HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-07 City Council Summary Minutes
07/07/97 −435
Regular Meeting
July 7, 1997
1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Dennis Neverve Upon His Retirement....83-437
2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Timothy Broderick for Outstanding Public
Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission......83-437
3. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Honey Meir-Levi for Outstanding Public Service
as a Member of the Public Art Commission..............83-438
4. Appointments to Utilities Advisory Commission.........83-438
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................83-439
APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................83-439
5. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and EBA
Wastechnologies for the Palo Alto Landfill Closure/Postclosure
Plan Update and Phase II Closure Plans and Specifications83-440
6. Underground District No. 36 Property Owners Who Elect to Pay
Underground Conversion Costs Over a Period of Years...83-440
7. Specific Joint Participation Agreement between the City of Palo
Alto and Pacific Bell to Install Future Substructure Along
Forest Avenue between the 700-900 Block...............83-440
8. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C7094781 between the City of
Palo Alto and Pacific Consulting Service for Consulting
Services Focusing on Preparation for Electric Industry
Restructuring.........................................83-440
9. Evaluation of Attendant Parking Lot and Request to Continue
Operation.............................................83-440
07/07/97 −436
10. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the City of Los Altos,
the Los Altos Hills County Fire District, and the Santa Clara
County Central Fire District for Automatic Aid into
Interjurisdictional Fire Protection Service Zone......83-440
11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Underground
Construction Company, Inc. for Utility Trench and Substructure
Installation..........................................83-441
12. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C7093610 between the City of
Palo Alto and Preservation Architect Barbara Judy for
Consulting Services...................................83-441
13. Resolution 7697 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Ninth
Amendment to Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Access
to the California Identification System”..............83-441
14. The Policy and Services Committee and the Finance Committee
re Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study......83-441
15. Response to Council Request for Updated Information on Commute
Coordinator Program, Downtown Parking Assessment Requirements
and Fees, Residential Parking Permit Program Feasibility, and
the City Shuttle Proposal.............................83-460
16. Request to Develop a Formal Valet Parking Program and Ordinance
in Downtown Palo Alto.................................83-466
17. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing
Corporation Concerning the Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Operation of a Twelve Unit Apartment Building at 290-310 Ventura
Avenue, Palo Alto.....................................83-472
18. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........83-473
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m............83-473
07/07/97 −437
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:13 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at
7:13 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived
at 7:17 p.m.), Wheeler
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Dennis Neverve Upon His Retirement
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt
the Resolution.
Resolution 7692 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Dennis Neverve Upon
His Retirement”
Police Chief Chris Durkin said over the past 30 years, Dennis Neverve made numerous contributions to the Department and the community,
used experience and expertise to solve serious crimes, and molded young rookies into outstanding officers the community could depend
upon. Mr. Neverve left an indelible mark on the Department with his professionalism and genuine interest in serving the citizens of Palo
Alto. The Palo Alto Police Department was a better place because Mr. Neverve cared.
Dennis Neverve was very proud to be a member of the Police Department. He would continue as a Reserve Police Officer for the City one
or two days per week.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Timothy Broderick for Outstanding Public
Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt
the Resolution.
Resolution 7693 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Timothy Broderick for
Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art
Commission”
Timothy Broderick thanked the Council for the opportunity to be on the Public Art Commission. Citizen participation was important.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
3. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Honey Meir-Levi for Outstanding Public Service
as a Member of the Public Art Commission
07/07/97 −438
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt
the Resolution.
Resolution 7694 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Honey Meir-Levi for
Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art
Commission”
Honey Meir-Levi thanked the City Council and said it was a privilege to help.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
4. Appointments to Utilities Advisory Commission
Council Member Rosenbaum said there were excellent new candidates for the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). With the rapidly
changing nature of the utilities, particularly electricity, Council should take advantage of the opportunity for continuity. Council also had
an opportunity to reach back into the past. Because of the excellent work of the incumbents and Paul Grimsrud who had served
previously on the UAC, he would vote for Fred Eyerly, Paul Johnston, and Mr. Grimsrud.
Council Member Kniss said despite what the San Francisco Chronicle
printed that morning about citizen participation, the Council
welcomed it and hoped that people would continue to do so. She
concurred with Council Member Rosenbaum, but she also wanted to
mention that Dexter Dawes would make an excellent commissioner in
another round. Mr. Dawes had been involved in the community for
some time. The candidates were an exemplary group.
RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR UTILITIES ADVISORY
COMMISSION
VOTING FOR DAWES:
VOTING FOR EYERLY: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss,
McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler
VOTING FOR GRIMSRUD: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss,
McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler
VOTING FOR JOHNSON:
VOTING FOR JOHNSTON: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss,
McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler
VOTING FOR MADSEN:
VOTING FOR MCFADDEN:
VOTING FOR SORGENFREI:
VOTING FOR ZAHARIAS:
07/07/97 −439
City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Mr. Eyerly, Mr. Grimsrud,
and Mr. Johnston were unanimously appointed on the first ballot.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding prejudice possibly causing
loss of value of City employees’ pensions.
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding democracy and
deceit.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to
approve the Minutes of March 17, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to
approve the Minutes of March 24, 1997, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 5 through 13.
5. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and EBA
Wastechnologies for the Palo Alto Landfill Closure/Postclosure
Plan Update and Phase II Closure Plans and Specifications
6. Underground District No. 36 Property Owners Who Elect to Pay
Underground Conversion Costs Over a Period of Years
Resolution 7695 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Determining Properties Electing to Pay Cost Over
a Period of Years, Determining and Classifying Unpaid
Assessments, and Funding Loans to Property Owners From the
Electric Reserve for Underground Connections--Underground
Utilities Conversion Underground Utility Assessment
District 36"
7. Specific Joint Participation Agreement between the City of Palo
Alto and Pacific Bell to Install Future Substructure Along
Forest Avenue between the 700-900 Block
8. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C7094781 between the City of
Palo Alto and Pacific Consulting Service for Consulting
07/07/97 −440
Services Focusing on Preparation for Electric Industry
Restructuring
Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C7094779 between the City of
Palo Alto and Resource Management International, Inc. for
Consulting Services Focusing on Preparation for Electric
Industry Restructuring
Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C7094780 between the City of
Palo Alto and EES for Consulting Services Focusing on
Preparation for Electric Industry Restructuring
9. Evaluation of Attendant Parking Lot and Request to Continue
Operation
Resolution 7696 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Approving Assignment to Pacific Parking & Valet
of the Rights and Obligations of National Parking Corporation
in that Contract with the City of Palo Alto for Parking Lot
Management Services”
10. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the City of Los Altos,
the Los Altos Hills County Fire District, and the Santa Clara
County Central Fire District for Automatic Aid into
Interjurisdictional Fire Protection Service Zone
Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Los Altos Hills
County Fire District, and the Santa Clara County Central Fire
Protection District for Interjurisdictional Fire Protection
and Emergency Medical Response Service from the City of Palo
Alto Fire Station Number 8
11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Underground
Construction Company, Inc. for Utility Trench and Substructure
Installation
12. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C7093610 between the City of
Palo Alto and Preservation Architect Barbara Judy for
Consulting Services
13. Resolution 7697 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Ninth
Amendment to Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Access
to the California Identification System”
Amendment No. 9 to Contract No. C0014413 between the City of
Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara to provide Local Law
Enforcement Agency Acquisition to the California
Identi-fication System
07/07/97 −441
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
14. The Policy and Services Committee and the Finance Committee
re Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study
The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council
regarding Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study
approval of the staff recommendation to: 1) approve, in
principle, and direct staff to proceed with the necessary steps
leading to (a) the construction of a multi-level parking
structure (four elevated decks, one at-grade level, and two
below grade levels on the Lot S/L site); (b) the construction
of a multi-level parking structure (three elevated decks and
one at-grade level) on the Lot R site in the Downtown Business
District, and (c) the formation of a parking assessment district
to fund such a project; 2) authorize staff to negotiate a Phase
II design contract with the consultant team utilized in Phase
I and, if unable to successfully negotiate a satisfactory Phase
II design contract, pursue a general solicitation of other
consultants, consistent with the City’s established consultant
selection procedures; 3) direct staff to proceed with the
necessary and appropriate steps to secure the following
additional services: design/construction management,
assessment district engineer, bond counsel, and financial
advisor; and 4) direct staff to proceed with the necessary and
appropriate steps to identify an alternative suitable location
for the Teen Center. Furthermore, to add the words “within
the Downtown area” after Teen Center.
