HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-19 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 19, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-260 1. Recommendations Regarding Citywide School Commute Safety Study, Phase 1 Final Report - Refer to Policy and Services Committee.............................................87-260 2. Request for Approval of Emergency Management Plan and a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $350,000 for Implementation and Amendment to the Table of Organization to Add Three Positions for Disaster Preparedness in the Fire Department - Refer to Finance Committee.....................................87-260 3. Bid Rejection to Power Engineering Contractors for the Reservoir Utility Access Road and Site Maintenance Project87-260 4. Request by Christmas in April for the City to Waive Permit Fees on an April 1998 Project to Re-Roof the Sea Scout Building..............................................87-260 5. Private Maintenance Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and Leonard Ely, Developer of 390 Lytton Avenue and Roxy Rapp Company, Developer of 499 University Avenue for Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way............................87-261
6. Resolution 7801 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Historic Preservation Regulations
Including Compatibility Review Standards≅ .............87-261 7. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation............................................87-261 8. Council Members Eakins and Mossar re Changes to the Building Code to Allow the Use of Permeable Paving Surfaces in Residential Areas.....................................87-261 9. Council Members Fazzino, Kniss and Ojakian re Extension of Refund of Debris Box Rental Charges and Suspension of Landfill Fees Related to Flood Recovery........................87-262
10/19/98 87-258
10. Council Members Ojakian and Mossar re Pedestrian Safety87-262 11. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.79 and Section 9.48.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Comprehensive Time, Place and Manner Regulations for the Placement and Maintenance of Newsracks87-264 12. Status Report on Historic Preservation Public Outreach87-281 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-286 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 10:43 p.m..................................87-287 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m......87-287
10/19/98 87-259
10/19/98 87-260
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 7:08 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins, Kniss, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Daniel Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding the 900 block of Addison Street houses. Council Member Fazzino said the vote on the item had no relationship to other votes. At the Public Hearing on the issue two weeks prior, the owner of the property was not in attendance to present that point of view. The issue related specifically to that property, the neighbor made a compelling case, and no one was there to argue the other side. Edmund R. Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the
government=s seizure of title to the Sea Scout waterfront property. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, Apt. 701, spoke regarding city planning for senior housing. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 6. 1. Recommendations Regarding Citywide School Commute Safety Study, Phase 1 Final Report - Refer to Policy and Services Committee 2. Request for Approval of Emergency Management Plan and a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $350,000 for Implementation and Amendment to the Table of Organization to Add Three Positions for Disaster Preparedness in the Fire Department - Refer to Finance Committee 3. Bid Rejection to Power Engineering Contractors for the Reservoir Utility Access Road and Site Maintenance Project 4. Request by Christmas in April for the City to Waive Permit Fees on an April 1998 Project to Re-Roof the Sea Scout Building
10/19/98 87-261
5. Private Maintenance Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and Leonard Ely, Developer of 390 Lytton Avenue and Roxy Rapp Company, Developer of 499 University Avenue for Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way
6. Resolution 7801 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Historic Preservation Regulations
Including Compatibility Review Standards≅ MOTION PASSED 6-0, for Item Nos. 1-5, Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION PASSED 5-0, for Item No. 6, Huber "not participating," Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. . 7. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation Subject: Potential Initiation of Litigation on One Separate Matter Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(c) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. Council Members Eakins and Mossar re Changes to the Building Code to Allow the Use of Permeable Paving Surfaces in Residential Areas (continued from 10/5/98) Council Member Mossar said the item was important because the City had a Regional Water Quality Control Treatment Plant (RWQCP)that was responsible for water quality in San Francisco Bay. Some City policies added to the pollution load in the Bay. Everything the City could do to reduce those pollutants through policies and other divisions of the City would be beneficial. She hoped it would be the first in a series of initiatives which would bring the RWQCP permitting processes into conformance with the requirements that
were placed on the City=s water treatment facilities. The City needed to work hard to ensure the health of San Francisco Bay. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the recommendation to direct staff from the Planning Department and the Environmental Compliance Division to develop revisions to the building code and zoning ordinance that would allow and encourage the use of permeable paving surfaces in all residential areas. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. 10/19/98 87-262
9. Council Members Fazzino, Kniss and Ojakian re Extension of Refund of Debris Box Rental Charges and Suspension of Landfill Fees Related to Flood Recovery (continued from 10/5/98) City Manager June Fleming noted she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Ojakian said he and Council Member Fazzino had received many phone calls over the past several weeks from people expressing the need to have a waiver of the debris box fees. A few weeks prior, there were similar construction permit fees waived due to delays, and he believed a fee waiver should be applicable to debris box fees as well. It was a one-time expense to the City, and there was a clear need given the unusual circumstances. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the recommendation that the Council direct staff to return to the Council with resolutions that extend the refund of debris box rental charges and the temporary suspension of landfill fees until March 31, 1999. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. 10. Council Members Ojakian and Mossar re Pedestrian Safety (continued from 10/5/98) Council Member Ojakian said the Council needed to be constantly vigilant about pedestrian safety. Since he had been on the Council, there had been numerous communications from various neighborhoods in Palo Alto indicating the need for traffic safety. The issue was ongoing, and it behooved the Council to look at the issue and see how it could be handled in a more comprehensive way. Also, the Council should send a message to the public that actions were being taken with respect to traffic safety. At the current time, several things were being done such as a school safety commute program and installing devices in signal lights to indicate red light runners. At the request of Marvin Lee, staff was looking at crosswalks to see if there were some way to slow vehicles and create a safer environment for pedestrians. He urged
staff to look at Mr. Lee=s idea and at blinking lights which clearly indicate the crosswalk area. He had sent a communication to Assemblyman Ted Lempert earlier in the year regarding radar devices and would like the Council to take some action at the state level to get a change in the use of radar devices. The current law worked to the disadvantage of the City. Council Member Mossar did not mind listing particular ideas, but her intention was that it be all inclusive. Staff was encouraged to return to the Council with any ideas that might be effective.
