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PF District Regulations), Relating to Condi-tional Use Permits for Medical Research and Outpatient Medical Uses..................................................78-211 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................78-212 2a. Conference w/City Attorney re Potential Litigation. . 78-212 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Subdivision Map for Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Site....................78-212 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee...................................................78-213 6. Resolution 7575 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1996....................................78-228 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Cupertino Electric, Inc. for Civic Center Electrical Repair...............78-229 8. Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project - Deletion of Portion of Project and Amendment to Consultant Agreement for Design and Construction.................78-229
02/20/96 78-208 78-208
9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........78-231 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to a Closed Session...............................................78-232 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. in memory of Josina Bol............................................78-232
02/20/96 78-209 78-209
02/20/96 78-210 78-210
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, McCown, Simitian SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Public Art Commission ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
02/20/96 78-211 78-211
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:22 p.m.), Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS JoAnne Wetzel, 787 Stone Lane, spoke regarding lack of compliance with the use permit by the Ross Road YMCA. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Winter Lodge. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding ramp metering. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 2. 1. Ordinance 4329 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.79 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require all Newsracks to Display Identifying Informa-tion and to Restrict the Display of Material That is Harmful to Minors" (1st Reading 2/5/96, PASSED 9-0) 2. Ordinance 4330 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.32.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PF District Regulations), Relating to Condi-tional Use Permits for Medical Research and Outpatient Medical Uses" (1st Reading 1/29/96, PASSED 8-0, McCown absent) Ordinance 4331 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Zone Classifica-tion of Property Located at 795 El Camino Real from CS to PF" (1st Reading 1/29/96, PASSED 8-0, McCown absent) Ordinance 4332 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving an Amendment to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Agreement" (1st Reading 1/29/96, PASSED 8-0, McCown absent) Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item No. 1. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 2, McCown "not participating."
02/20/96 78-212 78-212
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to bring Item No. 5 forward to precede Item No. 4 and become Item 3A. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 2a. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) arising out of Hammer/Pahl January 29, 1996 correspondence threatening litigation regarding DeLemos property wall historic preserva-
tion issues. (Gov. Code, ∋ 54956.9(b)(3)(B), (C), & (D).) Public Comment None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Subdivision Map for Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Site (continued from 1/29/96 - Public Hearing Closed) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item until the Regular City Council Meeting on Monday, May 20, 1996. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." 3A. (Old Item No. 5) PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering the Vacation of Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 El Camino Real Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the Public Hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting on Monday, May 20, 1996. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and
02/20/96 78-213 78-213
Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transpor-tation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from February 7, 1996) Mayor Wheeler announced that the City Council would review recommendations of the Palo Alto Unified School District for school-related goals, policies and programs, and a wrap-up of all previously reviewed sections. City Attorney Ariel Calonne referred to page 6 of the staff report (CMR:151:96) and the discussion about what to do with the Palo Alto
Unified School District=s (PAUSD) request regarding school impact fees. He clarified the policy decision to look for school mitigation had many significant implementation steps that would be required and was one of the policy statements the Council would make which would have an immediate impact not only on people subject to the fee but also on the organization in terms of putting it together. Staff definitely wanted to return with some preview
implementation for Council=s review. He said legally, the PAUSD=s impact was very significant, and he encouraged the Council to
debate the issue fully. Staff=s language was very straightforward, but there were many implementation specifics that the Council would ultimately be responsible for needed to be worked out.
Mayor Wheeler asked whether the Council=s discussion should be held that evening in order to give the City Attorney direction or whether the Council should discuss the issue when the staff returns with Phase III with a report.
