HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-19 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting July 19, 1999 1. Proclamations Expressing Appreciation to the Members of the Palo Alto Women's World Cup Venue Committee...........88-417
2. Resolution 7876 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Governor Remedios Petilla of Leyte
Province, Philippines≅ ................................88-417 2A. Council Reselection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning Commission...................................88-417 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................88-418 3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C8098843 Between the City of Palo Alto and Tiger Contract Services, Inc. To Provide Custodial Services for 1007 Elwell Court and the Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue.........................88-418 Amendment No. 1 to Contract C9105211 Between the City of Palo Alto and Benedikt Ceramics dba Benedikt Strebel Ceramics for Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project, Phase I: Construction, CIP No. 19608 - Public Artwork..........88-418
5. Resolution 7877 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Resolving to Participate in the Santa Clara
County >Green Business Program= and Adopting >Green Government
Pledge=≅ ..............................................88-419 6. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council, adoption of the ordinance regulating solicitation from streets, medians, sidewalks, driveway entrances, and other public right-of-ways............................88-419 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........88-427 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.............88-428
07/19/99 88-416
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamations Expressing Appreciation to the Members of the Palo Alto Women's World Cup Venue Committee
2. Resolution 7876 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Governor Remedios Petilla of Leyte
Province, Philippines≅ MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 2A. Council Reselection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning Commission City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Kathryn Schmidt received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, July 26, 1999. Vice Mayor Wheeler suggested that, since only the incumbent received sufficient votes, the Council decline to interview any of the candidates and move ahead with the appointment. Mayor Fazzino asked whether a motion was required to cancel the interviews. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the interviews did not have to be canceled if the appointment was agendized for the July 26, 1999, City Council meeting. Council Member Ojakian said that his voting for only Commissioner Schmidt should not be taken as a sign that people should not apply
for the position. He worked with Commissioner Schmidt for 5 2 years and found her to be thorough, intelligent, and well prepared. He did not want to discourage other worthy applicants from pursuing a position on the Planning Commission. Mayor Fazzino said that there would be no interviews, and the Council would proceed to the appointment of a Planning Commissioner at the July 26, 1999, City Council meeting.
07/19/99 88-417
Council Member Kniss asked whether the applicants would be notified individually when an opening on the Planning Commission arose or would the notice be through a public notice in the newspaper. She directed the City Clerk to notify former applicants when an opening on the Planning Commission became available. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to cancel the interview of Kathryn Schmidt and move forward with the appointment on Monday, July 26, 1999. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Victor Frost, P.O. Box 213, spoke regarding constitutional rights. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, spoke regarding the shuttle. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, spoke regarding new parking structures. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding truth in journalism. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, Apt. 701, spoke regarding cable television as a municipal operation. Mark and Catherine Steinkamp, 3424 Cowper Court, spoke regarding playground equipment. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 -5. 3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C8098843 Between the City of Palo Alto and Tiger Contract Services, Inc. To Provide Custodial Services for 1007 Elwell Court and the Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue 4. Amendment No. 1 to Contract C9105211 Between the City of Palo Alto and Benedikt Ceramics dba Benedikt Strebel Ceramics for Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project, Phase I: Construction, CIP No. 19608 - Public Artwork Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C9105179 Between the City of Palo Alto and Angela Garro dba Renaissance Forge for Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project, Phase I: Construction, CIP No. 19608 - Public Artwork 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract amendment with Benedikt Strebel Ceramics in the amount of
07/19/99 88-418
$69,583 for the Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project, Phase 1 (CIP#19608). 2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Benedikt Strebel Ceramics for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $3,500. 3. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract amendment with Renaissance Forge in the amount of $206,016 for the Downtown Urban Design Improvements Project, Phase 1 (CIP#19608) 4. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Renaissance Forge for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $10,000.