10/19/98 87-263
It was important that staff work with interested members of the community so that those people who were engaged in the issue would have an opportunity to learn about the various alternatives and understand why and how staff came to such recommendations at the end of the process. She walked a lot and understood clearly the concern about pedestrian safety. Cars had increasingly less respect for pedestrians, and it was from that vantage point that the City needed to take a look at opportunities for creating a greater sense of security for pedestrians. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to
direct staff to 1) review Marvin Lee=s suggestion to place barrel signs in crosswalks, 2) to consider other safety methods for crosswalks, 3) to correspond with state legislators to change state law regarding when radar devices can be used for speed enforcement, 4) to return to the Council with a report for other approaches to traffic safety including working with interested members of the community so they can learn about and understand the various alternatives recommended by staff. Further, to direct staff to report back to the Council in six months with the cost and pro and cons of the various alternatives and an update on Traffic Management and Safety. Council Member Fazzino clarified that several years prior, a few Council Members, including him, placed the issue of traffic safety before the Council and staff. There were some good questions asked about enforcement, and several actions were put in place by the staff including motorcycle officers, increased use of radar, the possibility of long-term physical changes to major arterials, and other ongoing issues. There had also been the possibility of the Planning Commission becoming the Planning and Transportation Commission and devoting more time and attention to discussion of transportation issues. He supported the motion. City Manager June Fleming said that was correct. She and the staff
had discussed the issue, and it was staff=s intent to bring back an update of what staff planned to do as well as the status of previous items including those mentioned that evening. The issue was a Council priority and as such, staff was continuing to work on it and give it priority in the work assignments. If staff could not complete the assignment within the specified time line, staff would return with a status report stating when the comprehensive report would be ready. The holidays were approaching and it was difficult to get communities together, but staff would bring a staff report back to the Council in six months. Council Member Fazzino recalled a staff report from the Police Department which included both a long-term and short-term implementation plan. He recommended the plans be shared with the Council to provide the beginnings of a check list for long-term and short-term issues. He was unsure if the barrels should be added but might be worth looking into.
10/19/98 87-264
Ms. Fleming said in terms of the barrels, staff would not take that as a specific direction to do barrels, but to do something. There were some problems with the barrels and the signs, but staff understood the intent. She would make sure the Council received copies of the previous staff report. Council Member Huber clarified that when the Council received the staff report, the items mentioned in the Colleagues Memo would also be included. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Huber was satisfied with that, otherwise he would have recommended the item be referred to Policy and Services which was where individual requests from neighborhoods were dealt with. He did not want the Council to micro manage traffic issues. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, Apt. 126, said 43,000 people died on
America=s roads, and of those, 25 percent were pedestrians and cyclists. Pedestrian safety was the most important transportation issue the Council faced. Traffic Departments traditionally facilitated traffic flow and placed pedestrian and bicycle safety as a lessor priority which would continue to happen unless strong direction came from the policy makers. He urged the Council to do whatever it could to address pedestrian safety which would be
helpful to the entire community, especially as Palo Alto=s population became more elderly. There was a disproportionate amount of seniors being hit by vehicles. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. ORDINANCES 11. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.79 and Section 9.48.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Comprehensive Time, Place and Manner Regulations for the Placement and Maintenance of Newsracks Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said the newsrack process had been an iterative one which started in 1995 with a list of concerns from the Council including increasing blight caused by newsracks Downtown and in other commercial areas, lack of uniformity and design placement and maintenance, the seeming attraction of litter and clutter to newsrack locations, and the blocking of store fronts and sidewalks. With those concerns, the Council directed the City Attorney to start the process of developing comprehensive regulations that would apply to all areas of the City of Palo Alto. The City Manager was directed to appoint a Newsrack Working Group to help staff in its development of those regulations. She thanked the Newsrack Working Group, which consisted of approximately 20 people, for its help. The comments and feedback were culminated in the ordinance before the Council
10/19/98 87-265
that evening. Newsrack regulations fell under Police Departments. The action before the Council that evening was to adopt the ordinance for the first reading and approve the procedure in
Attachment II to the City Attorney=s Report dated October 19, 1998, relating specifically to the allocation for the Downtown area. The Newsrack Ordinance was different from the typical police power type ordinance because what was being regulated was someone or something that pervades protected speech: therefore, the First Amendment rights of the United States Constitution, freedom of speech. The four standards, in order to have a valid Newsrack Ordinance, had to: 1) be content neutral; 2) advance a significant governmental interest; 3) contain narrowly defined standards; and (4) be limited to reasonable restrictions of time, place, and manner in a method such that alternative forms of expression were allowed. None of the restrictions in the Downtown area absolutely banned newsracks and did not regulate newsracks, the sale of newspapers, or the display of newspapers in any location other than public areas. Stores that displayed newspapers inside were not restricted under
the ordinance. On pages 4, 5, and 6 of the City Attorney=s report was a synopsis of the ordinance including the findings and the purpose. If the Council desired to add some reasons or issues to Section 1 of the Newsrack Ordinance, it would be helpful to staff. There was a permit required at no charge which was essentially a tracking device. Only one permit was necessary for each publication and applied to all locations where that publication would be displayed. Some additions were standards for maintenance, location, size limits, and except for the Downtown where there were required modulars, there were no design requirements, but there were regulations as to size and type of lettering and signs that could be on newsracks. Although the Downtown was specified as a special area, the Newsrack Ordinance was written such that if circumstances in other areas of town changed and were deemed appropriate for special newsrack considerations, the Newsrack Ordinance would allow the Council to make those additional designations. Staff maintained the existing blinder rack provisions on sexually explicit material and added enforcement procedures. The experience had been that if the newsrack regulations were not vigorously enforced it allowed for people who did not abide by the rules to display their material. The City Manager committed early on to enforce the ordinance. Staff wanted to give the public a lengthy introduction in order to get adjusted to the ordinance, and the ordinance was timed to take effect April 4, 1999, which would be close to when the Downtown rack holders would be installed in the beautification process. Council Member Ojakian asked whether there would be a cost related to implement the program, in addition to the permit fee. Ms. Case said there was no permit fee. The only fee would be to reclaim a display rack if it had been picked up and stored for violating the regulations. Essentially, the City would absorb the administrative costs.
10/19/98 87-266
Council Member Ojakian asked what that cost might be. City Manager June Fleming said the only related cost estimate was part of the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for the Downtown area, and each module which held four racks cost approximately $1,600. There would be other costs involving administration of the ordinance which would be absorbed by existing staff. Council Member Wheeler asked for the rationale for prohibition of location of a newsrack within five feet of a bus bench. Ms. Case said the general restrictions on placement of newsracks, except for the Downtown, started with regulations other cities had The Newsrack Working Group decided which ones made sense for Palo Alto. The regulation in question was also passed through the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for its input. Some cities used 15 feet, but VTA said 5 feet was ample. The restrictions were not arbitrary but had been tested in other cities. Council Member Wheeler said cities used various numbers for sidewalk clearance, and the City of Palo Alto had chosen the number 6 for which she understood the rationale. A variance process was also included which a permittee might utilize if the 6-feet could not be complied with. Getting the permit sounded easy, but she asked how easy it would be to go through a variance process and whether it would have to be done on a box-by-box basis. She asked whether staff had thought the entire process through. Ms. Case said the variance was not intended to be complex because Palo Alto was the first to offer one. It had to be on a box-by-box basis because each box had to be located separately in accordance with standards. Senior Engineer James Harrington said the applicant would be asked to submit a plan to show the layout relative to obstructions, poles, trees, etc. The plan would be compared to the infrastructure maps to verify that the actual dimension between the curb face and the boundaries were accurate. Finally, there would be a field check prior to the variance being approved. Staff anticipated it would be done in a comprehensive manner on a case-by-case basis. Council Member Wheeler asked how long staff anticipated the process would be. Mr. Harrington replied two to three weeks was the normal period for an encroachment permit. Council Member Wheeler asked what other punishment there might be for violators other than the rack being picked up, stored, and having to be reclaimed.