Mr. Calonne said staff=s recommendation would initiate moving forward with some analysis of the school impacts, and it would be helpful if the Council had the discussion that evening or defer the issue to a later date. Council Member McCown said staff recommended on page 6 in the staff report that Council not approve the program. She asked why there needed to be a debate if the Council accepted that advice. She
referred to the new program CD-1.D2 recommended by the PAUSD, ΑIn collaboration with the District, develop and implement a system for
collecting and remitting school impact fees.≅
Mr. Calonne referred to a new Policy CD-1.E, ΑPrior to the approval of developing projects which required legislative acts, including general plan amendments, zoning and rezoning, the City should
consider the project=s impact on schools.≅
02/20/96 78-214 78-214
City Manager June said staff=s intent was not to have a lengthy discussion regarding the issues that evening. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle referred to page 6 of staff report (CMR:151:96) and said staff had suggested new Program CD-1.D2 regarding the impact fee issue not be included and that the PAUSD understand that if it enacted an impact fee requirement, the City would request a voucher as verification rather than administer the collection of the fees for the PAUSD. Mr. Calonne said the discussion was about the mechanics of collecting a fee imposed by the PAUSD, and staff had recommended that the City not be involved in handling the mechanics of the process. Ms. Fleming said she had discussed the issue with Superintendent Jim Brown on several occasions. The PAUSD accepted the staff report and she understood the manner of collecting the fee was the responsibility which the PAUSD would assume. The only request by the PAUSD of the City was that before the City issued permits, PAUSD received some notification from the City that the fees had been paid. Council Member Simitian said helping the PAUSD impose and collect
impact fees on local developers was one of the Αthorniest≅ areas being discussed around the state. The Council needed to know what it was being asked to do. There was statutory authority for school districts in the state to collect a fee not to exceed a set dollar amount, i.e., approximately $1.70 per square foot, for residential development and 25 to 30 cents per square foot for commercial development. The fee was imposed and collected by the PAUSD unless the City wanted to help PAUSD collect it. The City had an obligation to withhold building permits until and unless there was proof of a fee payment that was delivered to the City following the payment of fees to the PAUSD if the PAUSD imposed the fee. The PAUSD would have to put together an impact justification study which would allow it to impose the fees by demonstrating that there was a nexus between the fees and the impact on the school facili-ties that particular projects had. The more difficult question was the current California law stated that local land use decision-making bodies such as city councils might impose additional fees over and above the approximate $1.70 per square foot if it could find there were an impact on school facilities and if the Council were being asked to grant a legislative approval which was within
the Council=s discretion to grant or withhold. The serious policy question was whether the Council wanted to be in the business of assessing and imposing school impact fees on commercial or residential development that came to the City over and above what the PAUSD could impose on its own authority. When a school district had a $20 million property fund which represented the proceeds of the sale of surplus school sites and when a school district had surplus school sites that had been mothballed by use
02/20/96 78-215 78-215
of the City or by lease to a current lessee, the imposition of
school impact fees became a very Αdicey≅ matter. There might be a case in which the impact was in a place where there was no schools, classrooms would have to be built in order to accommodate that growth, and there needed to be a reasonable fee assessed for that.
He would support the Council=s authorizing the City to do what was required by law in terms of coordinating with the PAUSD permit issuance if there were a PAUSD imposed fee, but more clarity was needed about what it was that the Council was being asked to approve that evening in connection with fees over and above the
PAUSD=s statutorily authorized fee. Ms. Fleming agreed with the comments of Council Member Simitian that the issue needed to be addressed. Mr. Calonne referred to the Report from City Attorney dated January 25, 1996, on City Authority and Responsibilities with Respect to Development-Related School Enrollment Impacts which went through the distinctions about legislative approvals and the range of
Council=s power. The report concluded that it was within the
Council=s prerogative to do nothing in that area and to leave the fundamental policy decisions on school impact mitigations to the PAUSD. After the report was prepared, the PAUSD responded with a series of recommendations, and the staff report (CMR:151:96) was a response to those recommendations. He said the staff recommendations on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report advised considerable caution about stepping into that policy area, and caution was justifiable. Council Member Fazzino said Council Member Simitian had an interesting analysis of the issue, and he supported deferral of the item. He asked about school impacts on City services or transportation programs. The school closure decisions of the 1970s had a significant impact on transportation issues, particularly children walking longer distances to schools and walking across major arterials which had created safety issues for the City. He asked whether the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) was the appropri-ate place for the Council to recognize the need for the PAUSD to work closely with the City on transportation management issues before school facility decisions were made. Ms. Lytle said programs that addressed those issues were in the safety sections of the Transportation Section of the Plan. It might also be a place to be redundant with that point if the Council wanted to add some language in terms of collaboration with the PAUSD. Council Member Fazzino said the purpose of the element was collaboration between the PAUSD and the City, and there was obviously heavy emphasis in the document on City obligation, but he also wanted an obligation by the PAUSD to work closely with the