The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council regarding
Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study to: 1) approve,
in principle, and direct staff to proceed with the necessary
steps leading to (a) the construction of a multilevel parking
structure (four elevated decks, one at-grade level, and two
below grade levels on the Lots S/L site); (b) the construction
of a multi-level parking structure (three elevated decks and
one at-grade level) on the Lot R site in the Downtown Business
District, and (c) the formation of a parking assessment district
to fund such a project; 2) authorize staff to negotiate a Phase
II design contract with the consultant team utilized in Phase
I and, if unable to successfully negotiate a satisfactory Phase
II design contract, pursue a general solicitation of other
consultants, consistent with the City’s established consultant
selection procedures; 3) direct staff to proceed with the
necessary and appropriate steps to secure the following
additional services: design/construction management,
assessment district engineer, bond counsel, and financial
07/07/97 −442
advisor services; and 4) direct staff to proceed with the
necessary and appropriate steps to identify an alternative
suitable location for the Teen Center.
Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item
because of a conflict of interest since her business was within the
assessment district.
Council Member Wheeler said the Finance Committee had a broad-ranging
discussion that went beyond the financial aspects.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked, with regard to Proposition 218, if there
had been any further progress on enabling legislation or anything
that would suggest other cities were proceeding with assessment
elections in November.
Manager, Investments, Debts & Projects James Steele said the Governor
signed a bill into law the previous week that had some procedural
clarifications for Prop 218, such as assessment procedures, mail
ballot procedures, and other technical issues. Staff did not
foresee any substantive changes in the legislative arena.
Vice Mayor Andersen said it appeared from the minutes of the Finance
Committee meeting that there was less optimism from the staff than
what he observed at the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee meeting
regarding the potential for finding an alternative site for the Teen
Center.
City Manager June Fleming said staff felt it would not be an easy
task but was not impossible. The Council had priorities that
addressed services to teens, and staff had long been committed to
that. The Recreation Division and Community Services Department
expressed support for continuance. Staff was really committed to
finding a place, would take the challenge, and return with some
recommendations.
Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, Chair, Chamber of Commerce Parking
Committee, said the issue was about addressing the parking deficit
in the Downtown area. The assessment district was a self-taxing
group; property owners paid for the new parking spaces. Staff
conducted a survey which asked property owners if they wanted to
be taxed. Two-thirds voted yes. The survey did not count the 525
University Avenue building owners who had indicated that they were
also very supportive of the new assessment district. That would
bring the yes votes to over 70 percent, which was overwhelming.
The survey addressed Council’s concern of whether there was
grassroots support by the people who would ultimately pay for it.
The proposed structures had gone through a number of outreach
meetings with residential neighborhoods that had commercial
07/07/97 −443
interests in the Downtown. The proposed structures had also gone
through the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Planning
Commission, and the Council. There was a sense of where the
structures should be, how big they should be, and what the cost would
be. He asked for Council’s approval of the staff recommendation.
Council Member Rosenbaum recalled that when it was discussed at the
Finance Committee meeting, there was at least one property owner
who was concerned about the assessments being based on use rather
than on square footage. He asked if the Parking Committee looked
into that issue.
Mr. Keenan said no. The Parking Committee did not think it was an
appropriate approach to how a property was assessed. Assessment
was based on the parking deficit attributed to each property. There
was not a better approach.
Susan Frank, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of
Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said for over five years the Chamber
continued to work side by side with the staff, resident groups, and
business interests on issues such as parking structures and valet
parking. The structures were a critical part of the 13-point plan
which Council adopted several years before. It was a great
opportunity to build 700 plus new spaces for customers, employees,
employers, and others. Council would be hearing a concern that if
new concrete were built, people would come. However, the people
were already there and were parking in the neighborhoods and all
over the Downtown. It was a great opportunity for the City to keep
up with the changes that had taken place in the Downtown over the
last decade. There was support from property owners, merchants,
and businesses. She believed there was support from the larger
community to keep Downtown vital and to continue to improve the
Downtown parking situation. Hopefully, that would lead to
alleviating some of the burden that had been placed on the
neighborhoods and providing adequate and varied parking for all who
visited or worked in the Downtown. Staff did an excellent job, and
the Chamber supported staff’s recommendations. The Chamber hoped
it had Council’s support as well.
Council Member Wheeler said one of the concerns expressed by members
of the residential community surrounding the Downtown area was that
the construction of 700 new parking spaces would let more people
come. A number of the spaces would be permit spaces. She clarified
there was at least one or two points in the 13-point plan that
addressed how the committee would work to make sure that those permit
spaces were bought and used by Downtown employers and employees.
Ms. Frank said she would leave the details of how a parking structure
was split into permit and non-permit spaces to the staff that would
07/07/97 −444
developing the program. There was no doubt that employers wanted
to buy parking permits; otherwise, there would not be a waiting list.
Employees waited to purchase parking permits because they did not
want to park in neighborhoods and have to walk long distances. There
was a tremendous education effort underway that the Chamber was
involved in with staff. None of those things would solve the problem
on their own. That was why the Chamber had been working for over
five years on things like residential parking permit program, City
shuttle program, commute coordinator, alternative transportation
measures; a number of efforts were always underway at any given time.
There was a possibility of meeting with a few of the restaurants
in the Downtown area to get them to look at alternative ways of parking
for their employees to get them out of the neighborhoods. She said
a portion of the new structures would be devoted to permit parking.
She was not in a position to answer what percentage, but the Chamber
was committed to trying to get employers and employees out of the
neighborhoods and either out of their cars or into parking
structures.
Council Member Wheeler clarified that the Chamber was also working
with the groups that were talking about residential permit parking.
Ms. Frank said yes. Both University South and University North
neighborhood groups sent representatives to the Parking Committee
meetings. University South had been participating for over a year.
University North had been participating for a couple of months.
She attended the last University North parking subcommittee meeting
along with staff, so the Chamber was in conversation with the groups
and was listening to the concerns. Hopefully, some of the problems
would start to be alleviated.
Council Member Fazzino mentioned the other issue of the mix of uses
in the Downtown area. Some uses, particularly restaurants, required
much more parking than other uses. There was tremendous fear in
the Downtown area about the new restaurant Zibibbo that would open
up. He asked whether the Chamber was willing to address that issue
as part of the final Comprehensive Plan discussions.
Ms. Frank said the Parking Committee had not discussed particular
uses relative to assessment issues. There was an effort underway
to meet with the general managers and owners of some of the largest
restaurants Downtown to explore creative opportunities to move
employees out of where they were currently parking into other places
that were not currently available to the public. She could not say
for sure whether that would happen. The Chamber was getting property
owners to step forward and help out. Jim Baer, Mr. Keenan, and she
would be working on that and hoped to have some success. There were
concerns of the new restaurant on Waverley and the kinds of cars
07/07/97 −445
and traffic it would generate. The situation could be dealt with
in a positive way.
Council Member Fazzino recalled there was an effort a couple of years
before to convince a large restaurant operating in the Downtown area
to focus on the need for a parking management program, but the
proposal was rejected. Clearly, the issue underlay many of the
concerns with respect to parking deficit. He asked what would happen
if voluntary effort were unsuccessful.
Mr. Keenan said in the mid-1970s, the Downtown lost all its anchor
tenants. Currently, the anchor tenant was food and entertainment.
Restoration Hardware and other types of upscale tenants followed
that demographic draw. He cautioned the Council about targeting
any particular use.
Council Member Fazzino asked whether that was true even if it did
have a significant negative impact on the parking.
Mr. Keenan said the answer was not a yes or a no. If the City had
750 new spaces in the heart of the City, much of the evening parking
function of restaurants would be absorbed. The Palo Alto Medical
Foundation’s move out of the Downtown would have a significant effect
on reducing parking pressure. It was the cumulative effect of all
of those issues that was the solution. One by itself would not work.
Council Member Fazzino clarified that the Parking Committee would
endorse a parking management program that captured uses that created
unique parking situations, such as having different groups of
employees coming in at different times of the day.
Mr. Keenan said it was not necessary to spend $20 million to have
the key economic vitality of the Downtown targeted as a special
circumstance.