10/19/98 87-267
Ms. Case said a person could be cited; a violation was an infraction. Infractions did not carry prison sentences with them, but if the ordinance was violated more than a certain number of times in a year, the infraction went to a misdemeanor which carried jail time. The City could get injunctive relief, and the abatement procedures were available as well. Council Member Wheeler clarified that an infraction implied a fine. Ms. Case said that was correct. Council Member Mossar asked for what reasons variances were allowed and whether there were limitations on request for a variance.
Ms. Case quoted, ΑThe City engineer may allow a permittee to either place a newsrack in a location in variance of the standards otherwise required by this section if the engineer finds that such variance will not be detrimental to the public safety and that due to the existing physical constraints at that location, imposition of the standards would make placement impossible and would cause a
hardship to the permittee and its patrons.≅ She assumed staff would advise the permittee he/she was not in compliance and could request a variance. If the permittee did so, staff would make a determination as to whether the area in question met the parameters. If a variance could not be granted, there was still an appeal procedure available for denial of a permit. Council Member Mossar said she was particularly interested in potential conflicts with other legitimate uses of public space such as bike racks and bus stops. There were legitimate reasons to be in the public and to have space. She asked whether those were appealable reasons if there were not enough room based upon the standards set in the ordinance. Mr. Harrington said the ordinance called for a 6-foot clearance which could be looked at and still be within the state law of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Staff would look at the positioning of the box relative to the curb. The box might be moved closer to the curb and not compromise things seriously. The changes would be minor in measure, and compliance would be reasonably easy to obtain. Ms. Case said in the Downtown where those conflicts would be most likely to occur, there would not be that issue because the Planning Commission would construct and install the newsracks. Staff only saw a variance happening in an area where people might want to keep their existing spaces, and a sidewalk clearance might not be wide enough or some other standard could not be met. Council Member Huber understood that in the Downtown area, the City would provide some type of modular enclosure consisting of four boxes. He clarified that those modular enclosures would be paid
10/19/98 87-268
for by the City through the Downtown Beautification program and someone else such as the Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal would pay for the individual boxes. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Huber clarified that the modular enclosures would be provided by the City for the Downtown; but outside the Downtown area, the City would not provide the modular enclosures. In other areas of the City, the newspaper suppliers would provide their own racks which would not be the same. Ms. Case said in the Downtown, the City was requiring square modulars that fit on top of each other. Elsewhere in the City, the only requirement was that they be enclosed. Any racks that were dilapidated might have to be replaced because there were some maintenance standards which were not previously required. The racks could be free-standing, modular, etc. Council Member Huber assumed that in the areas of the City other than Downtown, one would likely find the more traditional newspaper racks. Ms. Case said that was correct. Council Member Huber asked with regard to lettering, painting, size, etc., did that requirement exist throughout the City or only Downtown. Ms. Case said throughout the City. Council Member Huber asked in Downtown, other than the fact that the racks would be limited in number and modular, whether there was anything unique in comparison to the remainder of the community. Ms. Case said no, other than the fixed locations. Council Member Fazzino referred to page 10 of the Newsrack
Ordinance (Attachment I)City Attorney=s report, Section 9.79.070 (d), with respect to priorities. He assumed that Palo Alto-based publications would be considered content-loaded criterion rather than content-neutral. Ms. Case said yes, the masthead would have to be read. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the City could establish, as one of several criteria to determine priority, that a publication be published or that the home office of a publication be in Palo Alto.
10/19/98 87-269
Ms. Case said staff would legally feel uncomfortable with that.
Things that attempted to establish Αhome boy≅ preferences were always legally suspect. Council Member Fazzino clarified that Ms. Case was claiming a Palo Alto preference was a violation of interstate commerce. Ms. Case said it could be. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said it was arbitrary given the purposes of the ordinance. The findings that drove the process at the time the process was initiated by Council were represented in the front of the ordinance and were a playing field that the Council should be looking at in terms of why it should be done. He could not think of anything about aesthetics, safety, or clutter and litter on the sidewalks that was different from a Palo Alto publication. It might be an equal protection issue, but it came down to an arbitrary classification to distinguish Palo Alto from anywhere else. Council Member Fazzino understood that was because the proposal related to aesthetics and safety as opposed to a proposal which introduced an address-based criteria. Ms. Case said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino recalled in 1993 when the Chicago Tribune abandoned Palo Alto, and a Council committee was established to work on establishment of recitation of a daily Palo Alto newspaper. The Committee met with many current and would be publishers, and the objective of the committee was to identify obstacles and opportunities to establish a daily newspaper. One of the most significant issues raised was the concern about daily distribution, particularly free distribution. He asked how that expressed desire on the part of the Council in 1993, with respect to the establishment and maintenance of a daily newspaper, played into the proposal before the Council that evening. Ms. Case asked whether he was talking about the Downtown. Council Member Fazzino was more focused on outside the Downtown area because the Downtown was a more limited geographic area and less of an issue than other parts of the community with respect to distribution. Ms. Case was not as familiar with the outside areas as she was the Downtown; but while doing surveys of newsracks in the outside areas of the City, the daily publications were well represented. While doing the baseline survey in the Downtown, the first priority group had 67 percent of all the individual boxes which meant that the group was vending more papers than any other group. She did not think the regulations would hamper the first priority group.