02/20/96 78-216 78-216
City when making school facilities and other issues which impacted safety and other concerns. Ms. Fleming said that was a place in the document to emphasize that issue. Staff had taken note in that particular section of the integrated way in which the City had to function with the PAUSD. Staff would review the other sections of the Plan to make certain that the issues were emphasized. Also, the language could be strengthened in the policies/programs before the Council that evening. Council Member Fazzino referred to Program GV-16.Da-1, "Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District will jointly evaluate the practicability of merging libraries and develop implementation
plans, as applicable,≅ and said he was excited about the PAUSD=s proposal. He asked staff to explain its recommendation that the Council not include the PAUSD recommendation. He was concerned
that it represented a backward step from the Council=s commitment to explore the issue. Ms. Fleming felt the program proposed by the PAUSD was too specific. There were several references in the Plan about combining services, and there were ways to provide joint and cooperative library services that would not mean merging of libraries. She assured the Council the discussions would continue and great progress had been made to date. Council Member Fazzino referred to page 5 of the staff report
(CMR:151:96), Program GV-16.Da-2, ΑPalo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District will jointly evaluate the feasibility of including the District as a partner in the development of community wide
communications infrastructures, such as a fiber optic network,≅ and Policy BE-6.B. The PAUSD recommended the Council include the PAUSD as a partner in the development of communitywide
communications infrastructures.≅ Staff proposed that Policy BE-6.B
be revised to read: ΑCooperate with regional networks and with companies offering new or merging information systems to determine their applicability in serving Palo Alto business, residences,
schools, and other potential users.≅ Staff included schools as potential users of the system but not as potential partners in the
maintenance of the system. Staff=s recommendation was very
different from the PAUSD=s recommendations. Assistant City Manager Bernard Strojny clarified the language in Goal BE-6, "Support the development of technologically advanced area-wide communications infrastructure," implied the possibility of partnerships which could be the PAUSD. Staff would be exploring that possibility as part of the telecommunications study.
02/20/96 78-217 78-217
Council Member Fazzino clarified the language proposed for Policy
BE-6.B ΑCooperate with regional networks and with companies...,≅ would incorporate the possibility of schools as a regional network. Council Member Andersen supported the postponement of the discus-sion but suggested the PAUSD be available when the Council discussed the issues in more detail. He referred to current
program language for GV-16, B-1, ΑPrepare a plan or plans for
enrichment and improvement of community facilities through time,≅ and said the language was too weak and did not suggest the potential that was made by the PAUSD in its recommendation for GV-16.Da-1. He clarified staff felt the current program language would not be a step backward. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. She felt a merger was a possibility, but there were some situations in which a merger would
not work. The language in new Policy GV-6.Da, ΑThe City will mutually cooperate with the School District to maintain school
facilities and libraries as valuable community resources,≅ indicated that the City would cooperate with the PAUSD. She felt it was not a step backward. Council Member Andersen wanted to make sure the language indicated the City would take an active role in mergers when appropriate both for economies of scale as well as for a more effective library usage at both the adult and youth level.
Ms. Lytle referred to Council Member Fazzino=s previous question and said there was a policy and program in the Transportation
Section that stated Αcontinue to prioritize safety of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes and also encourage extensive education programs for safe use of bicycles, mopeds, and motorcycles, including city-sponsored bicycle education programs in public schools and bicycle traffic
school program for juveniles.≅ The language responded to those closures rather than considering any future facility modifications. Mayor Wheeler said that concept was in the existing Comprehensive Plan when the closure of schools was discussed. There was a policy
and program at that time that spoke about the City=s giving the PAUSD information on the traffic impact of its closure decisions. Perhaps that concept should not have been lost.
Council Member Kniss asked about the PAUSD=s fiber optic network. Mr. Strojny said the PAUSD had some local area networks, and there were initial plans to consider having some schools communicate with other schools in the PAUSD as well as with the PAUSD headquarters.