John Berwald, 261 Creekside Drive, recalled an article he read about
a new restaurant that was opening up in Menlo Park because unlike
Palo Alto, Menlo Park was not saturated with restaurants and there
was plenty of parking. There was a nineteenth century poem about
a calf path that attracted more pedestrians, animals, tractors, cars,
trucks, etc., and finally became a freeway. When Central Expressway
began, no one would have considered that it would end up as a
“hodgepodge.” He believed that building new garages would attract
more cars and people. The Council was good at balancing the social
and economic issues. He believed that using large areas for parking
exclusively was wrong. Ten years before, he suggested that Council
consider the area from Ramona Street to Florence Street as a design
area and to create a plaza between the Senior Coordinating Council
building and the parking lot on Bryant Street, to close off the center
07/07/97 −446
as a pedestrian plaza, and to keep the ends open for access to the
alley and garage. He recommended at that time that the property
at the rear of the Senior Coordinating Council could be used for
long-care aid for seniors and a skilled nursing or assisted living
facility. He had spoken with a number of prominent citizens and
the City’s Real Estate Division, who were interested in
intergenerational housing as an adjunct use on that site with parking
below and housing above. Council had an opportunity to consider
the social and design issues.
Rick Ferguson, 1037 Harker Street, representing the Palo Alto Civic
League, said in the past year the Civic League considered traffic
issues in great depth. He expressed disappointment with the final
staff report (CMR:308:97), which had technical matters that required
some fixing. The parking problem was predominantly the lunchtime
restaurant problem. The solution proposed was $21 million worth
of 24-hour, 7-day buildings of which there was a problem with the
definition of the deficit. The staff report (CMR:308:97) was not
matching up apples for apples. The traffic analysis numbers were
in deep denial. There was no treatment of the loading patterns and
the senior parking hazards for the sites that were listed. There
was no projection for development parking demand after the structure
was built, and there were missing costs in the analysis. Litigation
and Council time costs were zero. There was no consideration of
the crime or the homeless usage of the structure after hours, and
there was no analysis of the cost or the burdens to citizens who
were not participants in the assessment district. There was no
response in the staff report (CMR:308:97) to the design queries that
were posed on landscaping and the tailpipe tower implications. More
time to respond to the staff report (CMR:308:97) and to participate
with the Council would help correct many things. The staff report
(CMR:308:97) was premised on bad economics. There was no
competitive advantage. The consulting project was awarded on a
sole-source basis. There was no natural competition between
competing uses for the space. There was no competition, no cost
control, and no innovation. It was politically incomplete. There
were several places in the staff report (CMR:308:97) where public
comments were represented as having been included and opened up,
but comments were very limited or were not addressed as if they had
not occurred. It was constitutionally defective. Regarding Prop
218, it was the wrong special benefit district as characterized in
the staff report (CMR:308:97). It constituted a gift of air rights
over the flat spaces to a number of private owners. Under the
existing Comprehensive Plan, there were violations. The garage
attracted traffic. At the Civic League’s forum, a deputy traffic
administrator from Portland, Oregon, said that Portland discovered
parking allocations downtown turned out to be the single strongest
surrogate for traffic impact controls. There would be different
growth if parking were accommodated according to a truer set of
07/07/97 −447
incentives. He asked Council to hold off on moving ahead with the
recommendations and give others a chance to make comments.
Roger Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, said Palo Alto had a serious
problem with traffic. If the parking structure were built and
utilized, that meant adding at least 3,000 trips into and out of
Downtown. The people would come, and it would get worse. The
Council was thinking about using a solution that was invented in
the 1950s, but it did not work. Stanford at least made the approach
that it would not add anymore net trips. He asked Council to stop,
think, and consider alternatives.
Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, had concerns about the survey which
asked building owners whether they supported the proposed
construction. Building only one parking structure was a theoretical
alternative, but it was not an alternative offered on the survey.
Many people concerned about the shortage of parking would agree
to more structures but might feel that one structure was sufficient
or all that their businesses could afford to support. She was in
favor of the Lots S/L site which combined maximum space utilization
with the most reasonable cost, but the Lot R structure had a much
higher cost per parking space gained. She was willing to pay her
share, but she wanted it invested wisely. With the combination of
those two structures and the one she was already assessed for, she
expected to pay over $100,000 in parking assessments over the next
20 years. She asked about offering a choice of just one structure
to those who would have to pay for it. She knew more permit parking
was needed, but she did not feel it was her responsibility to provide
subsidized parking spaces for local permit holders. The cost per
space per year amortized over a fair number of years needed to be
determined, and permit rentals should be charged a comparable fee.
She asked why she should be taxed in the thousands each year when
it was not her job to provide cheap, convenient parking for local
office workers. If Council committed to building any structures,
Council should severely limit the placement of permit parking in
them. Downtown shoppers who supported the merchants who paid the
tax assessments should have the use of those spaces. Currently,
around $4,300 for 20 years of permit parking was charged for one
space. She had to pay $25,000 to $30,000 dollars in 20 years to
build that space. She reminded Council that the in-lieu payments
which allowed developers to pay for the construction of parking
spaces instead of providing their own were ludicrously low and not
up to date. Also, the possible shuttle bus stops on University
Avenue were about to be lost through the Downtown improvement
project. If public transit were to be used, those spaces should
be kept free. In addition, Council should make sure restrooms were
included in any structures along with safe, well-lit, well-marked
doors leading onto the main streets.
07/07/97 −448
Irvin Dawid, representing the Sierra Club, 3921 East Bayshore Road,
said from an environmental perspective, how parking was dealt with
was to a certain extent comparable to how Sand Hill Road was dealt
with. Unfortunately, parking was not receiving the same amount of
attention. He was the Sierra Club local chapter’s representative
to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and he dealt with
two issues as a member of the Congestion Pricing Task Force. The
first was to implement congestion pricing, which was peak period
pricing on the Bay Bridge when the toll would be higher. The other
was a regional gas tax. If AB 595 passed sometime by the Year 2000,
whether or not to increase the gasoline tax by 10 cents per gallon
would be voted on. It was a market based transportation solution.
Using the marketplace to tackle transportation problems was lacking
in the proposed recommendations. He asked staff and Council how
there could be a parking shortage when a centrally located parking
lot was half empty. The problem that needed to be confronted was
the deficit of free parking spaces. The City of Burlingame kept
its parking meters, but Palo Alto removed its parking meters. The
City sent a message that parking would be plentiful and free, and
as much of it as possible would be provided. Burlingame had
short-term and long-term meters. The permit situation that Palo
Alto had for paid parking was counterproductive. If a permit were
bought for one-fourth or half a year, there was a big incentive to
drive every day. The Sierra Club recommended the City manage its
existing parking places more efficiently.
James Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, understood there would be extensive
outreach both in design and community input with respect to the
configuration and character of the structures. The Chamber was
forming a subcommittee to work on congestion and traffic management
by restaurants, and it was easy to describe the kind of problems
unique to the restaurant industry. The largest restaurants in the
Downtown employed about 125 people, which meant as many as 65 or
70 employees at a dinner shift who came at 4:30 p.m. before permit
lots emptied. Employees were at minimum wage or near minimum wage,
so there was a problem in getting them to use permits. Part of what
the Chamber was about to start doing was a result of the transition
from Stars to Spago. Spago was required in Los Angeles to have
congestion management programs in its use permits. He met with the
Spago organization who talked about how employees could not punch
in their time cards without a ticket showing that they parked in
an authorized, approved area rather than in the area surrounding
the restaurant. Through the Chamber, there would be efforts over
the next few months with three or four larger restaurants to work
on how to get employees to park in remote parking lots such as Parking
Lot J, how to get that parking monitored, and how to get management
to take an active role in making that happen so that parking would
be taken off the City streets and off the neighborhood streets.
07/07/97 −449
Warren Thoits, 629 Emerson Street, said Downtown Palo Alto was
extremely successful, which was a great asset to the community as
a whole. The parking deficit had existed for years and was not
something new. Those who would be paying the bill were in favor
of it. There were details to be worked out such as the restaurant
parking, but those details could not be worked out without the parking
facilities. He thanked staff for its efforts. The problem was well
identified, quantified, and qualified, and solutions were proposed.
He urged Council to move ahead with the action.
Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, appreciated that the
proposal for the parking garages was part of the 13-point plan for
Downtown parking developed by the Chamber and the City. However,
she believed the points that Mr. Ferguson made earlier about the
lack of a sense of balance and a coherent framework with whether
it was political, economic, or social were valid. She referred to
the list of estimated annual assessments in the staff report
(CMR:308:97). Stanford spent about $830,000 per year to fund its
entire shuttle system to take 1,200 commuters out of parking spaces.
She compared that to the City’s spending about $6.7 million per
year to take 729 cars off the streets. Council would be discussing
commute coordinators, bike racks, shuttle systems, etc. It was the
total resource assessment that Council would be comparing it against.
Parking was one of the most critical factors that the City controlled
in terms of transportation policy, and she would place the Council’s
decision as possibly the most important resource allocation decision
in terms of transportation planning in the Downtown area. She
realized the $6.7 million came out of the business pockets. The
issue of financing for transportation was the most difficult in
transportation planning. Eventually, there would be discussion on
taxing either the residents or businesses. If $6.7 million were
taken out of those Downtown businesses’ pockets, it was money that
the City would not have elsewhere.
Council Member Eakins asked Ms. Kishimoto which page in the staff
report (CMR:308:97) she referred to.
Ms. Kishimoto said it was the third to the last page of the attachments
to the staff report (CMR:308:97). The assessments were $3.27
million for Lot R and $3.4 million for Lots S/L, which totaled $6.7
million.
Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, was concerned with the Lots S/L site
because it was adjacent to his Downtown North neighborhood, which
experienced the worst traffic in Palo Alto. The choice of that site
would increase pollution and traffic through the already saturated
neighborhood by hundreds of car trips. He was also disturbed by
the proposed size of the project. Architectural Review Board (ARB)
and Planning Commission reviews for buildings would be useless
07/07/97 −450
because the City would be building a disproportionately outsized
and ugly structure next to them. Before spending approximately $16
million on the structure, the City should be looking at smaller,
dispersed parking solutions such as shuttle buses or any of the many
other innovative solutions used in forward thinking communities like
Portland, Oregon; Aspen, Colorado; and Burlingame, California.
Although in high-tech Silicon Valley, Palo Alto could not seem to
devise a plan that was innovative or creative. The only benefits
to the public at large was the purported reduction of on-street
parking. The staff report (CMR:308:97) cited that it was meeting
Policy 10 of the Comprehensive Plan. However, very few people in
his neighborhood believed that would be achieved. There were no
studies to prove it, and history seemed to prove otherwise. There
had been more and more parking regardless of how many parking
structures were built. Part of it was related to the placement and
the price that was charged. Apparently, people were looking for
free parking, so it did not matter. On the other hand, more important
Comprehensive Plan policies were not mentioned, e.g., that of
reducing neighborhood traffic and pollution and the goal of building
structures that were appropriate to surroundings. No participation
was solicited from Downtown North residents until late in the study.
Downtown North residents were the most adversely affected by the
plan. It seemed that no creative alternatives were proposed, and
the result was a Neolithic one to an issue that cried out for public
participation and fresh ideas. He urged the Council to proceed
slowly and to elicit more public and neighborhood response.
Mark Nanevicz, representing the Downtown North Neighborhood
Association (DNNA), 228 Waverley Street, said DNNA was primarily
concerned with resolving the existing problems that were within the
neighborhood. Currently, there was an estimated 1,400 cars being
parked in the neighborhoods every day. If there were some way of
getting those cars off the streets and into existing or additional
structures, there might be some level of support from DNNA. However,
there was still a great level of concern that the parking structure
would add more capacity to Downtown for further development and not
resolve existing problems. At the meetings he attended with the
Chamber, people had many creative ideas such as using tandem parking
to pack more cars into structures. The issue should be resolved
in the best way possible.
Pat Burt, representing the University South Neighborhood Group
(USNG), 1249 Harriet Street, said the USNG appreciated the
opportunity to have input through the public outreach the Chamber
had. In some circumstances, the USNG’s input had not been
incorporated to date, and that distinction should be made. Two
fundamental issues were discussed. First was whether the structures
would reduce the residential and Downtown parking problems that
currently existed. Second was what impact the structures would have
07/07/97 −451
on long-term traffic. Each issue was long term because there might
be some short-term benefit immediately upon construction of the
structures. If ultimately the demand for Downtown parking were
increased, it did not necessarily contribute to alleviation of the
problem. The USNG pressed for a high percentage of the spaces to
be permitted parking spaces because that was where much of the problem
existed. If there were not a high percentage of permits, the problem
would probably not be diminished in the long term. He believed that
key component had disappeared from the proposal, and the USNG wanted
to see it put back. The assessment district was willing to spend
millions of dollars on the structures, but the City should step back
to see whether the assessment district could be reconstituted to
allow at least a minority of the expenditures to address parking
problems for patrons and employees through means other than building
new parking spaces. He cited an example of how the sewage treatment
plant and manufacturing businesses addressed reductions in copper
and nickel discharges to the San Francisco Bay. For many years,
manufacturers in Palo Alto knew about redesigning manufacturing
processes to reduce pollutants but did not adopt them until they
were adopted by the sewage treatment plant. Manufacturers finally
recognized they saved money and helped the environment. People
presumed that the way things had always been done was the only way
and the best way of doing it. It would be effective for the City
to look at alternatives.
Council Member McCown asked for a current number of people on the
waiting list for parking permits.
City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said that number was close to
1,300.
Council Member McCown asked whether dollars raised through an
assessment district process could be used for transportation related
programs other than building a structure, e.g., running a shuttle
bus.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne believed the answer was yes. However,
there would be a reengineering of the foundational concept on which
the assessment district was created. To do that was a major
feasibility undertaking.
Council Member McCown clarified there would have to be some kind
of engineering analysis of the relationship of such use of funds
to all of the properties in the assessment district.
Mr. Calonne said yes. Also, there was the Prop 218 required
approval. To figure out how to design the programs to be funded
would take a major analysis.
07/07/97 −452
Council Member McCown asked how many permits were used.
Mr. Aggarwal said the number of outstanding permits was approximately
1,400.
Council Member McCown clarified the waiting list was almost as great
as the number of permits that were used.
Mr. Aggarwal said the 1,300 figure did not reflect a true number
of people on the waiting list. Some people already held permits
for other parking lots while waiting for a preferred parking lot.
Also, many people were on a waiting list for several parking lots.
Council Member McCown asked whether there was any way to evaluate
what the true net demand was for permit spaces.
Mr. Aggarwal said it was a time-consuming task. He guessed the
number was closer to 1,000.
Vice Mayor Andersen said Prop 218 required property owners to vote
for the assessment district, but in effect those who paid for it
were the tenants. He asked whether a tenant had any voice if he
or she did not own property.
Mr. Steele said one part of the legislation that passed the previous
week clarified that the ballot was mailed to the property owner.
It was the property owner’s responsibility to arrange with the
tenant as to whether the charges would be passed to the tenant.
It was up to the tenant and property owner to document whether the
tenant was voting, and it was up to the City to validate that the
ballot was valid.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked if at a later point the City wished to
incorporate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) provisions or
conditions, whether that would be a possibility in the process.
Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the only
complication he saw would be if somehow funding for that TDM program
was thought to be included in the assessment district process.
Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that it was simply a matter of the
City’s placing it as a condition and paying for it other than through
the assessment district.
Mr. Overway said yes.
Council Member Wheeler said Mr. Burt raised the issue of the number
of permit parking spaces in the structures. She thought that at
the Finance Committee meeting, she received reassurances that the
07/07/97 −453
concept of making a majority of the spaces permit parking had not
disappeared and was part of the plans to date. She asked for
clarification.
Mr. Overway said the majority of the spaces in those structures would
be permit parking.
Council Member Wheeler asked if Ms. Kishimoto was reading the
proposed assessments list correctly.
Mr. Overway said yes. However, he referred to page 29 of 37 of
Attachment 1 of the staff report (CMR:308:97). In the table entitled
“1996 Costs Based Upon Feasibility Study” was the average annual
debt service of $1,776,000 per year. That was the same number that
was included in the spreadsheet in the feasibility study. The
numbers that Ms. Kishimoto referred to were part of an attachment
he prepared to be mailed out with the survey that was sent to the
property owners. All of the assessments shown above those numbers
were correct. They simply added up to the wrong numbers. The
correct numbers were included in the staff report in the feasibility
study. The correct number for both structures combined was
$1,776,000 per year.