10/19/98 87-270
Council Member Fazzino asked whether the proposal was consistent with the 1993 Council decision to eliminate obstacles to the creation and success of a daily newspaper in Palo Alto. Ms. Case said the proposal was not inconsistent. From what she understood, most of the publications acknowledged the need for the newsrack regulations. The proposed newsrack regulations were not out of line with respect to other cities regulations, and she was not aware of any problems where the regulations were already imposed. She had no reason to believe the proposed regulations would affect distribution. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the variance procedure would recognize that distribution issues were a legitimate criterion in
order to express the 1993 Council=s express desire to encourage success of a daily newspaper, regardless of what that newspaper might be. Ms. Case said staff added the variance procedure for the benefit of the newspapers for an added insurance that every benefit of the doubt would be considered before declining the permit. In her opinion, the variance was an added benefit. Mr. Calonne said there was a hardship standard for variances. In the course of advising the City engineer on variance applications, his advice would be not to consider an arbitrary criterion in determining hardship. The select Council group might have expressed a strong community interest in a local daily. Council Member Fazzino said the decision was not arbitrary but a majority vote of the Council. Mr. Calonne said he was not challenging the Council policy. In relation to the aesthetic and safety purposes of the ordinance, the local publication seemed to be arbitrary. He would advise that it not be a hardship that should be considered. With regard to the question about how the sense of the select Council group fit into the variance procedure, they needed to be reasonable time, place, and manner regulations, and there was law and other community regulations which demonstrated that. If the Council did not agree,
it was free to do something different. The Αfree to do something
different≅ part was difficult dependant upon the Council=s reasons. If the Council believed the regulations unreasonably hampered those publications, the Council could make that call; but staff would need to test that against other similar standards so there would not be one set of rules for round boxes, one for square boxes, etc. The reasonable determination of time, place, and
manner restrictions was the Council=s obligation. Council Member Huber did not recall a Council policy dealing with a daily newspaper.
10/19/98 87-271
Ms. Fleming recalled when the local newspaper was threatened with closure, an issue went before the Council expressing concern about the absence of a local newspaper and the extent of coverage of local events. A committee was appointed and chaired by former Council Member Simitian. The committee worked with the Palo Alto Historical Association and the library staff, and reported back to Council with its recommendations. Staff generally interpreted directions as policy received from the Council, and the direction and interest at that time was to do all that could be done to promote the continuance of local news and that the City preserve the archives of that newspaper which was about to close. Promoting and creating an environment where local news coverage on a regular basis was encouraged. It could be interpreted as policy in a very tight sense, but staff interpreted direction from the Council on substantive issues as Council guidance. Council Member Ojakian noted a correction to the ordinance,
Attachment I of the City Attorney=s Report dated October 19, 1998,
page 5, Item (f,) last line Αsubsection (e)≅ should read
Αsubsection (g).≅ With regard to affixing the rack to the ground, staff recommended an anchor bolt. He asked whether some other method could be used. Mr. Harrington said a method of weighing the individual boxes down had been suggested, but there were some disadvantages such as the rack could be picked up or moved by someone strong enough or blown over in a strong wind. The normal process of affixing the rack with bolts, which could be retrieved to leave a clean surface afterwards, would be the preferred method by staff. Council Member Ojakian clarified affixing the racks with bolts was the preferred method, but there were other ways of affixing the rack that could not be moved by wind, etc. Mr. Harrington said yes, but there were some typical safety devices that were weighted down with sand or water and had been moved or
knocked over. Staff=s concern was that something that was potentially moveable would likely be moved. Council Member Ojakian did not disagree, but the City did not have to be constrained to an anchor bolt method if another proven method could be used. Mr. Harrington said staff was working in the range of practicality. Council Member Ojakian asked how many individual boxes existed outside the Downtown area. Ms. Case said staff could report on that along with the second reading of the ordinance.
10/19/98 87-272
Council Member Ojakian asked how many consecutive racks could be put side-by-side. Ms. Case said five newsracks. Council Member Ojakian asked whether there was any indication that the 6-foot rule would cause any issues. Mr. Harrington said staff was aware that El Camino Real was 8 feet whereas most street/sidewalk widths were 10 feet or greater. El Camino Real did pose a problem and the variance process would have to be asserted under the current rules. Council Member Ojakian clarified that the newsracks currently on El Camino Real were in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Harrington said that was correct. Council Member Mossar asked whether El Camino Real could be written into the ordinance as an exemption so as not to need a variance. Ms. Case said yes. Susan Frank, representing the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) took a neutral position on the issue. The Chamber had a member constituency of approximately 800 with extremely divergent opinions
regarding the regulation of newsracks. The Chamber=s Government Action Council discussed many of the issues and would further consider the legal issues, aesthetics, and fairness allocation system. There was disagreement among the members with regard to the effect on future publications and whether or not the ordinance was over-restrictive and did not provide adequate racks for publications dependant on those racks for primary access to the public. There was agreement with regard to the Downtown where there was a need for regulation to address aesthetics and safety and compliance issues. The Chamber felt all publications interested in having a presence in Palo Alto should be treated equitability; and once the ordinance was in place, it should be monitored and adjusted if problems or issues of fairness arose. If the goal of the Council was to provide safe, pedestrian-friendly, and aesthetically pleasing environments throughout the City for visitors, residents, etc., then she asked the Council to approve a mechanism that would not only clean up the problem but also allow for active enforcement. If the goal was reasonable regulations that prevented serious abuses, then she asked the Council to adopt the tools that would best achieve that goal without negatively affecting commerce and the community interest in access to the press. The decision was difficult, and the Chamber trusted that the Council would act fairly, striking a balance among the many interests affected by such an ordinance.
10/19/98 87-273
Jim Williamson, representing the San Jose Mercury News, said the
Mercury News supported the City=s efforts and its need to promote a clean and pleasant environment for the Palo Alto community. The
Mercury News was a local business with offices on University Avenue, servicing the community since 1851. In the mid-1980s, the Mercury News cooperated with the City of Palo Alto to move racks into bunker units in an effort to keep the City free of clutter. Since the voluntary self-monitoring did not work, the Mercury News saw the need for more enforceable regulations. The Mercury News took strong exception with some specific limitations of the ordinance and had made recommendations that were turned down. He asked that the following points remain open for review: First, the unfair size restrictions placed upon the Mercury News. The large size of its product was due in part to the high volume of local and regional advertisers which the ordinance forced the Mercury News to choose via a lottery system. He requested that the Mercury News be allowed to use the larger style rack as a result of each pick in the lottery. The ordinance permitted that style of rack; however, it would lose one additional spot for each larger rack style. Second, the required six-foot sidewalk clearance. Other cities had successfully used a four-foot clearance. The Mercury News would be forced to give up several locations along El Camino Real and some industrial areas. He requested at least a four-foot clearance in areas where there was no sidewalk congestion.