02/20/96 78-218 78-218
Council Member Andersen said currently the PAUSD planned to wire each classroom at both Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools with fiber optic but would not include hardware. Council Member Kniss said the Council would be discussing a telecommunications system for the City the following week, and
information regarding the PAUSD=s direction should be provided at the same time. Mr. Strojny said three phases of the study would look at what was currently in place and what potential there might be for those kinds of telecommunications to be provided, including the facilities such as the PAUSD. Phase IV would look at how the City might jointly work with the PAUSD in some type of partnership to determine how telecommunications networks might be organized. Council Member Kniss said the language in Policy GV-16.Da spoke
about Αtechnology resources≅ which was not as definitive as the communitywide communications infrastructures. Technology resources might mean sharing computers. She asked whether the communications infrastructures would have to be considered in conjunction with the new telecommunications laws before a new program was implemented. Mr. Strojny said Phase IV of the study would consider those issues. Council Member Kniss said that would not put the City in partner-ship with the PAUSD. Mr. Strojny said the partnerships that might develop as part of Phase IV were unknown. Staff believed the existing language in BE-6 was broad enough to include that possibility. Ms. Fleming explained the staff recommended that the language be vague in order to preserve its option. The Council needed to know
the status of the PAUSD=s direction so that it could make good
decisions about how the City=s relationship would develop with the
PAUSD. The Council=s discussion on the issue the following week would give staff clearer direction on what should be done during the next phase. Council Member Kniss clarified staff recommended the language be vague until the City reached the next stage, and the staff would consider it as part of the process. Ms. Fleming said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss referred to new Policy CD-1.D, ΑRecognizing
the importance of the schools to the social and economic vitality,≅ on page 6 of the staff report and said the language mentioned the social and economic vitality of the City. As the Council moved
forward, it had to consider the PAUSD=s indication that there could
02/20/96 78-219 78-219
be a substantial number of enrollees and housing. She asked whether that would be enough information to indicate whether or not the fee set by the PAUSD would cover the services that would support the PAUSD.
Ms. Lytle said staff=s intent was to have flexible language in CD-
1.E, ΑPrior to the approval of development projects which require legislative acts, including general plan amendments, zoning and
rezoning, the City should consider the project=s impact on
schools,≅ that would allow the Council the prerogative to either consider or not consider the impacts. The City Attorney had raised the concern about the implementation and that it would be benefi-cial prior to adopting any language at the conclusion of Phase III. Staff would proceed with that understanding, but it would still reserve the right to come back and revisit the issue when more information was available. Mr. Calonne said the language in Policy CD-1.E would not give the Council the flexibility it needed to decide whether or not to move forward. It did not have a list of implementation steps that specified exacting what the consideration meant and to that extent he agreed with Ms. Lytle. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the PAUSD had the right to impose an impact at a certain dollar figure adjusted periodically. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the money was used for classrooms, etc., and had nothing with the extras that might be required from the City because of a new school. Mr. Calonne said the money was used only for facilities. Vice Mayor Huber understood the City could impose some type of fee
in addition to the PAUSD=s fee. Mr. Calonne said the City could impose a fee for the benefit of the PAUSD. It was misleading to indicate the Council had the authority because the City would need to prove factually it was justified. Vice Mayor Huber clarified if the City imposed a fee over and above the PAUSD fee, the City would be in the collection business for the PAUSD. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Simitian made the point that there was a number of facts that would make a fee difficult to collect, e.g., large property fund, arguable surplus. Council Member Simitian clarified the City would not simply collect the fee for the PAUSD in the scenario described by Vice Mayor
02/20/96 78-220 78-220
Huber but would also impose the fee, and the City would be sued, not the PAUSD, if the applicant believed it could not be supported. Vice Mayor Huber clarified that the City could not use the fees to deal with a traffic impact and the money collected by the City went to the PAUSD. Ms. Lytle said the PAUSD had not asked the City to collect the impact fee, and the PAUSD had acknowledged that it would be the entity responsible for collecting the fee. There were two separate issues. The PAUSD was asking that the City consider other forms of mitigation over and above the impact fees that the PAUSD was collecting for things that were understood to be part of the impact fee when there were legislative changes. The PAUSD was also asking the City to consider the impacts of rezonings of housing to schools and whether that would be mitigation in the form of a fee or some other form of mitigation that had not been discussed to date. Mr. Calonne referred to the language on page 5 of the staff report (CMR:151:96) and said the PAUSD was asking that: (1) the City collect any fee that the PAUSD imposed and (2) in addition, on legislative acts, the City hold up building permits until the applicants showed a signed agreement from the PAUSD that they had mitigated. That would leave the PAUSD flexibility case by case to exact what it could on each project, but there was no specific request that the Council impose a separate school fee. Mayor Wheeler said Policy GV-11.E spoke about the recognition of the City/School Liaison Committee and its role. Staff provided a