Council Member Eakins asked what the balance was in the
350,000-square-foot expansion buildout for Downtown as of June 30,
1997.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the number was approximately 295,000 square feet.
Council Member Eakins said Mr. Baer pointed out that the City would
not be able to provide the physical space for all the parking that
would be associated with 295,000 square feet. She asked if results
on the 1997 shuttles were in.
Dena Mossar, Commute Coordinator, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 1024
Emerson Street, said the numbers were on page 9 of the staff report
(CMR:310:97), except the number for the Chili Cook-Off which was
about 507 riders.
Council Member Kniss said there were other cities and solutions
mentioned. She asked if the City had looked at other solutions such
as parking meters.
Mr. Overway had not been with the City long enough to remember when
parking meters were in place or when they were taken out. However,
he understood some of the residual feelings. The Council, staff,
and the Chamber committed to a 13-point parking program in the
Downtown area. The color zones and the extension to a two-hour limit
07/07/97 −454
were an integral part of that program. The package of all 13 Downtown
measures had to be looked at to address the parking issues. Only
one measure could not stand alone. The successful color zone idea
was creative and was being copied by some other cities in the Bay
Area.
City Manager June Fleming said she and Council Member Fazzino were
with the City when parking meters were in place. She generally
agreed with Mr. Overway.
Council Member Kniss asked why the City would not return to parking
meters.
Ms. Fleming said the City had problems with parking meters. They
were difficult to maintain, the City had collection problems,
sometimes the meters did not work, and there was opposition among
a number of people, including users.
Council Member Rosenbaum was on the Council when it voted to remove
the parking meters, and the Council’s decision was based on pure
economics. The Stanford Shopping Center did not have parking
meters, and the Downtown was suffering. The parking meters were
not bringing in much money so the decision seemed reasonable.
Council Member Kniss said while there was the 13-point plan, other
issues needed to be addressed. She did not remember the history
of parking meters, but it was helpful to learn from Council Member
Rosenbaum that the decision was purely an economic issue. The reason
of removing the parking meters in order to be competitive with
Stanford might not be too far from some of the reasons why the City
was moving in the direction it was headed.
Council Member McCown said Ms. Bell raised the question of the
possibility of one rather than two structures. If the City proceeded
with two, she asked if there were a way to keep open the possibility
that the City might build one structure and not the other, e.g.,
if the cost effectiveness of Lot R caused the City to remove Lot
R from the package.
Mr. Overway said there would be a substantial amount of additional
information about the structures, such as design, use, staging,
phasing, and cost, that would be brought to Council through public
meetings. At that point the Council would decide whether to form
an assessment district and, if so, whether to fund one or both the
structures.
Council Member McCown referred to page 5 of the staff report
(CMR:308:97) which showed the cost estimate for the activities that
needed to be done before the assessment district was formed. She
07/07/97 −455
understood it reflected approximately 60 percent of the design work.
She clarified that in continuing forward with both structures, money
would be spent based on the cost estimate, and after that, the Council
would have a better handle on whether it wanted to put out as an
assessment district both structures or only one.
Mr. Overway said that was correct.
Mr. Calonne said the Council had only the barest of environmental
analyses in the report from the Watry Design Group. The Council
would have to give thoughtful and detailed consideration of the
environmental consequences of building whatever it chose to build.
As the staff report (CMR:308:97) said, it was a decision in principle
rather than any commitment on the part of the City.
Council Member Fazzino clarified that the Council would have a number
of additional opportunities to address the specifics of the project
and decide whether or not the Council would proceed.
Mr. Calonne said yes.
Council Member Fazzino said there was a legitimate parking deficit
problem, and as a resident of the Downtown area, he wanted to do
everything he could to get cars off the street in both Downtown North
and the residential areas south of University Avenue. The City
needed to be careful not to create incentives for additional parking.
He agreed that if the Council moved ahead with the parking
structures, it had to support the structures as part of a much broader
plan. The City had already taken several steps toward implementing
that broader plan. However, he was concerned that those steps
continued to have a negative impact on adjoining residential areas.
The color zone concept was exciting. The parking structures
addressed the need to provide additional parking in the Downtown
area, but they only worked in concert with a residential parking
program. The City needed to address parking management in the
Downtown area, particularly with the kinds of uses that created
additional burdens on adjoining residential areas. The issue was
part of a difficult balancing act of encouraging economic vitality
while making sure that there were no inordinate negative impacts
on adjoining residential areas. He was pleased to see another item
on the agenda which had to do with better parking management efforts
in the Downtown area. He did not believe the City had moved as
quickly as it should have with respect to Downtown parking and commute
management plans. He was pleased that there was a proposal before
Council to finally study the extension of the Marguerite Shuttle
because that extension was a very important part of the broader
parking and traffic management plan. He wanted to see a stronger
City commitment to the other elements of the broader parking plan.
Regarding design, it was a very important issue to him. He
07/07/97 −456
indicated at the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee meeting that
he did not want to have the parking structures look like Wrigley
Field from the outside. He suggested the possibility of retail on
the outside of the parking structures. He also suggested extensive
landscape. He wanted to consider other uses on the exterior of the
garages which softened their effect and incorporated it into a much
nicer degree aesthetically into the Downtown area. He supported
the recommendations to move the project forward to the next step.
Council Member Eakins said in downtown Portland, there was parking
intrusion all around the free transit zone. There would always be
intrusion near free parking. The City could learn principles from
elsewhere, but the City had to do it its way. She agreed with Mr.
Berwald about adding socially useful amenities and being careful
about the detracting aspects of a parking garage. There was guidance
from the P&S Committee because at the meeting, each Committee Member
made clear statements about what parking garages should and should
not be. The parking lots were not very attractive either because
it was a hole in the street front or the block face. Therefore,
replacing parking lots with garages might not be a bad idea. When
looking at future buildings and growth, the City should remember
all the creative, nontraditional solutions that had been discussed.
The City should be coordinating development with availability of
choices for transportation, and the time to start thinking about
that was at the present. The City had a long-standing commitment
to the garages as part of the 13-point plant, and she supported moving
ahead with the project.
Council Member Wheeler assured Mr. Brenner and the other people who
had spoken from the neighborhoods that the residential neighbors’
views on the subject and other subjects that affected their lives
were not inconsequential to the Council. Many of the concerns
expressed had been addressed to some extent on a preliminary basis
in the studies that the Council received. Many of them were concerns
that would be addressed as the City entered into the next phases
of actually designing a structure or two and evaluating the
environmental consequences of those structures. The Council
devoted considerable time and attention to some of the 13 points
at previous meetings. The Council would give due attention to others
of the 13 points in the future, but it was looking at them basically
1 point at a time. There were some points that had to merge and
coalesce. She agreed with those neighbors who were concerned about
the presumed freeing up of some parking spaces in their neighborhoods
and what happened as a consequence, such as whether they refilled
again or whether they eased the parking situation. When the initial
studies came out, Council was told that if it moved on a fast track,
the City might be ready to open a structure in three years. The
issue of residential permit parking was part of the next item on
the agenda, and that issue probably should be addressed long before
07/07/97 −457
the City started to build either one of the parking structures.
She supported the Committees’ actions. She also assured the people
who had addressed the Council both from the business community and
from the residential community that all points of view would be taken
into account and would be accorded due hearing by the Council.
Council Member Kniss said there was a price for success. People
liked the walkability and the sense of feeling that Palo Alto was
a small town even though it had become a large City. High-rise
parking structures did not give that same feeling. The Council
needed to think carefully and be sensitive to the needs of those
affected. The parking structures should not look like garages, but
she was not sure exactly what they should look like. Also, the
structures needed to be sustainable. There were garages that became
shoddy after some period of time. A good example of a garage that
held up well was Lot J where she felt comfortable parking because
it felt like a safe area. She supported the recommendations.
Council Member McCown said one of the important reasons to keep moving
on the parking structure concept was that that particular element
of the overall set of strategies had a very long lead time. Unless
the City kept moving on it, an option was taken away from the total
set of options that needed to be pursued continually. It was
important that the Council firmly commit to moving forward with the
parking structures while knowing that there were many open issues
that would have to be struggled with in greater detail.