Council Member Ojakian said as indicated in the City Attorney=s Report, there were several cities, including Los Altos, that had six-foot clearances. He asked if the Mercury News did business in those cities and if that had posed a problem. Mr. Williamson said there were no significant difficulties. He was not familiar with those areas as with other areas such as Mountain View which was going through the same struggles as Palo Alto in getting the ordinance passed. A four-foot clearance worked well, specifically along the El Camino Real where there was not a lot of congestion as was the case in the Downtown. Council Member Ojakian clarified that the Mercury News was operating in areas where there were six-foot clearance restrictions. Mr. Williamson said the Mercury News had lost single-copy sales close to 7,000 of Sunday circulation over the prior two years which was attributed to the result of various ordinances having been passed in other areas. There was a need for an ordinance, but it had a significant impact on circulation. With the current proposed ordinance with sidewalk size and clearance restriction, the Mercury News, could lose 10 to 15 locations.
10/19/98 87-274
Council Member Ojakian asked where the main areas of difficulty were. Mr. Williamson said two major areas were El Camino Real and California Avenue. Also, in some of the light industrial areas where there was virtually no sidewalk traffic, he hoped there would be a variance. Dave Price, The Daily News, 329 Alma Street, noted staff had worked hard on the ordinance and much thought and time had gone into it. With regard to preference for different communities, there was precedence in state law allowing for that under the adjudication ordinance for newspapers. When a newspaper was adjudicated, there were several requirements that had to be met. Usually, the papers that were able to run legal meeting notices were those which were published in the same county in which the paper was circulated. Regarding the variance procedure, there were a number of streets that were too narrow under the ordinance. Regarding the six-foot requirement, six feet was not a six-foot sidewalk but actually nine and one-half feet of sidewalk, for example, if a sidewalk were narrower than nine and one-half feet wide, a newsrack could not be placed on it. Middlefield, Page Mill, and San Antonio Road also were too narrow for the ordinance. As Mr. Williamson commented earlier, circulation was severely affected by those types of ordinances. The Los Altos ordinance had
severely limited The Daily News= distribution ability. The ordinance only allowed circulation in permitted areas and had become quite an expense to comply with. If it were not for that ordinance, The Daily News could be circulating many more newspapers in Los Altos. Council Member Huber said assuming a sidewalk was ten or twelve feet, would six feet make a difference. Mr. Price said no. He had actually walked the sidewalks and found few to be that wide. Even the sidewalks that looked wide enough, after measuring, were was found to not meet the requirements. He offered to show the Council the sidewalks and also to demonstrate what a 90-pound bag of cement would do with regard to holding down a newsrack. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, said the bike rack at 526 University Avenue, was only half useable because it was covered with three newsracks and a City trash can. He had noticed that City trash cans were often placed adjacent to bike racks which was something the City needed to be cognizant of. At the corner of California Avenue and Ash Street, there was a proliferation of newsracks, and the number was interfering with the bike racks. In the past month, he had to physically rearrange the newsracks in order to park his bicycle. Regardless of the type of regulations, there was a problem, and he wondered whether there was any enforcement. Bicyclists should be able to use bike racks. He hoped the Council
10/19/98 87-275
would address enforcement for the current problem as well as the proposed ordinance. Council Member Mossar had personal experience with trying to park her bicycle at 526 University Avenue. She was concerned about the impacts of the ordinance on bike parking in general and specific
to the Downtown area. The City Attorney=s Report mentioned 22 newsracks had been added to original number and a statement that relocating bike racks would be necessary to accommodate those additional racks. She asked whether bike parking Downtown was being eliminated, being moved to other areas that were not as convenient or reasonable, or precluding the ability in the future to provide bike parking Downtown. Assistant Planning Official Jim Gilliland said since the statement had been included in the report, staff had gone further in the development of the working drawings on all the elements that had to go into the street furniture in the Downtown. As noted, there were a significant number of bike and newsracks as well as trash cans. Staff was at a point where bike racks were being added over what was already there, and compromises had to be made between the various elements. Staff had worked out that the bike racks would be in as preferential locations as possible as well as the newsracks. There were some locations where newsracks had to take preference which went back to the safety aspects of how wide the sidewalks were and what could actually fit into an area. Several staff members had walked as a group and sited everything on the plans that would be in the Downtown area, and as a result, there was a very specific plan of where everything was. Council Member Mossar said as the newsracks proliferated, the problem could occur anywhere in Palo Alto. She was struck by Mr.
Williamson=s comment that California Avenue was a location The Mercury News was concerned about which was an area with much sidewalk traffic. California Avenue had many of the same issues that were being addressed in the Downtown area. She wanted to be sure that the variance process would not give preference to a newsrack over another public amenity, not at the expense of the newspapers, but also not at the expense of bicyclists, pedestrians, or businesses that wanted their customers to have the ability to get to their doorways. She was concerned that in the future the Council would be faced with a series of piecemeal decisions that over time would be problems for the bicycle community. She hoped the Bicycle Advisory Committee could be relied upon to handle those types of issues. Mr. Gilliland said staff believed the newsrack ordinance, while providing a procedure to place the newsracks throughout the City, would have more effect in keeping bicycle racks and allowing them to be better located throughout the City than the haphazard problem the City currently faced. Staff believed the ordinance would make the newsrack problem easier to control and be an advantage to
10/19/98 87-276
bicyclists by preventing newsracks from being placed too close to bike racks and City trash cans. He believed there would not be an issue with the variance procedure over a preference for one over another. At the start, the variance procedure would operate on a first-come, first-served basis and later, there would not be a preference. Council Member Mossar asked whether there was any reason to be concerned that grandfathering existing locations for new racks would preclude future decisions about how the urban common public space would be designed. Mr. Gilliland said there was no grandfathering. The process required that everyone would have to apply for all locations.
Council Member Huber said the City Attorney=s Report suggested that there were few instances whereby applying a six-foot standard would prohibit the installation of a box, but the public was stating to the contrary. He did not want a situation where there would be an extreme amount of variances because of the six-foot regulation. Mr. Harrington said with regard to the California Avenue area, within the first block on both sides where papers would normally be placed, he did not see a situation where the standards would be a problem because the sidewalks were typically ten feet. That was also true of the side streets. El Camino Real was a special case. There were some minor problems as the boundaries were extended to the second row of the block where the streets narrowed slightly, but he observed there were no newspapers in those areas. The newsracks appeared to congregate in areas where there was high traffic and additional room. Staff would look at any specific streets that the community requested if anything had been overlooked. The infrastructure plans for the Middlefield Road area, particularly around Midtown, indicated ten feet or greater. There were some areas where there might be a problem, but staff believed the variance process would adequately take care of those. Council Member Huber asked whether the Council could amend the ordinance to deal with specific areas of the community so variances would not have to be dealt with. Ms. Case said yes. When special circumstances were shown that needed special treatment, that would be a reasonable thing to do. Mr. Harrington recalled that there was a provision in the ordinance that allowed for a summary or report after one year, but it applied to the Downtown. Council Member Huber clarified the provision did not apply to the remainder of the City.