5. Resolution 7877 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Resolving to Participate in the Santa Clara
County >Green Business Program= and Adopting >Green Government
Pledge=≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 6. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council, adoption of the ordinance regulating solicitation from streets, medians, sidewalks, driveway entrances, and other public right-of-ways. Mayor Fazzino said in order to effect the ordinance, the Council needed to adopt an ordinance adding Chapter 9.45 of Title 9 ti the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) regulating solicitation in streets and in and adjacent to driveway entrances. There was a unanimous vote of the Policy and Services Committee to approve the proposed ordinance. Chairperson Eakins, Policy and Services Committee (P&S Committee), said the P&S Committee heard the matter in April, 1999. When the item was referred to the P&S Committee, she requested that the issue be framed and discussed in terms of safety, not in terms of discrimination against a portion of the community. There was an emotional side to the debate that rose around the potential ordinance. Many people were concerned that the ordinance was discriminatory; however, the staff report (CMR:201:99) and the draft ordinance framed the issue in terms of safety. Another area of potential debate was whether there was adequate reason shown to require the law. There were no documented accidents according to
07/19/99 88-419
reports from the Police Department, in which soliciting was found to be the cause of an accident; however, the Police Chief pointed out that no one asked whether soliciting was the cause of the accident. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the ordinance be adopted by the Council. Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, Menlo Park, said Earth Island, an environmental organization, picketed a breakfast held at the Cabana
Hotel. The organization picketed on the sidewalk near the hotel=s driveway in order to chat with the pedestrians from the parking lot and cars that drove by. There was no obstruction to either pedestrians or cars, and no one was in danger of being injured. She requested that Mayor Fazzino abstain from voting on the ordinance because he was involved in the breakfast held at the Cabana Hotel. The staff report (CMR:201:99) stated that the ordinance would pertain to non-profit organizations handing out leaflets. The leaflets that Earth Island handed out made reference to their membership drive and donations. The ordinance would apply to Earth Island and to any other environmental organization or any non-profit that was handing out leaflets or picketing. Eve Agiewich, 3427 Janice Way, Commissioner, Human Relations Commission (HRC), urged the Council not to adopt the ordinance. At its May 1999, meeting, the HRC voted unanimously to oppose the proposed ordinance because it felt that the ordinance was discriminatory against a certain targeted segment of the population of the City. The HRC believed that the ordinance was unnecessary, discriminatory, and sent a bad message to the community. There was no evidence that people soliciting funds, seeking employment, or communicating with passersby from the median strips or the sidewalks posed a hazard to themselves or passing motorists. The ordinance attempted to regulate only commercial speech, which did not merit protection, as opposed to political campaigning or issue picketing which were protected by the First Amendment. The only people affected by the ordinance were a few homeless individuals who held signs or solicited funds at two or three locations in the City. The ordinance discriminated against the homeless community as did rules for the library, City Hall, City Hall Plaza, and the Sit/Lie Ordinance. John Doe, 1234 Main Street, asked whether the ordinance would prevent panhandling only on a median. Christian Cook, 1234 Emerson Street, did not see a difference between political demonstration and begging. It was unconstitutional to prevent people from begging from a median strip. Negative comments were made regarding the homeless. She opposed the proposed ordinance. Douglas Cowan, P.O. Box 213, read the staff report (CMR:201:99) recommendation to ban sign holding at intersections. He did not see sign holding at intersections as a safety problem, but found
07/19/99 88-420
the ordinance was a violation of the First Amendment of the
Constitution regarding Αdevious means.≅ Staff conducted interviews with business people, but did not interview the sign holders. He believed if holding a sign was a safety problem, the City should ban the use of cellphones by drivers within City limits since it was a documented safety problem. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Avenue, was on El Camino Real near San Antonio Road waiting to make a left turn towards Bayshore Road. An individual was standing in the median holding a sign, and when the light turned green and almost rear-ended the car in front of him that stopped suddenly to give the man some money. He agreed that banning cellphones would be greater benefit to the community. Cellphones were a more dangerous traffic hazard than a person standing in a median. Sign holding in a median was not a pervasive traffic problem. Ethan Kaplan, 131B Escondido Village, Stanford, was shocked when he heard about the proposed ordinance. Solicitation from street medians was minor in comparison to others hazards that the Council was not addressing. Cellphones, people rushing to work, and attractive business signs were much more distracting than homeless people soliciting money. He asked where homeless people would go if all the cities enacted laws prohibiting solicitation. Elliot Bolter, 286 Walter Hays Drive, said there were approximately 200 social agencies available in the community to provide the necessary means for people to search for work. He supported the proposed ordinance. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, #701, did not believe the proposed ordinance was drafted because of a safety issue. There were other safety issues she hoped the Council would take an interest in such as fire sprinklers in the schools, safety belts for school buses, and brake checks for automobiles. She did not think the proposed ordinance was a good idea. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, asked why the matter was not sent to the Planning and Transportation Commission as opposed to the Policy and Services Committee if solicitation from street medians was a traffic issue. He was concerned that the proposed ordinance would diminish the impact of other safety and traffic issues. Statistically, 25 percent of all traffic fatalities in the country involved were cyclists and pedestrians. Motorists needed to slow down and did not need to be protected from panhandlers. Cary Andrew Crittendon, Halford Avenue, Santa Clara, believed that there were many other traffic hazards that needed to be addressed. He disagreed with Mr. Bolter in regard to the homeless finding work. It was not as easy as people portrayed for the homeless to find work. People needed an address and a way to receive telephone calls in order to apply for a job. A person holding a sign and
07/19/99 88-421
soliciting money was not there because he/she wanted to. He urged the Council to oppose the ordinance. Council Member Eakins said drivers that stopped suddenly were potentially the causes of accidents. She asked whether an accident or near accident was a citable offense if a driver stopped suddenly to participate in a transaction with a solicitor. Police Chief Pat Dwyer said yes. The proposed ordinance specifically addressed both people standing and soliciting in the designated areas covered in the ordinance and drivers of vehicles who would solicit from people in the street, in another vehicle, or on the sidewalk. The proposed ordinance addressed the traffic hazards caused by either situation. Mayor Fazzino asked Mr. Dwyer to provide his perspective on the need for the proposed ordinance. Mr. Dwyer said staff tried to take an empirical approach to the issue and reviewed accident statistics. Staff found that data was not collected that reflected soliciting in the public right-of-way was a hazard. He said that cities throughout the State crafted ordinances similar to the proposed ordinance. Anecdotal information and calls and emails from people as a result of media attention were received. Staff spent time observing the intersections and did not see any accidents; however, staff did see vehicles stopping when the light was green causing vehicles behind to come to a rapid stop which constituted a hazard. In response, staff drafted an ordinance that was more conservative than other
cities= ordinances. Staff deliberately limited response to traffic issues of vehicles stopping in roadways and people soliciting from vehicles and people stopping and soliciting to people on sidewalks. Staff did not include language regarding panhandling in parking lots. The ordinance was limited specifically to traffic safety issues. The ordinance applied to anyone who conducted business, sought employment, or sought contributions in the specific areas named in the proposed ordinance. Sidewalks were included in the proposed ordinance as they related to driveway entrances and exits. The proposed ordinance did not prohibit people from soliciting or free speech, but required that the people exercise their rights in a safe manner. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the ordinance applied to people picketing. Mr. Dwyer said the proposed ordinance applied to people who solicited business, sought employment, or solicited contributions in the specified areas. Council Member Ojakian understood the proposed ordinance applied to people who solicited and not for people engaged in other forms of communication. He asked where people would be able to solicit.
07/19/99 88-422
Mr. Dwyer said the only place people could not solicit was in a place that constituted a hazard. He believed there was another ordinance passed that prohibited soliciting in City parking lots. The proposed ordinance only addressed medians and entrances to driveways. People could solicit from anywhere else in the City. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the proposed ordinance prohibited soliciting from vehicles. The ordinance did not prohibit solicitation from another pedestrian or soliciting door-to-door. The proposed ordinance targeted vehicles and covered all streets.