slightly different recommendation from the PAUSD=s language. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the staff recommendation to revise the language in Policy GV-11.E to read: "Palo Alto will continue its close and collabora-tive relationship with the Palo Alto Unified School District, through forums such as the City/School Liaison Committee, to better serve the entire community, especially young people, families, and seniors." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation to revise Policy GV-17.B to read: "Maintain a coordinated approach to families, children, youth, and senior services in concert with private, public, and nonprofit sectors, including the Palo Alto Unified School District." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Palo Alto Unified School District recommendation to revise Goal GV-16 to read: "Palo Alto is endowed with a variety of community facilities, schools, parks..."
02/20/96 78-221 78-221
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the staff recommendation to add a new Policy GV-6.Da, "The City will mutually cooperate with the School District to maintain school facilities and libraries as valuable community resources." Mayor Wheeler said the policy spoke about two specific areas that the Council had already discussed with the PAUSD about cooperative joint efforts, yet the document being discussed had a 20-year time horizon. She did not want to remove any of the concepts and the continuation of the refinement of the items, i.e., maintenance and the library potential proposals, but she believed that within the next 20 years, the City would find other ways in which the City and the PAUSD could mutually benefit by combining efforts. She wanted to broaden the language in the policy so that it gave the City future flexibility to explore additional methods to provide enhanced and cost effective services to the community. She asked whether the additional language would be helpful to the City. Ms. Fleming wholeheartedly endorsed that philosophy and hoped there would be many other places in the future where the City and the PAUSD could work together cooperatively. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
staff=s recommendation flowed out of the PAUSD=s requests; but the language could be broadened if Council desired. Council Member Andersen supported the additional language being incorporated into the motion. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to explore additional methods to provide cost effective services to the community. Vice Mayor Huber supported the incorporation and favored the
wording Αcontinue, expand, and cooperate.≅ Council Member Kniss asked whether Policy GV-6.Da would be substituted for Policy GV-16.Da. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Kniss clarified the City would mutually cooperate to maintain school facilities and libraries, but sharing the library and technology resources had been omitted from the policy language. The goal of the PAUSD was to share the library and technology resources. Staff had also recommended that Program GV-16.Da-1,
ΑPalo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District will jointly
02/20/96 78-222 78-222
evaluate the practicability of merging libraries and develop
implementation plans, as applicable≅ not be included. Ms. Fleming said the language recommended by the PAUSD focused on two areas: maintaining and expanding cooperation. Staff tried to implement that focus into one statement that spoke about mutual cooperation and maintenance, but the expansion and cooperativeness had not been clarified. If the language were general and not limited to fields and libraries, it would get where the Council wanted to go. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Kniss asked whether there was a middle place between
the language in Program GV-16.B-1, Αprepare a plan or plans,≅ and
the language in Program GV-16.Da-1, Αjointly evaluate ...of merging
libraries.≅ Stronger language would move the City toward either merging or developing implementation plans. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Palo Alto Unified School District recommendation to add a new Program GV-16.Da-1 to read: "Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School
District will jointly evaluate the practicability of merging libraries and develop implementation plans, as appropriate." Council Member Schneider asked how the merging and implementation of the libraries would be envisioned and whether libraries would be eliminated from existing school sites, whether existing City libraries would be expanded, and whether the City would be buying books for schools. Ms. Fleming said the meaning of merging was uncertain which was why staff felt it was more important for the City and the PAUSD to work cooperatively to determine what library services should be for the City. There might be a library that served the needs of both the PAUSD and the larger general public. Council Member Schneider would oppose the motion. Council Member Simitian said both institutions needed to get past the notion of ownership by a municipal corporation and ownership by a school district. Both organizations had the same constituency and a way should be found to make broader, more cooperative shared use of the facilities and resources. It was unthinkable 20 years previously that the City would be maintaining the playing fields in Palo Alto. Eventually, the PAUSD decided to spend its limited funds on providing public education, and the City wanted to use the top-quality playing fields and open space and wanted them in good shape. Both organizations had shown more resistance than enthusiasm toward real consideration in that area. He believed stronger language was needed.