10/19/98 87-277
Ms. Case said staff was not precluded from returning to the Council in a year, but the specific location where staff promised to return to the Council with an update was to see how well the Downtown allocation process worked. Mr. Huber preferred an update for the entire City and not just the Downtown. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified that a ten-foot wide sidewalk was what was required to provide for the clearance from the curb, the box, and then six feet of sidewalk. Mr. Harrington said under the rules, it was nine and one-half feet. He had used ten feet as an average. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to introduce the ordinance.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.79 and Section 9.48.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Comprehensive Time, Place and
Manner Regulations for the Placement and Maintenance of Newsracks≅ Council Member Wheeler said the ordinance and subsequent discussions were prompted several years prior because the issues
identified in the City Attorney=s Report and ordinance related to aesthetics and safety. The purpose of a public sidewalk was for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians. What had happened in the community had not been friendly toward the major purpose of the sidewalks and had not been the sole fault of news vendors and how their product was carried, but was a major component of the problems the community was facing. The City needed to provide for pedestrian safety along the sidewalks, crosswalks, and bus stops. Clearly, city and county maintenance staff needed the ability to have free and unfettered access to utilities infrastructure and street furniture. She was concerned that the Council be careful not to take action that would harm circulation of any newspapers wherever they might be published. Palo Alto was a well-read community that enjoyed reading printed media, and citizens should have access to that media. She was concerned about the six-foot
clearance, but staff=s proposal that there be a variance procedure and indications to the Council that the variance procedure would not be burdensome to the applicant, gave her more comfort with supporting the six-foot clearance than she would have been prior to the discussions that evening. She was open to changing that figure if it clearly did not work for the community or the print media. She asked her colleagues as they looked at the community wide concern, to not treat Downtown as the only special area of the City. She could see if California Area continued along with its lively pace, it was likely that it would receive consideration to be treated in the manner much like the Downtown. She also asked that the Council not think any less of the areas around California
10/19/98 87-278
Avenue such as South Palo Alto in the aesthetic or safety sense with any less standards than the Downtown area. Council Member Huber seconded the motion because he believed that, as indicated in Section 1 of the ordinance, something had to be done for public safety, sidewalk maintenance, and pedestrian travel that was ever increasing in the community and the clutter. The clutter that occurred on the sidewalks from newsracks, etc., made it difficult for people to travel reasonably around the community. He agreed with Council Member Wheeler that the effects throughout the City needed to be considered, and he asked Council Member Wheeler to include in her motion to direct staff to report back to the Council six months after the effective date of the ordinance regarding the effects of the ordinance throughout the entire City. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct staff to report back to the Council six months after the effective date of the ordinance regarding the effects of the ordinance throughout the entire City. Council Member Huber said regulating was never easy, and those being regulated were the ones who came before the Council to say what that meant to their business. There was considerable discussion about the regulation of newsracks a year or two prior. At that time, the numbers that were selected were reasonable. He could see the argument of newspaper publishers for more circulation, but he believed the City had a right to regulate for the reasons stated prior. Staff needed to carefully watch to make certain that the dual goals in providing citizens with adequate access of many forms of newspapers, as well as providing for the safety and welfare of the citizens who used the sidewalks, needed to be meshed together. The ordinance needed to be reviewed after being in effect for a while to see how it was working. He believed the proposed ordinance was reasonable. Council Member Fazzino commended the staff who had taken on a challenging assignment. With respect to the Downtown particularly, staff had proposed a solution that balanced the issues of aesthetics and safety versus the needs of a veracious newspaper reading public and respecting first amendment rights. He had concerns about issues outside of the Downtown. The City needed to pay attention to those areas, and some legitimate issues had been raised with respect to proposals outside the Downtown. He was not convinced that five feet from a bus stop was necessary. He was unsure of what the right number of feet would be, but he wanted to raise the issue. He had concerns that the six-foot concept found
on Attachment I to the City Attorney=s Report page 9, Section 9.76.070(1)(iii) made sense in every location. He wanted a report from the staff as to whether or not the proposal made sense in terms of all the areas outside the Downtown. The staff did an excellent job of addressing the Downtown issue. He was unsure all the issues were resolved relating to outside the Downtown area. He
10/19/98 87-279
wanted the opportunity to address those issues after the staff had a chance to survey the situation and for newspapers to submit variance proposals to the City. He would prefer that staff return to the Council with a summary of issues which had been raised in three months. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved to direct staff to report back in three months after the ordinance takes effect, particularly outside the Downtown. Council Member Huber wanted the time period to be long enough to have newspapers in the boxes and some history, and he did not believe that three months was enough. MOTION TO AMEND DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member Fazzino believed there were a number of lingering issues which needed to be addressed as quickly as possible. Once those issues were addressed, the Council could move forward and be provided with a report on an annual basis. The variance process needed to be as flexible as possible in addressing the legitimate needs of newspapers to be distributed and to be readily available to the public. Papers such as The Mercury News, The Chronicle, The Daily News, and The Weekly provided many copies to Palo Alto. Going back to 1993, the City Manager was correct in that no specific policies were established, but the Council, with a majority vote, set up a committee and indicated that the City had a legitimate interest in ensuring that a daily newspaper should operate in the community. He desired a newsrack program which both addressed a legitimate priority for aesthetic and safety issues and ensured that Palo Altans had a legitimate right to gain access to those daily publications. He personally wanted to provide priority to Palo Alto based publications in the future. Council Member Mossar supported her colleagues. To the extent that the ordinance would not work for five miles along El Camino Real, rather than forcing each publication to go through the variance process for each box, she asked whether a summary variance process could be done or the ordinance be amended to acknowledge the realities of the sidewalk widths along El Camino Real. Mr. Calonne suggested that the amendment should be tailored to deal with El Camino Real only. Council Member Mossar asked whether El Camino Real was the only street that could be agreed upon. Mr. Harrington said that El Camino Real had the most difficulty. The other streets mentioned had not been surveyed. Council Member Wheeler said staff needed to evaluate the locations. There were locations on El Camino Real that were well traveled by
10/19/98 87-280
pedestrians and bicyclists. She could see having four feet on streets that were quieter than El Camino Real, but not El Camino Real where newsracks were likely to be located because there was significant pedestrian traffic. The amendment would do the opposite of what the City was trying to accomplish. She opposed the amendment. People should have the opportunity and the provisions to make a case for the less than six feet. She did not think there should be an automatic exemption because there were places where room should be left for pedestrians and not for newsracks. Council Member Huber asked why the ordinance could not be framed such that if there were nine and one-half feet, six feet would be provided, but to the extent that there was less than nine and one-half feet, the lesser would be subtracted from six feet. Then, a minimum such as four feet could be chosen, for example, if a sidewalk were only five feet wide, there would be no rack. Mr. Harrington said a compromise would be to allow a five-foot clearance and to reduce the distance of the box from the curb face to one foot which typically in the ordinance called for eighteen inches to two feet. It would not be a significant departure and was something staff would have anticipated as part of the variance. That would allow the boxes to be placed within a total of eight feet. Mayor Rosenbaum asked what the 18-inch clearance between the curb and the box was based upon. Mr. Harrington said the general criteria was based on the opportunity for someone to get out of their car, open the door, and leave the car without being obstructed. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether 12 inches would work. Mr. Harrington said what was being expressed was that, for distances where the box length would not be excessive, someone parking could easily avoid the obstruction. There would be no problem if the number of boxes were not great. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, that a minimum of four feet clearance on El Camino Real be required or six feet anywhere in the City except the Downtown. Mr. Ojakian would not support the amendment. Clearly, that there was an issue on El Camino Real, and he was willing to have flexibility there. He was not willing to do so Citywide, except for the Downtown, not knowing what the impact would be. He preferred in the outside areas of the City that the variance process be used and to use the six-month reporting period as a chance to review and determine whether any changes to the ordinance were necessary.