The definition of Αstreet≅ was designed to include sidewalks. Coverage was broad in the sense of directing solicitation at vehicles; however, the ordinance was narrow in that the only audience covered was vehicle occupants. Staff did not research what kinds of displays would constitute solicitation. Courts were clear in that the lack of empirical evidence was not a barrier. The court was specific in noting that the government did not need to wait for accidents to justify safety regulations. Council Member Eakins said that vehicle maneuvers such as a vehicle suddenly stopping were not covered in the proposed ordinance. She asked whether there were laws that covered vehicles that stopped suddenly or slowed down excessively. Mr. Dwyer believed there were no ordinances that covered vehicles slowing down or stopping suddenly. There were some ordinances that remotely applied, such as parking ordinances that prohibited parking in the street or driveway; however, there were no laws that directly applied to the situation. Council Member Eakins believed that the ordinance was one-sided and targeted the solicitor. She asked where in the ordinance were drivers of vehicles covered. Mr. Dwyer said page 2, of the proposed ordinance, Section
9.45.020(b) stated ΑIt shall be unlawful for any person, while occupying any vehicle on a street, to solicit employment, business, or contributions from pedestrian or from occupants of other
vehicles . . .≅
Mr. Calonne said the definition of Αsolicit≅ was defined to include both a request and an offer. If a person in a vehicle stopped to offer the solicitor money, it would be considered soliciting under the definition of the proposed ordinance. The vehicle code prohibited stopping in certain locations including crosswalks, in front of driveways and on sidewalks; therefore, the situation of entering a parking lot and stopping on a sidewalk would be a violation of the vehicle code. Council Member Schneider asked for examples of ordinances passed that were the result of a citizen complaint or seen as a necessity.
07/19/99 88-423
Mr. Dwyer did not have the information but would look into it. Mr. Calonne said the City did not wait for an accident when it adopted an ordinance requiring helmets and pads at the skate board bowl. Council Member Huber said there was a person who stood in the Palo Alto Town and Country Shopping Center parking lot at the entrance to Embarcadero Road. He believed the individual was on private
property and not on the City=s sidewalk. He clarified that the proposed ordinance would not affect people standing on private property. Mr. Dwyer said the ordinance would not affect people on private property. Vice Mayor Wheeler said staff was aware of other ordinances that contained prohibitions of soliciting in commercial parking lots and that staff chose to narrowly define the proposed ordinance. She asked what the rational was for the decision. Mr. Dwyer said the direction that staff received from the Council dealt with traffic safety. Staff limited its efforts and recommendations to traffic safety. There were other issues associated with soliciting on private property that staff might be asked to review in the future; however, staff did not think that the matter regarding private property was within the purview of the proposed ordinance which is why staff limited its efforts. Council Member Mossar asked why a group of people with picket signs were not a traffic safety issue. Mr. Dwyer said that people with picket signs were not addressed in the proposed ordinance because they were not trying to conduct a business transaction. Council Member Mossar clarified that all group activities in certain places where there was high traffic volume had a potential for traffic safety problems. Mr. Dwyer said yes. City Attorney Calonne said there was a difference in the scope of what the City could regulate when dealing with picketing. The proposed ordinance was aimed at a transaction where someone approached a vehicle. While picketing might be a distraction, it did not invite direct contact with the occupant of the vehicle or the person on the sidewalk. Council Member Mossar said that some clarity was required in order for the proposed ordinance to be applied fairly. She asked whether
07/19/99 88-424
a person in costume who waved from the sidewalk to motorists would be prohibited under the proposed ordinance. City Attorney Calonne said solicitation was defined and limited to asking people to engage in a business transaction, employment, or donation; therefore, inviting someone to do business in a store would be considered soliciting. Council Member Mossar asked whether it would be permissible for a homeless person to stand in a median if he/she were not asking for money. Mr. Dwyer said the matter was not addressed by the proposed ordinance. Council Member Mossar asked whether standing on a median was addressed by other ordinances. Mr. Dwyer was not aware of any ordinances that addressed standing on a median. Council Member Kniss said the issue of permanency was discussed previously. There were certain times of the year when things were done; for example, signs posted by Gamble Garden that indicated a greenery sale. She asked whether there was a way to differentiate between people who stood in a certain place for panhandling and people who solicited on a intermittent basis. Mr. Dwyer said there was no way to differentiate between people who panhandled regularly and people who solicited on an intermittent basis. The proposed ordinance would be applied fairly and equally to everyone in the same way.
