Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-22 City Council Summary Minutes 09/22/97 −300 Special Meeting September 22, 1997 1. Interviews for Architectural Review Board.............84-303 1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to John M. Walton........................84-304 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................84-305 2. “S” Overlay Zone for Tract 709 - Request of Property Owners for Initiation of Zone Change - Refer to Planning Commission 84-305 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Tiger Contract Services, Inc. To Provide for Custodial Services at Listed City Facilities............................................84-305 4. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C6085795 between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. to Prepare Environmental Documents for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Solids Facility Plan............................84-306 5. Construction Contract between the City of Palo Alto and McGuire and Hester for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvement Project, CIP 47712.............................................84-306 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lucas Concrete for 1997-98 Sidewalk Replacement Project..................84-306 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pavex Construction Company for the Resurfacing of the Ventura School Parking Lot 84-306 8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company for Phase XI Water Main Replacement Project...............................................84-306 9. Ordinance 4447 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto 09/22/97 −301 Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Zone Classification of Certain Property Located at 4290 El Camino Real from PC-Planned Community District (Ord. No. 2006) to the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District”...............84-306 10. Ordinance 4448 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 Classification of Property Known as 4290 El Camino Real from PC-Planned Community (Ord. No. 2006) to PC-Planned Community”....84-306 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider adopting modifications to the housing mitigation fee ordinance (Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), and modifications to the Inspection Services fee schedule as it pertains to Plan Check Fees and applicants’ funding of on-site inspectors for large projects.........................84-307 13. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Provide the City Attorney With Discretion in the Level of Penalties for Violations and to Make Repeals and Amendments of Certain Outdated and Preempted Sections..............................................84-307 14. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the Collection, Removal and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials........................84-308 15. Palo Alto Medical Foundation(PAMF)/South of Forest Area(SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan Policy Framework and Goals and Objectives ......................................................84-312 15A. (Old Item No. 11) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 19.10 to Title 19 [Master Plan] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Procedures for Preparation of Coordinated Area Plans................................84-320 16. Council Review of Bail Schedule.......................84-321 17. Memorandum of Understanding between City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters for Use of the Palo Alto Civic Center as a Remote Counting Facility for Elections to be held on November 4, 1997...................................84-322 18. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........84-323 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.............84-323 09/22/97 −302 09/22/97 −303 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:13 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 6:17 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 6:17 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 6:17 p.m.), Wheeler SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Architectural Review Board No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. * * * * * 09/22/97 −304 Regular Meeting September 22, 1997 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to John M. Walton MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7710 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to John M. Walton” MOTION PASSED 9-0. Vice Mayor Andersen said it was an honor to recognize John Walton. Mr. Walton joined the teaching profession, and he was honored to be associated with him. Council Member Schneider said she would return to the third grade so that Mr. Walton could be her teacher. Council Member Fazzino knew Mr. Walton for over 20 years and thanked him for his many contributions. Mr. Walton epitomized City service and touched the lives of many people who learned and developed a greater appreciation for nature and science. He was delighted but not surprised of Mr. Walton’s next career choice. Council Member McCown said Mr. Walton was a tremendous asset to the City and the community on the Arastradero Preserve project because of his leadership and ability to work with a diverse group of people with diverse goals and perspectives. The City would miss Mr. Walton, and she wished him success on his next career. Council Member Rosenbaum said his children remembered “Big John” and the classes they had with him about 25 years before. He wished Mr. Walton well in his new career. Council Member Kniss said if Mr. Walton changed his mind, he would be invited back. 09/22/97 −305 Mayor Huber thanked Mr. Walton for all the work he had done. He knew a teacher who taught with Mr. Walton and said that Mr. Walton was doing a superb job with the third graders. John Walton said it was an honor to be recognized. The work he did with the City was legacy based. It was an opportunity and a privilege to help people take care of the land they placed in the public trust that the City had a responsibility to maintain. To be in a classroom with 19 third graders was dramatically different, but it was an opportunity to work toward a different kind of legacy--the children of Palo Alto. Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said Mr. Walton provided bases for many items that could move forward on the Arastradero Preserve project and the Junior Museum. Mr. Walton would be a loss to the City but would not be a loss to the community because his work with the youth would carry on for generations. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt spoke regarding more photos of competition. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to remove Item No. 11 to become Item No. 15A. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-10. 2. “S” Overlay Zone for Tract 709 - Request of Property Owners for Initiation of Zone Change - Refer to Planning Commission 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Tiger Contract Services, Inc. To Provide for Custodial Services at Listed City Facilities 4. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C6085795 between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. to Prepare Environmental Documents for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Solids Facility Plan 5. Construction Contract between the City of Palo Alto and McGuire and Hester for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvement Project, CIP 47712 09/22/97 −306 Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C7090020 between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvement Project, CIP 47712 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lucas Concrete for 1997-98 Sidewalk Replacement Project 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pavex Construction Company for the Resurfacing of the Ventura School Parking Lot 8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company for Phase XI Water Main Replacement Project 9. Ordinance 4447 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 Classification of Certain Property Located at 4290 El Camino Real from PC-Planned Community District (Ord. No. 2006) to the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District” 10. Ordinance 4448 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 Classification of Property Known as 4290 El Camino Real from PC-Planned Community (Ord. No. 2006) to PC-Planned Community” MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1-6 and 8. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 7, Wheeler “not participating.” MOTION PASSED 7-1 for Item Nos. 9 and 10, Andersen “no,” Rosenbaum “not participating.” PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider adopting modifications to the housing mitigation fee ordinance (Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), and modifications to the Inspection Services fee schedule as it pertains to Plan Check Fees and applicants’ funding of on-site inspectors for large projects MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to continue the item to the October 27, 1997, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 09/22/97 −307 ORDINANCES 13. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Provide the City Attorney With Discretion in the Level of Penalties for Violations and to Make Repeals and Amendments of Certain Outdated and Preempted Sections City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the first part of the Ordinance dealt with the long overdue cleanup of some provisions in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), which were either preempted by state law or no longer necessary. The second part of the Ordinance allowed the City to reduce a misdemeanor offense to an infraction. It also allowed the City to charge habitual infraction offenders with a misdemeanor. Both changes were cleanup work, which he hoped signaled additional focus on code enforcement. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that in the past the City Attorney recommended referral of minor PAMC modifications to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee. Mr. Calonne believed the proposed changes did not implicate policy issues. The provisions were either outdated or preempted. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Provide the City Attorney With Discretion in the Level of Penalties for Violations and to Make Repeals and Amendments of Certain Outdated and Preempted Sections” MOTION PASSED 9-0, Vice Mayor Andersen expressing opposition to the Foothills Park nonresident exclusion. 14. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the Collection, Removal and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Administrative Procedures and Penalties for Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Acting Deputy Director of Public Works Michael Jackson said Council was requested to approve the proposed ordinances and to direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting a fee schedule which would set the amount of penalties for which responsible parties would be liable. The proposed ordinance for administrative remedies would provide a faster, more effective enforcement procedure and allow other code enforcement activities. In order to update language and definitions, add new programs, and address major contractual provisions of the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) contract, amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 5.20 were necessary. Other reasons included the changes in the solid waste recycling programs. Additional changes would also reduce automatic standard service levels for single- and multi-family residences. About 60 percent of all residential can service was already either a one-can or a mini-can service. The residential two-can service accounted for less than 38 percent, which was about one-third. In addition, commercial or institutional establishments might have one can as their minimum service level if requested. Financial incentive would be provided to those interested in waste reduction. There were four sections that might be subject to administrative penalty: 1) discarding solid waste and 09/22/97 −308 recyclable material, 2) unauthorized bin use, 3) maintenance and placement of bins, boxes, and containers, and 4) scavenging. Staff anticipated revenue loss from reduction of automatic service level, but the losses were expected to be offset by the additional revenues from administrative penalties. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:324:97) and asked what the issue was with the PAMC section titled “No Unauthorized Bins, Boxes, or Containers.” City Attorney Ariel Calonne said under the current ordinance, a contract with the City was necessary to haul waste, and only PASCO was authorized to collect and dispose of solid waste. In the construction context, third party haulers sometimes were unaware of the current ordinance, which had a negative effect on the revenue stream to PASCO and the City. There had been incidents which involved the City in legal debate with other companies. The proposed ordinance was necessary to enforce the requirement of a contract with the City in order to haul waste in Palo Alto. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that if a contractor were tearing down a house or making major modifications, the contractor was supposed to arrange for disposal of material with PASCO. Mr. Calonne said the third party hauler was the problem. Mr. Jackson said there were some provisions for people to hire a company other than PASCO. Exclusions were described on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:324:97). Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that a licensed contractor was able to haul waste. Mr. Calonne said in the past, third party haulers tried to characterize themselves as recyclers and engaged in hauling waste. Staff did not know whether the waste was being disposed of properly. The exclusions allowed a contractor to haul waste, but the distinction made by the State Legislature and courts between recyclers and waste haulers had to be addressed. Then the City could preclude “pseudo-recyclers” from becoming a competitive threat without a contract. Council Member Schneider asked who would enforce the proposed ordinance and what budget would be affected. Mr. Calonne said the proposed administrative penalties created an administrative process to fine people who violated PAMC provisions. Staff was optimistic that the process would be more streamlined than the current PAMC enforcement process and, therefore, would be used more frequently. However, there were questions about the funding level the City Manager would recommend to the Council for future budget years. Staff was working on code enforcement recommendations. City Manager June Fleming said PASCO brought violations to the City’s attention. PASCO had a particular interest because violations reduced its revenue potential. When there were unauthorized bins, PASCO asked the City to do something about them, but the City did not have a mechanism to do that. The larger issue was what financial support would be given to various code enforcement pieces. Staff was addressing the issue and would return to Council during the budget process. In the interim, staff would probably rely on PASCO to notify the City. 09/22/97 −309 Council Member McCown asked why the City was seeing the use of third party haulers. Mr. Jackson said third party haulers commingled materials, used the guise of recyclable materials, and hauled them to other landfills. Those “pseudo-recyclers” typically charged lesser fees because they did not have to pay for other items the City required. Council Member McCown asked whether staff knew what the difference was with third party haulers. Ms. Fleming believed staff did not know the fee difference, which was probably substantial because the City heard from contractors who preferred not to use PASCO. PASCO did the separation of recyclable materials. Other haulers were cheaper because they did not do the separation. There was an incentive in the PASCO contract to do that separation. Council Member McCown asked whether the City had done an outreach with the contracting community regarding the issue and the proposed solution. She said the effect would be that contractors who worked on residential remodels would pass those costs onto their clients. It was important to have an educational effort of what the issue was so that the City was not perceived as proposing the solution because the City wanted more revenue for PASCO. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said staff talked with some members of the residential development community. Staff made it clear that they could continue to haul materials as long as the debris was not placed in a separate drop box. The issue with the drop box was of revenue, contract, and proper City operations. Another problem was the debris left on the street by third party haulers. Many times, third party haulers appeared and disappeared in the course of a day, and the City had no control over them. The City had control with PASCO and could call PASCO to clean up and properly maintain the site. Council Member McCown said the issue could return to Council through a citizen who might be told by a contractor that it would cost more money. The City needed to educate the community that the reason was not to generate more fees but to enforce a set of existing rules. Mr. Calonne said the reason third party haulers might be able to charge less was that where they hauled materials to did not support the same recycling community interest programs the City supported. In effect, allowing third party haulers caused other people to pay higher bills for refuse service. The money people saved on remodeling would have gone to refuse rates. 09/22/97 −310 Ms. Fleming said staff would be doing additional outreach as to what the rules were and communicate with as many of the builders as possible. The rules would be available in the Building Department where permits were picked up. She understood staff needed to communicate clearly that it was not a change to the existing law and it was not a decision driven by revenue. Council Member Wheeler said nonprofit organizations, schools, etc., sometimes asked parents and members to bring in recyclable cans and bottles for fundraising purposes. On page 10 of the ordinance, it was not clear which exclusion under Section 5.20.110 would allow organizations to continue that type of fundraising without penalty. Mr. Jackson believed the “Source Separated Recyclable Materials” exclusion applied. Mr. Calonne believed the “Residential Householder Exclusion” also applied. Nothing in Chapter 5.20 prevented a residential householder from selling, donating, or disposing of recyclable materials generated. Council Member Wheeler clarified that it was on the householder’s own premises. However, if she were the collector, she would ask people to bring their recyclable materials to her, and she would bring the materials to a place to be recycled. The problem was that not all the recyclable materials were generated on her own property. Mr. Calonne said it was permissible for the resident to make the donation, and it was acceptable under the “Source Separated Recyclable Materials” exclusion for the recipient. Ms. Fleming said such activities were happening throughout the City, and it was not the City’s intent to prohibit them. Mr. Calonne said Council could include in its motion a direction that he would make sure the ordinance was clear to everyone regarding such activities and prepare it for second reading. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the staff recommendation and direct the City Attorney to confirm that nonprofit and charitable organizations be allowed to participate in the recycling efforts without penalty. 1. Introduce the Ordinance amending Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code pertaining to the collection, removal, and disposal of solid waste and recyclable materials; 2. Introduce the Ordinance adopting administrative penalties; and 09/22/97 −311 3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting a fee schedule which will set the amount of penalty/ies for which responsible parties found to be in violation of sections of the Municipal Code will be liable. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the Collection, Removal and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials” Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Administrative Procedures and Penalties for Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code” MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15. Palo Alto Medical Foundation(PAMF)/South of Forest Area(SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan Policy Framework and Goals and Objectives Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Fund a Coordinated Area Plan for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Sites and Portions of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Mayor Huber said he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because of the location of his residence. Assistant Planning Official James Gilliland said the item was the next step in preparation of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan. Attached to the staff report (CMR:399:97) was a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for $300,000 which was the estimated cost of the study without engineering feasibility services for the pedestrian/bicycle railroad underpass. Approximately $200,000 would be reimbursed by the PAMF. Also attached were the Policy Framework, Goals, and Objectives, which were prepared in conformance with the Coordinated Area Plan ordinance. The framework would be used by the PAMF/SOFA Working Group, the consultants, and staff to direct the preparation of the plan. There had been discussion about conflicts of interest with consultant assistance. However, the conflicts appeared to have been resolved. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he saw a copy of an appraisal information that made him feel comfortable in advising there was no conflict of interest with consultant Alison Kendall. 