10/19/98 87-281
MOTION TO AMEND FAILED 2-4, Huber, Fazzino "yes," Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to amend Section 9.79.070 to include a section that allows areas along El Camino Real to reduce the setback requirement from the curb to the box to 12 inches with a minimum clearance of five feet. MOTION TO AMEND PASSED 5-1, Wheeler "no," Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. Ms. Case asked for Council direction to allow staff to return to the Council with a second reading of the ordinance which would
include amended findings based on the Council=s comments that evening. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to allow staff to return to the Council with a second reading of the ordinance which would include amended findings based
on the Council=s comments. Council Member Ojakian supported a Citywide ordinance. He reinforced the comments that had been made by Council Member Wheeler. The Downtown had been designated as a special area, but he thought there needed to be a Citywide newsrack ordinance. He supported the main motion. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-0, Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. Ms. Case said the Allocation System needed to be endorsed by the Council. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council endorse the Allocation System as described in Attachment II, Procedure for Allocating Newsracks Within the Downtown Commercial Special Newsrack Area of Palo Alto, in the Report to the City Council from the City Attorney With the Assistance of the Newsrack Working Group, dated October 19, 1998. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Eakins, Kniss, Schneider absent. RECESS 9:45 PM - 10:02 PM REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 12. Status Report on Historic Preservation Public Outreach Council Member Huber noted he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest.
10/19/98 87-282
City Manager June Fleming said the item was informational only. Staff was particularly concerned because if there was any slippage in the time line, the March deadline would not be met. Staff would
listen to the Council=s concerns, but the item fell within administrative prerogative and no Council action was required or requested. Council Member Ojakian asked how the consultant, GCA Strategies, was selected. Senior Executive Assistant Audrey Seymour said the staff report (CMR:397:98) stated that the Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent to 30 potential bidders of which two qualified responses were
received. In an interview process, the City=s goals and expectations for public outreach were clearly stated. Both proposals and firms were assessed for qualifications. Staff felt
that GCA Strategies would best help achieve the City=s goals for having two-way communication where the City did a better job than was perceived with the interim ordinance and communicating what the permanent ordinance was, its time line for adoption, and facilitating the opportunity for feedback to revise and make the ordinance the best it could be.
Ned Gallagher, representing the Palo Alto Homeowners= Association,
Melville Avenue, commented on what the Palo Alto Homeowners= Association (PAHA) saw as a major error in the procedure outlined. The time line of events scheduled in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:397:98) was a good plan which gave an opportunity to varied groups for input for the final ordinance. PAHA believed there was an error in starting the process of building a final ordinance by using the previously proposed draft ordinance as a starting point because that ordinance was the cause of the public outcry at the Town Hall meeting in March 1998. That ordinance was inadequate and unacceptable to homeowners, had numerous flaws, and required extensive changes. The PAHA urged the Council to declare the proposed permanent ordinance unsatisfactory and inoperative and to direct staff to prepare a new permanent ordinance using the many public recommendations from the previous six months.
Craig Woods, representing Palo Alto Homeowners= Association, 1127 Webster Street, said the Council and staff were making a good effort to expedite the process, but the status report and subsequent information retrieved from the GCA Strategies website left the PAHA with some important questions the Council should consider. Everyone should be concerned about the role the consultants played in the development in administration of the
historic regulations. The consultant=s background, skills, and professional point of view could make the difference between good and bad policy in administration. The selection of an outreach consultant and the definition of his/her goals was one of the most
10/19/98 87-283
important factors in the success of Palo Alto=s preservation efforts. The PAHA was concerned about whether the consultant had the right background and whether the objectives matched the
Council=s expectations. PAHA had been working hard with the City staff to represent homeowner interests. The outreach program and consultant were critical to represent homeowner interests and to reconcile the different perspectives. The Council and staff were working hard to get historic preservation back on track, and the Council should consider how the outreach program and consultant could best meet that goal. Council Member Fazzino said focusing on the community relations component of the consultant firm, rather than the political component made more sense. Often, the way consultants worked was to have people focus on specific functions such as community affairs, communications, or political consulting. He dealt with many political consultants and had read their language. His understanding of how those types of firms functioned was that there were different people responsible for different functions, and he believed the City should concentrate on the people who were doing community relations work to ensure they had the right bonafides with respect to community hours and that they had not been involved in hard hitting political campaigns designed to site oil refineries and landfills. Mr. Woods shared that concern, but the issue was to what extent the consultant firm had engaged in advocacy for specific positions rather than helping to develop effective public policy. The information that PAHA took from the consultants website gave PAHA concern that there might be some issues of concern with regard to how the consultant balanced its work. All of the information
indicated that the consultant=s expertise was in the advocacy role and in taking policies and presenting them in ways that overcame opposition. The PAHA believed for that role, that needed to be carefully looked at. Council Member Fazzino clarified that if Mr. Woods could be convinced that the community relations function was a separate wing of the GCA Strategies organization which had legitimate background in community outreach rather than political consulting, he would be more comfortable with the selection of the firm. Mr. Woods said that was correct. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, agreed with Council Member Fazzino and said if assurances could be made at a later time, perhaps she might change her mind about the consultant. She had extensive experience with public outreach in Palo Alto dating back to 1970. She had been responsible for many successful outreach and political campaigns and felt qualified to comment on the contract with GCA Strategies to perform the public outreach program associated with the adoption of the permanent ordinance. She
10/19/98 87-284
believed there was a difference between public outreach and advocacy. She had commented many times about the need for the City to provide ways for public involvement, the development of the proposed ordinance, and the formation of a group similar to Canopy to foster the ideals of historic preservation. She read from some
of the information retrieved from the GCA Strategies= website. Which appeared to be a grand strategy to win people over to the proposed ordinance rather than to actively seek input regarding what the community wanted in an ordinance. She wondered whether that was what historic preservation was. In the past, historic preservation had been highly valued in Palo Alto and the way the
Council wanted to reach out to the community. PAHA=s first principle was to work with the City on the development of the permanent historic preservation ordinance. She believed the
community had been blind sighted by the City=s retaining a firm known as paid lobbyists to create community support for the ordinance. Daniel Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, addressed the progress on the proposed historic ordinance. He had spoken to the Council the week prior encouraging public input on the development of the ordinance. The hiring of the consulting firm was an action that was easy to distrust. The City had spent much money already and
was anticipating another $50,000 on the GCA Strategies= contract. There also had been undocumented burdens unilaterally imposed on homeowners under the past two years of the ordinance. There needed to be a balance in City government. He voiced concerns with the consultant, the City staff, the initial advisory committee composed of preservation advocates, and the Ombudsman, another preservation advocate. He questioned the message the City was sending and who in City government was the voice of the homeowners. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) was another obstacle between homeowners and the evolution of the old houses. He believed the HRB served a valuable function, but representative government suggested there be a balance in City government which he was unable to see. Also, there was a pattern of the HRB overturning projects. The City was perceived to be preparing to mount an aggressive campaign to push through the unpopular restrictions. The PAHA had worked diligently to bring the issues to the front; and yet, it was still labeled as extremist by some members of the Council. The truth was it was still a group of homeowners waiting to see whether it truly had a voice in the process.