Approximately ten years before, the Downtown Study led to the
citizens’ committee which ultimately led to the recommendations that
formed the Downtown Study results and resulted in the cap on
development Downtown. There also had been some number of parking
strategies out of those recommendations. She could not remember
whether it was 13 points. There was a great deal of analyses of
looking at opportunities on different sites Downtown, maximizing
the efficiency of existing lots, and looking at the mix of permit
and non-permit spaces. All were the same set of issues that the
City continued to struggle with more than ten years. She believed
one recommendation had been to pursue the possible construction of
a parking structure. The result was Lot J, which was what was
accomplished over the last ten years with regard to creating
additional parking spaces. If the Council were renewing its
commitment to that same multiplex approach, it was one that Council
had to keep moving on or it would not be an effective tool in the
future. She supported the recommendations.
Mayor Huber said he was a community member of that 1986 Downtown
Study Committee that Council Member McCown mentioned. He remembered
that parking structures were discussed and the deficit then was the
same as the current deficit. One way to deal with that was
structures. Members of the public made some good comments and
07/07/97 −458
suggestions about what Council needed to follow up with. The next
item on the agenda addressed some of them. The Council should not
delay dealing with parking structures. The fact that other points
had to be dealt with did not mean the parking structures should be
deferred. Parking structures were discussed in 1986 and in 1994.
It was time to act. In the interim period before the structures
were built, he hoped that permit parking and other items to help
alleviate some of the difficulties that the surrounding
neighborhoods suffered from would be addressed. He supported the
recommendations.
MOTION: Council Member McCown for the Policy and Services Committee
and Council Member Wheeler for the Finance Committee.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to
amend the motion to direct the staff to use the balance in the In-Lieu
Parking Fund account to help finance the consultant services needed
prior to the formation of the assessment district, with the
understanding that if, for whatever reason, an assessment district
is not eventually formed, such funds will need to be reimbursed to
the In-Lieu Parking Fund by the General Fund.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Schneider “not participating.”
RECESS: 9:30 P.M. - 9:45 P.M.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
15. Response to Council Request for Updated Information on Commute
Coordinator Program, Downtown Parking Assessment Requirements
and Fees, Residential Parking Permit Program Feasibility, and
the City Shuttle Proposal
Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item
because of a conflict of interest since her business was within the
assessment district.
Vice Mayor Andersen referred to page 2 of the staff report
(CMR:310:97), which indicated “Currently 242 City employees
participate in the commute program each month.” However, the chart
on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:310:97) was not nearly the same
total. He asked how the 242 figure was arrived at.
Director of Human Resources Jay Round said the 242 figure included
everybody who was registered in the program. Some of them were
bicyclists, riders, and telecommuters. Not all of them would be
freeing up spaces in the Civic Center garage.
07/07/97 −459
Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that although there might be some
participation, that did not mean it would free up a parking space.
Mr. Rounds said that was true. The City only had a little more than
200 employees who worked at City Hall on a daily basis.
Vice Mayor Andersen clarified the 242 figure also took into account
those who worked in other parts of the City.
Mr. Rounds said that was correct.
Susan Frank, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of
Commerce, said the Chamber of Commerce had long been supportive of
creating a position or expanding the current City Commute Coordinator
position to look at the Downtown. Over the last five years, the
Chamber had a volunteer committee of approximately 15 people who
met and talked about parking issues. One of the areas the committee
dealt with was employer and employee education. There were many
employers and employees Downtown, and not everyone could be reached.
The committee had met with managers of businesses to suggest, for
example, parking a company bus in a permit space instead of in the
neighborhood. It was those types of issues that the Commute
Coordinator position could deal with. The Chamber also supported
a Residential Parking Permit Program, with the assumption that it
worked in conjunction with parking structures, City shuttles,
employer education, valet parking, and other programs. She attended
neighborhood group meetings on residential parking permits and
planned to attend future ones. Places to park had to be found for
the people who would be displaced by a Residential Parking Permit
Program. The staff report (CMR:310:97) also addressed the City
shuttle. The Chamber was excited to be one of five organizations
to be part of the shuttle for 1997, which was a success both in
ridership and in the community response, and the Chamber hoped that
Council would use the experiences of the Chamber’s committee. The
Chamber was excited about possibly expanding the shuttle beyond Palo
Alto events to provide a resource for employees.
Rick Ferguson, 1037 Harker, said in February 1994, there was
discussion at a Planning Commission meeting about how different
Downtown developers viewed parking slot costs for small and large
parcels. The developers admitted to approximately $40,000 plus per
space for smaller parcels, which would be served by in-lieu parking
or the new garages. When the $40,000 number was compared to the
in-lieu fee of $19,000 or the proposed assessment of $25,000 to
$29,000, there was a disparity. That disparity at the margin created
a false incentive for development. It was generous subsidized
parking and air rights space over the flat lots for the benefit of
a larger office building developer. If the City knew that the cost
was $40,000 plus inflation at the margin for a small Downtown lot
07/07/97 −460
to be developed, then the City should impose a $40,000 in-lieu fee
or $40,000 assessment and make sure the numbers were clear when people
voted. It was one of the hidden defects in the pricing related to
proposed assessments and in-lieu fees.
Dena Mossar, Commute Coordinator, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 1024
Emerson Street, believed in the concept of the Commute Coordinator
position for the Downtown. That concept treated the whole Downtown
as though it were a single employer. She believed that alternative
transportation programs could work by using various incentives,
pricing, and the provision of real alternatives to people driving
Downtown. Within the business community, there was great interest
in expanding the Commute Coordinator position to encompass all
Downtown employees. Currently, a subcommittee of the Chamber
explored many transportation related alternatives. She hoped the
City and the Chamber would work together to make the Commute
Coordinator position function well for the entire Downtown. She
believed that surface parking was an environmental evil. If the
Commute Coordinator Program worked, the Program would get people
out of their cars, and surface lots could be converted to more
socially beneficial uses. With regard to the shuttle, she was
pleased that the City was funding a study, which had to be done in
order to find out what kind of shuttle system to start with and how
it might be expanded in the future. There was much to learn about
the shuttle. The variables were not totally understood because
sometimes the shuttle was very successful and sometimes it was not.
As Council Member Eakins’ pointed out during discussion of the
previous agenda item, the City needed to craft solutions that were
relevant to the City’s circumstances and needs. Unless the City
took a broad look at where it might go with the next step in the
special event shuttle chain, the City would not be able to realize
a cost-effective local system that would meet the City’s needs.
Council Member Wheeler thanked the staff for the staff report
(CMR:310:97), which helped to keep Council up to date on some of
the items. She attended many of the Try Transit/Spare the Air
Campaign group meetings and shuttle meetings. In addition to the
organizations mentioned in the staff report (CMR:310:97), she
acknowledged and commended Dena Mossar who made the shuttle project
very successful. With regard to the Commute Coordinator Program,
she asked staff to expand on what the Commute Coordinator’s specific
range of duties or activities might be in working with Downtown
employers.
Mr. Rounds said the staff should not mislead the Council or the
community into thinking that the City could provide a Commute
Coordinator for Downtown employers. The City could provide a
resource to work with the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Parking
Committee, and Downtown employers to help them put together programs
07/07/97 −461
for their employees. The City had a library of information and
programs that had worked with City employees. To start, Commute
Coordinator Kathy Lee would be devoting approximately 10 hours per
week in those activities. It was a first for the City, and the City
would need to assess what the needs were.
City Manager June Fleming said when the concept was originally
envisioned, the City made a commitment to the Council that when the
staff made progress, it would begin to do what Mr. Rounds indicated.
Then staff would make an assessment after some period of time to
decide whether the level of staffing was sufficient. It would not
be a full-time position. If more were needed or more would be
benefited, Council could make that decision after the beginning.
That was a commitment made when the Commute Coordinator position
started. She emphasized that it was just the beginning point.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether in the future the Commute
Coordinator’s duties to satisfy the City’s needs would become more
routine, easier, or less time-consuming so that more than 10 hours
could be devoted.
Mr. Rounds said the City was in effect on a maintenance program.
Staff did not expect to be able to allocate more time out of the
Commute Coordinator position than the 10 hours per week. If more
time were needed, additional staffing would be needed.
Ms. Fleming said staff learned that no matter how committed a person
might be to the Commute Coordinator Program, it took care and feeding.
Without additional work, the Program could not just be implemented,
expected to flourish, and serve more people. That was the reason
it took staff that long to be able to commit 10 hours.