02/20/96 78-223 78-223
Ms. Fleming said progress had been made, and the territorial interest was almost totally gone. She suggested the language be
changed to read: ΑPalo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District
will pursue the joint provision of library services.≅ MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to revise
the language to read: Α...will pursue the joint provision of
libraries services.≅ Council Member Kniss said the City and the PAUSD needed to work together more cooperatively. The collaborative efforts of City Manager Fleming and Superintendent Brown had led to a supportive and different look at the two major entities in the community. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation to maintain the wording in Goal BE-6, "Support the development of technologically advanced area-wide communications infrastructure." Further, to revise Policy BE-6.B to read: "Cooperate with regional networks and with companies offering new or emerging information systems to determine their applicability in serving Palo Alto business, residences, schools, and other potential users. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Kniss said it was important that the City work with the PAUSD and include it in any communications infrastructures that the City planned to do. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the new Policy CD-1.D and Program CD-1.D2 recommended by the PAUSD and said he wanted to explore the option recommended by staff that the City not adopt a policy in that area for the reasons enunciated by Council Member Simitian earlier, i.e., the property fund, surplus school sites, and the low volume of new housing, and also the relative low volume of new housing. Mitigation fees were designed for communities that were building numerous subdivisions of single-family housing. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to not adopt a new Program CD-1.D2, "In collaboration with the District, develop and implement a system for collecting and remitting school impact fees," but assert that this is the sole responsibility of Palo Alto Unified School District. Council Member McCown said if the Council decided that action were not appropriate because representatives from the PAUSD were not present that evening to discuss the issue further, the other option
02/20/96 78-224 78-224
would be to defer action on the item until a more complete discussion could occur. Council Member Andersen opposed the motion and encouraged his colleagues to consider deferment. The document had a 20-year life, and major changes might occur that could impact an area in which a future Council might want to give the PAUSD additional assistance. If the language were in the Comprehensive Plan, there could be opposition to those increases and indication that it was not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DEFER: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to defer consideration of school impacts as noted in the staff report (CMR:151:96) until the Palo Alto Unified School District could respond. Council Member Kniss preferred to defer the issue because of the legal concerns expressed that evening, the uncertainty regarding the collection of the fees, and to give the PAUSD an opportunity to respond.
Council Member Simitian asked the status of the PAUSD=s imposition on the adoption of a school facilities developer impact fee and the findings necessary to support that action. Ms. Fleming said unofficially, she understood the PAUSD was not adopting a plan at the present time and that it would be done project by project. Council Member Simitian said ordinarily the PAUSD would have an adopted impact fee, and the PAUSD would indicate that for every square foot of development, it would need $3.00 per square foot in the way of a developer fee to fund the demand for classroom facilities that the development would create. The PAUSD would indicate that since it could receive $1.70 under state law, the PAUSD wanted the City to help whenever there was a legislative approval by charging the developer or applicant with another $1.30. The City could do that if it were in the Comprehensive Plan, and it had the authority to do that. He queried how the City could be in that business if the PAUSD were in the business itself. Council Member Schneider said adding more fees onto development would discourage additional housing in the community. She would support the main motion. Council Member Fazzino said the Council needed to make a decision about whether or not it wanted to address the issue of fees. He preferred to defer the issue until the Council could make a
decision. He felt the City Attorney=s analysis left little room for City involvement in the issue. The Council needed a very serious, carefully thought out discussion regarding the issue which involved the PAUSD, and it would give the City Attorney the opportunity to present the Council with a definitive legal analysis
02/20/96 78-225 78-225