Mayor Rosenbaum said the public=s concerns, based on what was found
on the GCA Strategies= website, were understandable. He was sure staff hired the consultant based on additional information provided. Ms. Fleming said the information presented to the Council in relation to what was on the website was accurate and was one focus the organization had taken. However, the consultant clearly
10/19/98 87-285
understood he/she was working for a governmental agency and not a private company. The consultant had been questioned intensively and sincerely about what the City wanted to accomplish and was
clear about the City=s goals and the openness of the process. Assisting the City staff in a professional and careful manner was essential. The board who interviewed the consultant went over the information repeatedly. GCA was not a huge company and would not have a lot of staff to parcel out the work. The consultant understood the history of the City. Staff believed the consultant
could carry out staff=s orders and desires, and understood the
City=s objectives, which were different from those as seen on the website.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison addressed Mr. Gallagher=s concern regarding the permanent ordinance. Staff was planning to summarize all the input given to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman had extensively interviewed people who were not happy with the process, as well as other members of the community. Staff intended to return to the Council to provide the opportunity to look at the issues raised by the community about the permanent ordinance before staff launched into assuming that it was a public outreach effort to educate the community about the ordinance. Much of what staff intended to do with the assistance of the consultant was to get more information through focus groups and try to make it a two-way communication process. Those were not skills available in-house which was evidenced by the lack of success staff had previously.
Staff=s intent was to completely control the work of the consultant with the understanding that he/she could facilitate a process and not to do advocacy. Ms. Seymour added that staff looked hard at the skill set the consultant brought to the table. Both firms that were interviewed had done advocacy in the past, and staff made it clear that the City was not trying to market a permanent ordinance, but instead wanted to have two-way communication and input. What staff liked about GCA Strategies was that they had a good understanding of complex public policy issues, in particular land use issues. Staff felt they moved quickly given the short time frame, and staff would not have to spend much time helping them understand the whole issue of historic preservation. The consultants were good strategic thinkers, had a wide range of communication tools to help staff with, and staff looked at them as someone with transferable skills which could be directed and applied in a way that would meet the
City=s goals and objectives. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff members would be present when the consultant conducted outreach meetings. Ms. Harrison said yes.
10/19/98 87-286
Council Member Ojakian mentioned Mr. Wood=s comments regarding staff asking for an extension on the interim historic preservation ordinance in the future.
Ms. Harrison said that was not staff=s intent. Staff was focused
on the March 31, 1999, deadline with no change. Staff=s concern was that in order to meet the deadline, there would have to be a great deal of outreach activities during the Christmas holidays which was why the item was before the Council that evening. The
consultant=s idea was to train City staff to do facilitation; they did not think it would be appropriate to be leading those efforts. Council Member Ojakian said the deadline was important to him, and he did not want the interim ordinance continued beyond the March 31, 1998, date. When he ran for office in 1997, he made it clear that he was for some type of a historic preservation ordinance; but he was also for fair process. Ms. Fleming said not only would staff attend the meetings, but she would personally monitor the meetings and make sure that the
consultant stayed on target with what the City=s objectives were. Council Member Fazzino was pleased staff would be adhering to the deadline and putting in place a schedule that would meet the deadline. Public outreach was a critical part of the effort. He had read the material and as he said previously, he had read a lot
of political consultants= language and acknowledged that the language was more direct than most of the language he had read in the past from similar groups. He acknowledged reading the information might create some nervousness on the part of citizens. He had faith that staff had worked with the consultant and was comfortable that staff would bring a softer and gentler approach to dealing with Palo Altans. He wanted everyone to recognize that the consultant or any consultant could not be relied upon to do good communications or outreach for the City. It was the responsibility of the City Manager and the staff to manage communications and was the only way the process would be successful. The consultant was being employed as a vehicle to facilitate the communications plan developed by the City staff. If staff adhered to that, he believed the plan would be successful. The City Manager was committed to involving a variety of interest groups in the process, and that effort would not be successful unless there was genuine public participation. It was fascinating how everyone created a reality which hit ones perception of what was going on. The reality was that the Council had actually supported a majority of homeowner appeals before it over the actions of the HRB and demonstrated that the Council was legitimately interested in homeowner concerns.
Mayor Rosenbaum hoped the staff=s comments helped to alleviate the concerns brought before the Council that evening.
10/19/98 87-287
No action taken. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Rosenbaum noted Irma Schwabel, a 66-year resident of Palo Alto, passed away on October 11, 1998. Ms. Schwabel was a stalwart of the retail business in the Downtown and operated a notions business out of her home. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 10:43 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential initiation of litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 7. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that the City Council would report on Agenda Item No. 7 at the next regular City Council meeting to be held on Monday, October 26, 1998. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. in memory of Irma Schwabel who passed away on October 11, 1998. 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.
10/19/98 87-288