Council Member Fazzino saw the long-term need for a Commute
Coordinator serving the entire Downtown area. The question was how
best to implement that. He asked whether the City should wait and
let the Commute Coordinator work for a few months with the focus
on City employees while dabbling in broader Downtown employer commute
management issues. He asked if that was the point when the City
decided whether it needed additional resources or whether it should
consider moving along a parallel path and encourage Downtown
employers, possibly through the Chamber, to develop an alternative
structure to meet the needs of Downtown employers and encourage a
higher percentage of employees to identify transportation
alternatives.
Ms. Fleming said like the shuttle program, planning had to be done
for the Commute Coordinator Program. It would not take years for
staff to return to Council and say whether the City needed more or
should be doing more. Staff needed to talk to the Chamber and
07/07/97 −462
businesses to see what the City could do. The City needed to make
that first step.
Council Member Fazzino said the objective was to put more Downtown
employees on trains and buses and in carpools. Perhaps over time
more Downtown employees would use the shuttle system, and some day
there might be a remote shuttle lot. There were some things that
the City needed to do at present based upon existing objectives.
He asked how much longer the City had to wait to achieve those
objectives, given those objectives were already known.
Ms. Fleming said she could not give an answer that evening, but she
knew that planning needed to be done.
Council Member Fazzino said discussion had taken place before, and
there had not been much progress with respect to better managing
the needs of Downtown employers.
Ms. Fleming said the discussion was about staff’s addressing those
needs when it could free up the time. The staff freed up the time
and was ready to address it. She understood Council Member Fazzino’s
impatience, but there was not a plan.
Council Member Fazzino was glad that funding was included in the
1997-98 budget “to complete a planning and design study for a
community-based local bus shuttle system, which would serve Palo
Alto residential neighborhoods and other local area destinations,
including commercial areas, transit stations, schools, cultural and
social centers.” It was a great vision. He asked whether the City
had to wait until it was able to implement the entire shuttle system
before it could implement component parts that were obvious, e.g.,
extending the Marguerite Shuttle system further into the Downtown
area.
Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said one of the specific
purposes of trying to set the process was to find a way to
incrementally move forward. Part of the issue was which increment
came first because people had different priorities. He felt the
creativity generated in the Try Transit/Spare the Air Campaign effort
would spill over into the process. What could be done in the short
term and what took further study would become evident, but he could
not give a specific time line. Stanford University, on its own,
was also looking for options to extend the Marguerite Shuttle system
into Palo Alto. Once Stanford was involved in discussions,
opportunities would move forward. The City wanted to be sure that
it moved the shuttle system process forward with broad consensus
and that there were resources to sustain such a system.
07/07/97 −463
Ms. Fleming said staff learned more and more each time the shuttle
system was used for special events. If a shuttle service were
implemented without some of those experiences, it would result in
failure. Staff was not telling the Council that the City needed
to have a Master Plan before it could take a step. Staff would look
at reasonable increments to take.
Vice Mayor Andersen said the Downtown Commute Coordinator alone would
not make major shifts in behavior. One of the incentives employers
would respond to was the Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
concept as a condition, which he hoped the City would follow up with
and give more consideration to in the near future. He also suggested
the City had a major opportunity to expand reduction in automobile
usage if it focused on high schools. Currently, there were
extraordinary numbers of high school students who went to the
California Avenue and Downtown areas for lunch. He hoped the Commute
Coordinator would consider how to better educate young people on
reducing the number of vehicle trips so they could contribute to
the community and to the world community as far as the environment
was concerned. Regarding the shuttle system, he realized there were
many data points the City needed to include and consider before
proceeding. If the shuttle were connected somehow to the high
schools and perhaps the elementary and middle schools, there could
be a large number of passengers. Many people could be persuaded
if the City had an appropriate educational process, and he looked
forward to seeing that in the future.
No Action Required.
16. Request to Develop a Formal Valet Parking Program and Ordinance
in Downtown Palo Alto
Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said staff instituted
valet parking two years before in an effort to address a need, to
gain experience, and to see how sustained the need for valet parking
would be. It was appropriate to develop a more formal program and
an ordinance that would address concerns and be tailored toward valet
parking. Staff brought the item to Council because it believed valet
parking was a benefit to the Downtown area and the need for it would
not go away. Valet parking had to be addressed on a more formal
and controlled basis, and staff would do that based on the
recommendations in the staff report (CMR:315:97).
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
about a year and a half before, there was an article in a magazine
about the Bay Area restaurant scene. Two cities in the Bay Area
were identified for having quality restaurants. One was Walnut
Creek, and the other was Palo Alto. The City had a very vibrant
restaurant scene, which was a different situation from three or four
07/07/97 −464
years before. From staff’s perspective, valet parking was a logical
part of the restaurant environment that had emerged in Downtown Palo
Alto. It was important to provide rules and structure. Valet
parking was beneficial to the Downtown area.
Council Member Kniss clarified each restaurant that had valet parking
had a designated area in which they parked.
Mr. Overway said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss said according to the staff report (CMR:315:97),
the valets appeared to not always be parking in designated parking
places. There were reports of near rundowns, and valets raced up
and down sidewalks as well. She asked how the City knew the valets
were actually parking where they were supposed to park, who monitored
the valets’ driving, and who monitored how valet parking
establishments were run.
Mr. Overway said the problem was that there was no effective
monitoring system. Valet parking establishments were observed all
of the time but were not doing what they were supposed to do part
of the time. The City had requirements about how many spaces valet
parking establishments could have, where they could park, what route
they could drive, and how fast they could drive. Without an
effective monitoring program and enforcement, the system would not
work.
Council Member Kniss said people became more accustomed to and liked
valet parking, and it probably reduced the amount of cars circling
in the Downtown area. She was not opposed to valet parking, but
she was opposed to the way it was operated. She asked about the
spaces in front of the restaurants that were reserved for valet
parking.
Mr. Overway said each business that had valet parking had designated
spaces in front that were necessary for valet parking operation
because there had to be a dropoff place outside of the travel lane.
He believed at Maddalena’s and Chantilly II those spaces were in
force in the evening hours but were available during the day for
anybody to park.
Council Member Kniss asked whether the City was assessing a fair
amount of rent for those spaces.
Mr. Overway said the City used the existing fee structure and a
mechanism called an encroachment permit. He did not know whether
that was fair and appropriate. The City also let valet parking
establishments use the Civic Center for free, and he did not know
whether that was fair either. Appropriate fees and what was fair
07/07/97 −465
would be sorted out through the process of establishing a formal
program and an ordinance.
Vice Mayor Andersen said the Sundance Mine Company in the past used
a valet parking procedure. He asked whether that had ever been given
formal City authorization.
Mr. Overway was not aware that Sundance had a procedure.
Vice Mayor Andersen knew that Sundance had valet parking in the past
and that it had been parking cars on residential streets.
Mr. Overway said in the Sundance restaurant area, in order to park
on a residential street, a person had to make a circuitous route.
The City had received complaints from that neighborhood about
employees who parked their cars and walked to Sundance.
Vice Mayor Andersen said the reason he raised the issue was to make
certain that staff’s approach was not including only Downtown.
There were many areas, such as California Avenue, where the issue
could potentially occur.
Mr. Overway said the City needed to look at all the businesses that
might be providing valet parking. He believed there were some that
did not have free spaces on the street and used a public structure.
Others, such as MacArthur Park, had valet parking on their own
private properties. There might be different approaches to solving
some issues.
Council Member Fazzino said he had seen valets park in front of his
home and other homes in the Downtown area and asked whether there
were any rules regarding where valet employees parked.
Mr. Overway said currently there was none, but it was a valid point
to include.
Council Member Fazzino said other businesses, such as Borders Books
& Music and Stanford Theater, might have a legitimate right to valet
parking. He asked whether staff would consider those requests or
whether the program would be limited to restaurants only.
Mr. Overway said when staff instituted valet parking, staff felt
it was fair to provide the same opportunity to all businesses.
Whether that was appropriate was something that would be addressed
in the process. Staff allowed valet parking periodically, such as
when Stanford Theater had special occasions or when businesses had
special parties.
07/07/97 −466
Council Member Fazzino supported the concept of valet parking. He
was discouraged by some aspects of the program, but it worked on
a limited basis. However, he believed that if staff opened valet
parking to every business in the Downtown, a real problem for the
community at large would be created, given the potential loss of
a large number of on-street parking spaces. He asked where the line
should be drawn.