Council Member Kniss said attachment ΑA≅ of the staff report (CMR:201:99) dealt with two cities: Mountain View and Sunnyvale. Mountain View and Sunnyvale each adopted ordinances in 1997 and, although information was not available, the problem was alleviated. She presumed the problems that existed in both cities improved. She asked whether staff had any history from Mountain View or Sunnyvale regarding the implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. Dwyer said Mountain View and Sunnyvale addressed the day labor
situation which was a different issue than Palo Alto=s. Both cities were successful until recently in addressing the problem. The cities south of Palo Alto had more day labor problems than solicitors. The same was true for the City of San Jose. Council Member Mossar asked where soliciting would be legal with the passage of the proposed ordinance.
07/19/99 88-425
Mr. Dwyer said one could solicit as long as he/she were not within
one of the definitions of Αstreet≅ or Αdriveway≅ and a transaction was not made with a vehicle. Council Member Mossar clarified that one could only solicit from another pedestrian. Mr. Dwyer said yes. The proposed ordinance did not cover private parking lots. Council Member Ojakian clarified that any other private property was not covered by the proposed ordinance. Mr. Dwyer said that was correct.
Mr. Calonne said the definition of Αstreet≅ implied a fairly narrow width; therefore, there might be areas outside the public right-of-way where one might solicit from vehicles lawfully. Council Member Mossar understood that stopping a vehicle to give money to the solicitor was illegal. Mr. Calonne said soliciting was unlawful when a vehicle parked within the public right-of-way to solicit; however, if someone was soliciting from a park it would be legal for the vehicle to park lawfully and walk into the park. Council Member Mossar asked what happened if a person was panhandling in a park and a citizen called to complain. Mr. Dwyer said no law was violated if the person was only panhandling. Council Member Huber did not support the P&S Committee recommendation. He believed the proposed ordinance was too broad. There were problem areas that required attention. He was prepared to support an ordinance that specifically required signage or posting in areas that were dangerous, both on public and private commercial property. Mr. Calonne said the concept was clear; however, identifying the problem areas would take time. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct staff to draft a similar ordinance focusing on problem areas, including posting signs on public, private, and commercial lots, and to return to Council with a recommendation. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. She urged the Council to approve the motion so that it could indicate whether focusing on problem areas and posting signs was a more reasonable way to address the problem.
07/19/99 88-426
Vice Mayor Wheeler was concerned about the specificity of certain areas that were discussed and the potential of moving the problem from the public sector into the private sector. She believed the direction taken would resolve one of her concerns; however, she was unsure whether she would support the proposed ordinance once it was brought back to the Council. Council Member Rosenbaum said staff already did work trying to determine where unsafe areas were; therefore, he did not support the motion. Council Member Mossar was concerned with traffic safety. The original motion was too broad. She was more comfortable with the motion because it dealt mainly with traffic issues. She did not know whether she would support the revised ordinance when it was brought back to the Council.
Council Member Eakins agreed with Council Member Huber=s suggestion that the areas needed to be posted. She asked whether the ordinance required listing the posted areas since the areas would change from time to time. She believed that the thinking that cellphones were more dangerous was not the point.
Council Member Schneider supported Council Member Huber=s suggestion. She believed that posting in both commercial and private properties made sense. Mayor Fazzino supported the motion. There were medians that obviously required regulation. He witnessed an incident at the Alma Street/El Camino Real median where a driver stopped to give money to a solicitor. The driver actually drove onto the median, forcing the solicitor into the northbound lane of traffic. He believed that people soliciting in the medians were true traffic safety issues. He clarified that the Council was focusing on behavior that might cause a vehicle to stop, creating an unsafe situation. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum Αno.≅ City Manager Fleming asked for clarification as to whether the Council wanted the matter returned to the P&S Committee or to the Council. Mayor Fazzino directed staff to return the item to the Council. COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Council Member Mossar spoke regarding ΑEarth Day 2000.≅
07/19/99 88-427
Council Member Schneider announced that her letter of resignation
would be presented to the City Clerk=s office effective July 20, 1999.
Mayor Fazzino said that Council Member Schneider=s resignation would be discussed at the Monday, July 26, 1999, City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 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.
07/19/99 88-428