09/22/97 −312 Mr. Gilliland said staff was in the final stages of negotiating a contract with Ms. Kendall to perform consultant services. With Council approval, staff would complete the negotiations and return to Council with the contract. Council Member Wheeler said the PAMF/SOFA Working Group included a “Community Facilities/Childcare” category. There was discussion over the years to have a childcare facility located at the existing PAMF site, which was part of the original agreement. She understood that although the PAMF’s plans changed, it was still PAMF’s intent. There was an existing City facility located closely to the site, and part of the reason the Council was comfortable in granting a parking exception was that the PAMF clinic parking lot could absorb some of the potential overflow parking. There was discussion over the years within the community about an additional parkette or open space provision. However, she did not see it mentioned in the Policy Framework. More recently, there was talk about possibly using an existing building for a library if the Downtown Library needed to be replaced or displaced. There were many policy questions related to potential public uses and facilities. She clarified there should be a general goal or objective related to the discussion of public facility uses on a portion of the site. Mr. Gilliland said that was correct and that Council Member Wheeler caught an oversight. Staff could suggest and include new language. Council Member Wheeler said one of the concerns about the long-term development of the PAMF/SOFA was that the properties PAMF would vacate should be sold to and developed by a variety of developers, not sold as a single package to a single person who would have a single scheme. She asked if staff had any comment about whether that belonged in the Policy Framework if Council were interested. Mr. Calonne believed it was not something the City could lawfully compel, but there might be some rational policy motivation for it. Council Member Wheeler said the policy issue was not wanting to create a large “cookie cutter” tract that had one solid product with a large piece of land at stake. Mr. Calonne believed the planning effort would develop the tools to prevent that from happening regardless of who did the developing. It amounted to a condition that might be construed as arbitrary and an interference with the owner’s ability to convey the property that the City did not have the authority to compel. Council Member Fazzino was concerned that there was a focus on development within the Policy Framework and no reference to open space. He asked about the reference to open space. 09/22/97 −313 Mr. Calonne referred to “Product of Planning Process” on page 3 of the “PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Policy Framework.” The ordinance required that consideration of open space needed to be reflected in the Policy Framework. Mr. Gilliland suggested adding to the Policy Framework the heading “Community Facilities” with the wording “Consider and identify possible public facilities in the area, including, but not limited to, open space, parkettes, plazas, childcare, art, libraries, and other such facilities.” Council Member Fazzino wanted to see open space as a separate item. Council Member Schneider referred to “Bicycle and Pedestrian Access across Caltrain Tracks” on page 2 of the “PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Policy Framework” and asked whether the idea of a tunnel would be considered. Mr. Gilliland said tunnel was not specifically mentioned so that there could be an opportunity to look at an overhead connection. Council Member Schneider clarified the possibility was either a tunnel, overhead, or at-grade crossing. Mr. Gilliland said yes. The intent was the connection. Council Member Kniss asked why Homer and Channing Avenues were established as one-way streets originally. Mr. Gilliland said at one time, one-way streets were predominant and solved many problems. Within the last few years, there was a realization that neighborhoods were more important and that moving traffic through neighborhoods at a rapid speed was not the appropriate answer. Two-way streets provided quieter neighborhoods with a slowed-down traffic scene. One of the reasons for re-establishing Homer and Channing Avenues as two-way streets was that PAMF was moving out. The need for one-way streets should be reduced with the idea that the area would become predominantly residential. Council Member Kniss recalled her conversation with Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber was opposite of what Mr. Gilliland said with regard to moving traffic more smoothly in a Downtown location. Mr. Gilliland said the difference was a commercialized area versus a residential area. 09/22/97 −314 Ms. Fleming said in the 1960s with the traffic generated from the PAMF clinic and with the two-way streets, traffic did not move smoothly. There was preference by those who lived in the area for a one-way street pattern. When that was done, there was difficulty where Channing Avenue terminated. The configuration of islands, etc., were put in to reduce the traffic. Currently, staff increasingly heard from people who wanted Homer and Channing Avenues converted back to two-way streets. There was more acceptance of two-way streets in purely residential areas. She believed reestablishing two-way streets was appropriate. Council Member Fazzino recalled that the PAMF had much to do with the decision of a one-way street pattern. Lytton and Hamilton Avenues were also changed to one-way streets at about the same time. Retailers did not like that experiment, and Lytton and Hamilton Avenues were changed back to two-way streets. Council Member Kniss said traffic and parking were the biggest problems in the Downtown area, which was only one street away. While the PAMF/SOFA might become highly residential, it was considered to be a transition area. How the traffic moved needed to be looked at very carefully. She presumed there were fewer cars when the one-way streets were instituted. The number and movement of cars had since changed dramatically. Council Member Eakins referred to “Reduce Traffic Impacts” on page 1 of the “PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Policy Framework” and asked why alleys were not included. Alleys could be used for vehicle access, loading and unloading, backing up, and moving in and out of residences. There was a pattern in that area. Mr. Gilliland said alleys could be added. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to “Housing” on page 2 of the “PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Policy Framework” and asked whether residential use meant R-1 or whether it included a broad array of residential housing. Mr. Gilliland said it was broader than R-1. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified there was no specification as to what type of housing would go into the area and that it would be part of the process and examination. Mr. Gilliland said that was correct. Alison Kendall, AICP, Urban Design & Planning, 803 Guinda Street, said the basic public objectives of the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan process included a tight 12- to 15-month time frame and an overall restrictive project budget. The many objectives included 09/22/97 −315 a community desire for extensive participation, existence of interest groups with different agendas and ideas about the site, and a wide variety of technical issues and City objectives. Two alternatives were considered. One was to hire a consultant who would be managed by a contract planner or City staff, and the other was to have the contract planner prepare the plan and work with City staff on the facilitation of the community involvement. Both the schedule and the budget objectives could be better satisfied with the latter approach. Stan Tish of Berliner and Kidder prepared a preliminary appraisal and concluded that she had no conflict of interest. She would work with the City Attorney and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on that finding. Her past experience included the Treasure Island reuse plan, a plan for the Presidio in San Francisco, two major redevelopment projects in Sacramento, mixed use projects in Pleasanton, a project in the San Diego State University area, and area plans for the University of California at Berkeley area. She looked forward to working with Council. Pat Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, representing the University South Neighborhoods Group (USNG), suggested wording in the first paragraph under “Design Character, Scale and Compatibility” that would promote a design variety within the breadth of the existing character of the neighborhood. Under “Reduce Traffic Impacts” regarding the one-way traffic pattern on Homer and Channing Avenues, he suggested changing the wording to “Evaluate re-establishing Homer Avenue...” Under “Historic Preservation” the beginning of the second sentence said, “Evaluate preservation and continued use of contributing structures...” He believed “encourage” was more appropriate than “evaluate.” USNG hoped that historic preservation efforts within the area would not be less than what currently existed for other R-1 development and suggested a stronger orientation. Under “Relationship to Downtown Commercial District,” he suggested changing “convenience stores” to “sundries.” USNG would lend support for community facilities. He suggested changing Mr. Gilliland’s wording of “parkettes” to just “parks.” Under “Working Group Role,” he asked whether the group’s role was merely advisory or more substantive. He suggested that the first line, “The role of the Working Group will be to advise the City Council...,” could be changed to “The role of the Working Group will be to recommend to the City Council...” The sentence, “The Working Group will meet approximately monthly to provide input...,” could be changed to “The Working Group will meet approximately monthly to provide vision and guidance...” USNG understood that the consulting group was there to serve the direction of the Working Group, not vice versa. The sentence, “Neither consensus nor voting is required of the Working Group,” could be changed to “While substantial agreement was desired, neither consensus nor voting...,” which would encourage substantial agreement or consensus. Under “Product of Planning Process,” he 09/22/97 −316 suggested additional wording regarding public facilities and open space. Lucinda Abbott, 646 Lincoln Avenue, said she would be chairing the USNG Coordinated Area Plan Committee which would provide a framework of neighborhood values and ongoing support to the USNG representatives of the Working Group. USNG appreciated Ms. Kendall’s professionalism and felt that Ms. Kendall was qualified, was an excellent match for the position, and would have a very positive impact on the process. Ms. Kendall was a Palo Alto resident and had an understanding of the values unique to Palo Alto. Regarding Homer and Channing Avenues, she preferred seeing them converted back to two-way streets. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the staff recommendation with the following revisions: 1) Changes regarding Homer and Channing Avenues; 2) New section titled Community Facilities, to include, but not be limited to, park and open space, childcare, and libraries; 3) Under Reduce Traffic Impacts, evaluate modification of the two-way versus one-way replacement; and the replacement of couplets with two-way streets may be appropriate; 4) Under Transit and Bicycle Accessibility, evaluation of bicycle/pedestrian connectors; 5) Under Reduce Traffic Impact, consider the establishment of new alleys; and 6) Under Relationship to Downtown Commercial District, change “convenience stores” to “sundries.” 1. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $300,000 for funding of the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan ($200,000 of which will be reimbursed to the City by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation); 2. Review and approve the Goals, Objectives and Policy Framework for preparation of the Plan; and 3. Direct staff to secure the services of a consulting firm to prepare the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated area plan. Ordinance 4449 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Fund a Coordinated Area Plan for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Sites and Portions of the South of Forest Area (SOFA)” Council Member Kniss clarified the City had not had a “working group” since Terman. Ms. Fleming believed that “working group” was used with Midtown and Terman. 09/22/97 −317 Council Member Kniss said the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan would be a significant attempt to define what would be there in the future. The PAMF, the City, and neighborhoods had much at stake in an area that had existed since the clinic was established in the 1930s. It would be interesting to watch the Working Group come up with answers, especially while the Council worked on the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Eakins clarified that alleys would be included in the discussion. Mr. Gilliland suggested under “Reduce Traffic Impacts,” to add the sentence “Consider opportunities for establishment of new alleys and use of existing alleys consistent with the historic development patterns of the area.” Council Member Wheeler recalled that the “Blue Ribbon Task Force” would “advise” the Finance Committee and that there was a clear distinction between the word “advise” and “recommend.” She clarified that when the line between the two was crossed, there was not only a Brown Act meeting situation but also a conflict of interest filing situation. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The advisory language in the Coordinated Area Plan ordinance was essential to allow the affected people to participate. The issue was discussed before in the context of a coordinated area plan approach. The approach was new to due process and to incorporating people into the process. The ordinance was carefully tailored. Council Member Rosenbaum said with the discussion of open space, there was an implication that if there were to be a park, the City would have to provide funding. There had been no policy decisions made. He asked what would happen if a working group of local residents thought that a park was great. Mr. Gilliland said it was made clear that any City participation in the project was subject to Council direction and competition from other City projects for City resources. He anticipated that as the Council reviewed the Coordinated Area Plan midway through, there would be policy direction from the Council. Ms. Fleming said the plan would have to be addressed as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Staff would have to prioritize and fold it in with the commitment of the Comprehensive Plan implementation and other City priorities. 09/22/97 −318 Mr. Calonne said the ordinance required that the implementation measures for Public Works projects be coordinated with the City’s CIP. The intent was not to allow the Council and staff to propose or adopt a plan that called for significant public funding without making the commitment to the public funding. The ordinance was designed to deliver a product to the community and to the property owners that would be built, including the portions that the City was responsible for. Council Member Rosenbaum said it seemed the City was looking for a plan and the PAMF was looking for the City to come up with a plan within a reasonable length of time. He clarified that if there were a recommendation for significant public spending, it would have to return to Council, and if the Council did not agree with spending that amount of money, the plan would be revised. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The ordinance did not permit Council to adopt a plan that was neither economically feasible nor funded. Ms. Fleming said the process recognized the City Manager’s authority and responsibility to bring Council a budget that addressed or did not address the plan in terms of funding. However, the Council made the final decision on the budget and priorities. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber “not participating.” 15A. (Old Item No. 11) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 19.10 to Title 19 [Master Plan] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Procedures for Preparation of Coordinated Area Plans Vice Mayor Andersen said the item was to consider modifying the language in the ordinance to allow for an additional person to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan Working Group. Council Member Wheeler said the committee that selected the Working Group had a difficult time reducing the number of applicants. It was an excellent group. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to introduce the ordinance to expand the size of the Working Group from 13 members to 14 members. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 19.10 to Title 19 [Master Plan] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Procedures for Preparation of Coordinated Area Plans” 09/22/97 −319 Vice Mayor Andersen thanked Council Members Wheeler and Fazzino for assisting in making the selections. He thanked the people who participated and submitted their applications. There were over 40 candidates who offered their time and energy to the community, and any of them would have been wonderful candidates. City Attorney Ariel Calonne referred to two additional sentences on page 4 of the ordinance, “At least one regular meeting during the first half of the scheduled Working Group tasks will be conducted as a joint meeting with the City Council. The City Council may direct additional or revised goals and objectives during or following such meeting(s).” Council Member Schneider thanked the selection committee for putting together a well-balanced group. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 16. Council Review of Bail Schedule City Manager June Fleming said the item appeared to be routine, but it was not. The Bail Schedule revisions had taken hours of collaboration and was work that the Council and staff could be proud of. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff would recommend the Bail Schedule to the Santa Clara County Municipal Court for use as described in the City Attorney’s report. It involved moving different offenses into the proper places in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and cleaning up others. There were bail increases for some of the $5 fines to bring them in line with what was going on with the rest of Santa Clara County. Council Member Fazzino clarified staff was assuring consistency with other cities in terms of what the relative nature of the crime or infraction was based upon state or local laws. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. For example, for PAMC Section 16.20.050 regarding failure to obtain a sign permit, the current bail was $25, which had no deterrent value. The revised bail was $250, which was a more meaningful number. Council Member Fazzino asked about the $1,000 fine for demolishing a house without a permit. 09/22/97 −320 Special Counsel Lance Bayer said the amounts listed in the City Attorney’s report were not necessarily what the fines would be. The Bail Schedule was the amount of money that would be set as bail for someone who was arrested and taken into custody. Typically, that would not occur with those offenses. A judge might look at the Bail Schedule for guidance in determining how serious the City or the courts felt a particular offense was relative to other offenses. Council Member Fazzino said demolition was an issue of significant concern to the City. He clarified that if a builder demolished a home to spite the City and the City wanted to pursue a tougher course of action, it could ask the judge to impose a much higher fine. Mr. Bayer said that was correct. The City Attorney’s Office appeared in court on all the matters and would make a recommendation to the judge within the amounts that were set as maximum fines. Mr. Calonne said as a reminder, with regard to the demolition issue, there were civil violations and stiffer penalties in the PAMC. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified the City was constrained by state law on some amounts and on the upper limits. Mr. Bayer said that was correct with regard to the amounts that would be set and that staff wanted to make recommendations consistent with the courts’ practice of making the final bail determination. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve changes to the Bail Schedule. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. 17. Memorandum of Understanding between City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters for Use of the Palo Alto Civic Center as a Remote Counting Facility for Elections to be held on November 4, 1997 City Clerk Gloria Young introduced Public Communications Officer Carol Hyman, who would be involved with the Remote Counting Facility process in terms of public relations. It would be the first time that Santa Clara County would have a Remote Counting Facility for ballot processing. Palo Alto was the test site. If successful, the Remote Counting Facility process would be demonstrated again in Gilroy or Morgan Hill, which were cities further south in the County. The County Registrar of Voters and staff would be testing the equipment in October in the Council Conference Room, where the ballot processing would occur. In the Council Chambers, Council candidates, proponents and opponents of the measures, and other 09/22/97 −321 officials would be interviewed. The ballot processing and the activities in the Chambers would be cablecast on Channels 6 and 16. Use of cable would also reach the other jurisdictions who could not vote in the election but had an interest in the election results. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Memorandum of Understanding. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 18. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements City Auditor Bill Vinson announced that he and his wife would be appearing in Kaliningrad, Russia, for the adoption of their son, Alexander. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:55 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.