Mr. Overway said in Beverly Hills valet parking was limited to
restaurants. He did not know if that would be different in Palo
Alto. It had not been different to date. Many issues would be
addressed during the process, and one of them was the City’s offering
free use of City parking spaces. He believed there should be a charge
for City parking spaces so that there was more of an incentive for
businesses to use private properties for valet parking. The process
would be a collaborative effort and would result in a plan that fit,
worked in, and was unique to Palo Alto.
Council Member Fazzino clarified that staff was committed to the
requirement for off-street private parking spaces as a de rigueur
criterion for inclusion in the program.
Mr. Overway said the City required the business to use private parking
spaces for valet parking. If the business could not do that, the
City considered allowing use of a public space but reserved the right
to revoke the use of that public space.
Council Member Fazzino clarified that criterion would remain an
integral part of any valet parking program that resulted from the
study.
Mr. Overway said yes.
Council Member Rosenbaum said for high-end restaurants, valet
parking made sense. He asked if patrons of restaurants such as
Burger King were being discriminated against when the City allowed
valets to use public spaces.
Mr. Overway said providing valet parking was expensive and,
therefore, leaned toward the high-end restaurants. He believed
Burger King patrons would find it easier to find a parking space
on the street or in a surface parking lot because valets used Level
C of the Civic Center garage, the Lot Q garage, or the upper levels
of the Webster/Cowper garage.
Council Member Rosenbaum said valet parking made sense when done
in areas not accessible to the public. When public spaces were used,
there was an issue of fairness involved.
07/07/97 −467
Susan Frank, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of
Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said when it became apparent a few months
before that the valet parking program in Downtown was potentially
being abused, the Chamber of Commerce shared concerns about the
misuse that was occurring, and she believed that valet parking was
not worth it. After having many lengthy conversations with Mr.
Overway, City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal, and Jim Baer about
the philosophy of valet parking, she changed her mind. The Chamber
Parking Committee discussed that if done properly and in conjunction
with other items that were proposed earlier that evening, valet
parking would work. Cars that were parked in neighborhoods and
on-street spaces could be parked in private parking lots and less
utilized lots. The Chamber supported staff’s recommendations to
proceed with an ordinance and an effective monitoring system. The
Chamber also supported revocation of the permission for valet parking
if it were being abused. All the businesses that currently provided
valet parking were Chamber members. A proper valet program
developed by staff and approved by Council would allow for the right
monitoring and the right punishment.
James Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, said Stars Restaurant initially
leased a private parking lot at High Street and Everett Avenue, had
eight attendants, and charged nothing for parking during lunch or
dinner. Stars wanted to make parking easy and accessible for
customers and be able to move those cars to a designated place.
The cost for the private parking lot was $1,500 per month, and the
cost for four City spaces was $520 per month. The cost for the valet
service for the first nine months was $7,500 per month. He compared
that with a different type of valet parking system in which two valets
collected $4 per ticket, the valet provider kept all the profits,
and there was no cost to the business. However, that type of valet
system used fewer valets because revenues would be the same no matter
how many valets there were, and there was a direct correlation between
how many bodies parked cars and the speed that cars were moved out
of a double-parked situation. Stars had such a high volume of
parking during the early months that the lot did not fulfill the
needs, and revenues dropped. Valet parking in a 25-space private
parking lot could accommodate 50 cars when regulated by an attendant
through tandem parking, which could move cars from the street. Stars
currently had a 22-car parking lot that it paid $1,500 per month
for and was finalizing an arrangement for a 55-car parking lot which
could accommodate 90 cars day and night. As an effort not to
exacerbate the problems of a busy restaurant adjacent to residential
neighborhood, Stars incurred the high costs of valet parking. The
intensity of both traffic and parking could be controlled by quality
monitored parking.
Mark Nanevicz, representing the Downtown North Neighborhood
Association (DNNA), 228 Waverley Street, said neighbors were not
07/07/97 −468
pleased with valets who parked in the neighborhood. At the last
meeting the DNNA had with the Chamber, he changed his feeling about
valet parking because valet parking could be changed from a bad
situation to a positive situation if corrective steps were taken.
He understood there currently was not much enforcement. If
enforcement took place and there were serious consequences for people
who broke the rules, most problems would effectively be eliminated.
Pat Burt, representing the University South Neighborhood Group
(USNG), 1249 Harriet Street, said without enforcement, there were
many problems with valet parking, such as parking in the
neighborhoods, speeding, street obstruction, and sidewalk
obstruction. He referred to the terms and conditions of the
encroachment permits on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:315:97),
part of which required that “Evidence of an agreement, assuring that
parking on private property is, and will remain, available for valet
parking, must be provided to the City.” If a private parking
facility were not feasible, the City allowed the use of an
under-utilized public parking lot subject to availability. Stars
was the only restaurant that currently had a private lot, but its
parking demand far exceeded the 22 spaces. The encroachment permit
requirement of a private parking facility was not enforced. If the
City tightened up the existing requirement and required feasibility
to be defined in a more restrictive sense, then cars could be moved
into new spaces. There were approximately 2,000 unutilized private
parking spaces every evening of the week, and creative ways to utilize
them needed to be found. The community should ask itself whether
it needed to change as a community to accommodate visitors who were
affluent non-Palo Altans.
Caroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, said she was a member of
the Chamber Parking Committee. The Sundance Mine Company parked
its cars at the Foster’s Freeze lot half a block away. Staff
presented very good information on valet parking. It was critical
for the City to proceed in a logical, thoughtful manner with the
restaurants that currently had valet parking and the new restaurants
that requested it. She urged Council to support the
recommendations.
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct
staff to do the following:
1. Work with the Chamber of Commerce Parking Committee and other
downtown and residential interests to develop a formal valet
parking program and ordinance for downtown Palo Alto, and refer
it to the Policy and Services Committee for review and
recommendation to Council;
2. Develop an effective monitoring, enforcement and revocation
process, which can be added to the existing procedures, and
07/07/97 −469
return to Council with it by September, with the goal of being
able to continue the use of the existing procedures on an interim
basis, until such time that a formal program and ordinance can
be developed, reviewed and adopted;
3. Utilize the following strategy for the interim period of time
until a formal valet program and ordinance is established:
a. Permit continuation of the existing three valet parking
operations, subject to all existing and future appropriate
conditions and regulations,
b. Consider for approval applications that Evvia Estiatorio
and Zibibbo have already submitted for valet parking,
subject to all existing and future conditions and
regulations, including a limitation of tow on-street
spaces for drop-off/pick-up, unless there is a clearly
demonstrated need for more spaces, and
c. Consider for approval any additional applications
submitted by businesses that want to use any on-street
or off-street public parking spaces (parking lots and
garages) for valet parking operations, only after staff
has returned to Council in September with an effective
monitoring and enforcement plan that can be added to the
existing procedures.
Vice Mayor Andersen said there was a concern about the number of
expensive restaurants starting to appear in the community. The idea
of whether the City should limit certain kinds of businesses through
zoning had been discussed before. He hoped staff would be
considering and discussing whether there should be some limit to
the number of valet parking permits allowed.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent.
17. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing
Corporation Concerning the Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Operation of a Twelve Unit Apartment Building at 290-310 Ventura
Avenue, Palo Alto
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve
the staff recommendation to: 1) Approve the agreement (with its form
of promissory note) with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, in order
to regulate rents and occupancy of the seven units as affordable
low and very low income rental housing, and to secure the City’s
interest in the value of the developer’s contribution for 40 years;
2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in substantially
similar form; and 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute any other
documents necessary to close the transaction acquiring 290-310
07/07/97 −470
Ventura Avenue including, but not limited to, a subordination
agreement, and direct the City Manager to administer the provisions
of the agreement.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS
18. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Mayor Huber announced the winners of the Chili Cook-off contest:
Best Spirit: Delightful Dumb Blond Chili
Best Booth: Delightful Dumb Blond Chili
Open Division: Elmo & the Old Quacker (1st Place)
Dominatrix (2nd Place)
Down Home Dave’s (3rd Place)
Corporate Division: Safeway, Menlo Park (1st Place)
Wholey Moley (2nd Place)
Thin Blue Line (3rd Place)
Restaurant Division: West Fresh (1st Place)
Left at Albuquerque (2nd Place)
Blue Chalk Cafe (3rd Place)
Overall: West Fresh
People’s Choice: West Fresh
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo
Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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.