with respect to opportunities for the Council to be involved in the issue of school impact fees. Until that time, he preferred to support the substitute motion and not have any substantive discussion of the issue that evening. Mayor Wheeler said she might in the future support the position of the main motion, but the item was of great import to the PAUSD; it was unfortunate that representatives from the PAUSD were not present that evening. She wanted to offer the PAUSD the opportu-nity to speak to the Council about the subject. She hoped that when the item returned to the Council, the City Attorney and staff would have prepared a report that described what the City either could do in terms of fees or what the City had to do in terms of imposing mitigations if there were language in the Comprehensive Plan that spoke about impact fees. She did not intend to impose an additional City fee in the future, but she was willing to consider potential mitigation measures that might arise out of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of a large development. She also wanted to know what the PAUSD intended to do and how the City might be involved in assisting them to impose its own fees. Council Member Simitian said when the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) issue was before the Council, it did not indicate that there was an impact in terms of what was done, and it would have to pay to mitigate that impact whether it was an intersection improvement or $300,000 for under-, over-, or at-grade crossing to get from the Downtown to the PAMF. The law simply stated that school districts and cities within certain limitations had the right to consider not only sewer, traffic, and water impacts but also school facilities impacts and that an applicant would have pay if an impact were created. For example, if a developer built 1,000 units at Stanford West that produced a vast number of school-aged children, there was an impact that might or might not require mitigation. After the analysis had been done to determine what the impact was and whether or not it needed to be mitigated, there might or might not be an ability on the part of the PAUSD or the City to impose fees. The Council was simply stating that the notion of impact went beyond conventional urban infrastructure and included school facilities and that had to be considered when a situation arose. He did not want the Council to be held accountable for a set of difficult decisions that should be grappled with by the PAUSD first and then the PAUSD should let the City know how it could help in the future. He felt the substitute motion gave the Council the flexibility it needed to have a future discussion regarding the issue, and it would be untimely for the Council to reach a conclusion about the issue before the PAUSD had reached its own conclusions about what
it could do and what the City=s role would be. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DEFER PASSED 6-3, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider "no."
02/20/96 78-226 78-226
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to add a new Program CD-1.D1, "To improve the forecasting of school enrollments, provide regular status reports to Palo Alto Unified School District on potential and approved development projects." Council Member Rosenbaum said the deferral might apply to the programs under that policy as well. Program CD-1.D1 would put the Council back into the same issues as the overall policy.
Mayor Wheeler clarified that the Council=s discussion of Programs CD-1.D1 and CD-1.D2 should also wait until the Council had its discussion with the PAUSD. Council Member Kniss clarified the status reports should be deferred because it involved development projects. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER Council Member Fazzino said the staff needed to strengthen either that section or the Transportation Section to reflect the fact that the PAUSD should work closely with the City when it made facility or other decisions related to traffic transportation management. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to add a program to reinsert in the Comprehensive Plan a policy that the Palo Alto Unified School District should take traffic safety and traffic impacts into its consideration of future school site decisions. Council Member Andersen reminded the Council about its earlier
discussion about the issue of the PAUSD=s decision to have a citywide feed to certain elementary schools. School locations had a major impact on certain neighborhoods because many of the students were driven to the location. Council Member Kniss said the City/Schools Liaison Committee had discussed the issue extensively, and there was some very good information available. A surprising discovery was how dramatically the traffic and delivery had changed; almost everyone drove their children to school which had created the need to expand the driveways and traffic guards at each of the schools. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RESOLUTIONS 6. Resolution 7575 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1996" MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Resolution scheduling the City Council's annual vacation for 02/20/96 78-227 78-227
Calendar Year 1996 from August 13, 1996, through September 8, 1996, with City Council to reconvene on September 9, 1996. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Cupertino Electric, Inc. for Civic Center Electrical Repair MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to adopt the Ordinance and approve the contract between the City of Palo Alto and Cupertino Electric, Inc. for Civic Center Electrical Repair, change orders not to exceed $5,430. Ordinance 4333 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Emergency Repair of the Main Power Supply to the Civic Center" MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project - Deletion of Portion of Project and Amendment to Consultant Agreement for Design and Construction Council Member Fazzino was pleased that $100,000 would come from another source to pay for part of the path but was concerned about what that would do for bicyclists and pedestrians if the City constructed part of the path at the present and then waited until the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) proceeded with its section of the path. The pedestrians and bicyclists would have to find their way across town by Encina Avenue or other means, e.g., the railroad tracks. It made sense to start the project immediately; but he asked whether it made long-term sense for the City to stop the process and wait until the $100,000 was available from the PAMF to proceed or whether there was a way for the City to create a temporary bicycle path through the PAMF property. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said staff had determined that it was acceptable to make a temporary path down Encina Avenue and along El Camino Real, but it was difficult to justify spending that amount of money for the short period of time the path would be there. A review of the PAMF project showed a portion of the CalTrain track was on a fill adjacent to the property. Originally, the path was supposed to be on top of that fill, but the way the site of the PAMF was being redeveloped, the path would have to be built up along the fill. It was possible to continue a path, but it would be difficult to keep it in good condition during the construction of the PAMF site. The primary
02/20/96 78-228 78-228
issue was the wisdom of spending that amount of money for a relatively short period of time. Council Member Fazzino felt the staff showed excellent judgment on the financial issue. He asked whether there was any way for the City to maintain a decent, safe path through the PAMF property until the PAMF was ready to build a permanent path or whether construction would interfere with the path.
Mr. Overway said the PAMF=s construction would interfere with the path. He felt the project would not be open until at least next summer, and the PAMF project would be close to, if not under construction, by that time. Council Member Fazzino asked staff to consider the issue.
Mr. Overway said when staff knew the PAMF=s exact schedule and the
City=s schedule for the project, it would be considered. Council Member Fazzino felt there would be complaints from bicyclists who were forced onto Encina Avenue unless there was a thorough discussion regarding the issue. He asked about the time table for the completion of construction of bicycle/pedestrian
bridge at the other end. He felt the bicyclists= irritation would increase if the bicycle path were completed from Churchill to Encina and the bicycle/pedestrian bridge were completed across the San Francisquito Creek but there was still a stretch of property where nothing could be done until the PAMF was ready to move forward. Mr. Overway said the construction of the bridge across San Franscisquito Creek was scheduled for Summer 1996, with completion by Fall 1996. Council Member Fazzino asked where people would gain access to the bicycle/pedestrian bridge. Mr. Overway said a point of access would be at Alma Street, outside of El Palo Alto Park. People could travel down Alma Street or cross the railroad tracks or go through the path system in the park to the CalTrain station. Council Member Schneider asked about the new increase of $33,000 for the bridge construction inspection. Mr. Overway said usually most inspection functions that related to construction were handled by the Public Works Department; but bridge construction was unique, and the Public Works Department did not have the resources or expertise available to provide that service.
02/20/96 78-229 78-229
Council Member Schneider asked whether a consultant was working on the construction of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge that would be completed in the fall. Mr. Overway said the Public Works Department would handle the management of the contract, but the services of a bridge inspector would be retained. Council Member Schneider asked if the dollar amounts were similar. Mr. Overway said yes. Staff had reviewed the figures and felt the cost was appropriate for the type of work that was being done. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the deletion of a portion of the proposed bike path, from a point just north of Encina Avenue to the southerly end of the Joint Powers Board (JPB) parking lot; approve an amendment to the consultant agreement with HMH, Incorporated, to include (a) additional design services ($13,649), (b) bridge inspection services during construction ($33,321), and (c) technical support services during construction ($7,173) for a total amount of $54,143; and authorize the City Manager or her designated represen-tative to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the consultant agreement with HMH, Inc., for an additional amount not to exceed $8,100. Amendment No. One to Contract No. C4044185 between the City of Palo Alto and HMH, Incorporated for Design and Construction MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler announced that Josina Bol passed away on Friday, February 16, 1996. She had been a resident of Barron Park since 1926. She was the reason the community enjoyed Bol Park. Council Member Andersen announced that the license plates at the Council's places had been created by a group of students from Palo Alto High School. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 2a. Mayor Wheeler announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 2a.
02/20/96 78-230 78-230
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. in memory of Josina Bol. 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.
02/20/96 78-231 78-231