Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01061969City Hall Palo Alto, California January 6, 1969 The Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:30 p. rn . in an adjourned meeting from December 16, 1968 with Mayor Arnold presiding. Present: Arnold, Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Diaa, Gallagher, Pearson, Spaeth, Wheatley Absent: Gullixson Park and Recreation Building Use and Regulations Mayor Arnold observed that lengthy discussion and public com- ment had been heard at the November 25 meeting ce acerning the proposed ordinance regarding park and recreation building use regulations and asked for staff comment at this tiine. City Attorney Hildebrand, Director of Community Services Wilson and City Manager Morgan commented on the history of administrative procedures in regard to park regulation, the events leading to pre- sentation of the proposed ordinance on that subject, the expansion of rights of use to groups provided by the exclusive use permit section of the proposed ordinance and formerly in effect under administrative procedure, the desirability of regulating sound levels in inhabited areas adjacent to parks, and the extent to which staff had consulted with groups who might wish to obtain exclusive use permits and with those living or working near the parks who might be affected. Mayor Arnold then called for additional public comment. Gordon Knapp, owner, Palo Alto Apartments, 101 Alrna Street, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. Sant Whiting, 750 Welch Road, Palo Alto, attorney representing Mr. Knapp and the residents of the 100 apartments at 101 Alrna Street, Palo Alto, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. Bob Cullenbine, 921 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, spoke in opposi- tion to the proposed ordinance particularly with regard to regu- lation of wattage of sound amplification equipment to be used at El Camino Park. John Buckley, 600 .Hamilton, Palo Alto, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance particularly with regard to regulation of watt- age of sound amplification equipment to be used at El Camino Park. James Wolpman,- 121 South Ba1aarn i a, Menlo Park, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance particularly with regard to regulation of wattage of sound amplification equipment to be used at El Camino Park. 305 1/6/69 Stanley Weir, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance and urged regulation to control noise created in parks. Harrison Williams, 215 Coleridge, Palo Alto, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. See Page 324 Vic Lovell, 55 Horner Lane, Menlo Park, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Marvin Arbuckle, 1551 El. Camino Real, Palo Alto, spoke in sup- port of the proposed ordinance on behalf of the Lions Club. Robert Palmer, Jr. , 337 Ramona, Palo Alto, printer for Mid Peninsula Free University, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Frank Rack, 186 Walter Hays, Palo Alto, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. Richard Schroeder, 1594 Walnut, Palo Alto, suggested the use of the lBaylands Atheltic Center where unlimited noise is allowed for the MFU "Be Ins". Mrs. Mary Lou Greenberg, 1047 Ramona, Palo Alto, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Robert Swain, 451 University, Palo Alto, suggested decibel levels might be used instead of wattage to limit noise level;. Council comment and question then followed concernang the reli- ability and validity of determining noise levels by decibel ratings, the desirability of providing activity for youth in the community, the necessity of protecting the rights of all citizens in connection - : - - . �e of Cif y_ fa cilitie s, whether or not and with allowing exclusive -u, � a to what extent those obtaining such permite might be liable for damage to those facilities and State law regarding disturbance of the peace.. (The Council recessed from 9:14 to 9:30 p.m.) MOTION: Vice Mayor Dias introduced the following ordinance as presented in Draft 08 and moved, seconded by Beahrs, its approval for first reading: "Ordinance of 'the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to be Desig- nated "Park and Recreation Building Use and Regulations" (Continued from 11/12 and 11/25/68) Mayor Arnold then stated that Councilman Comstock had submitted his memorandum of December 27 to the City Council several pro- posed amendments which he would now present separately. 326 1/b/b9 1 AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Spaeth, that the proposed ordinance be amended as follows: Section 22. 040.020 (d) Section 22. 040.020 (e) Section 22. 040.020 (h) delete everything after "equip- ment including amplifiers" delete everything after "equip- ment including amplifiers" add (h) Noise - dB(A) Noise level shall be specified as decibels - A network. " Section 22. 04. 070 (d) 5. add "5. That the noise of the amplified speech or music will exceed 70 dB(A) in adjoin- ing residential z nes. " CLARIFICATION: In response to question, Councilman Comstock stated that it is the intent of his motion that the decibel determi- nation be made from the road around the park or other facility which is near residential, commercial or industrial property. Discussion followed concerning expert opinion as to whether it is possible to determine accurately noise levels by decibel ratings, the amount of noise which can be made dependent upon quality of speakers used with the 25 watt sound amplification equipment limit set for all parks but the Baylands Athletic Center where there is no limit set on noise. The axnendment failed by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT! _Courcilinaia Comstock moved. seconded by Pearson,' that in Section 22. 04. 040 the initial sentence be changed from -"shall be made" to read "The City's parks may be made.... ". AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN: Upon advice of Assistant City Attorney Stone that changing "shall" to "may" would make the section unconstitutional, since "shall" is directive and leaves no possibility of discrimination against anyone who may wish to use the City's parks on an exclusive use basis, Councilman Comstock, with consent of his second, withdrew his proposed amendment. AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Spaeth, that in Section 22.04. 040 the third sentence be deleted. ("All applications for exclusive use of any park must be signed or co- signed by an adult, which adult shall agree to be responsible for said exclusive use.") In response to question, Mr. Stone advised that exclusive use is in thg nature of a contract and that minors cannot be held respon- sible for contracts. The amendment failed by majority voice vote. 307 1/6/69 AMENDMENT: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Bea lira, that in the first sentence of Section 22.04. 040 "individuals" be changed to "persons". The amendment carried by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Spaeth, that in Section 22. 04.050 all of the last sentence after "twenty day period" be deleted. ("if applicant waives all appeal rights. ") In response to request for legal comment, Mr. Hildebrand and Mr. Stone stated that the subject section allows an applicant for an exclusive use permit to apply within less than ZO days of the day he plans to use it, although there would not be sufficient time for an appeal should he wish to do so, and that otherwise he would have to have his request submitted "not less than twenty nor more than ninety days prior to the proposed use of said park". The amendment failed by majority voice vote. Continue Agenda Items MOTION: Councilman Wheatley moved that the balance of the items on the Agenda of the adjourned meeting of December s 6 be continued until the next Council meeting to be taken up first at that time.. MOTION WITHDRAWN: At the suggestion of Mayor Arnold that, in view of the lateness of the hour, it is unlikely the Council will consider the. items referred to in the motion and, therefore, they will appear first on the Agenda of the Next Council meeting, Councilman Wheatley withdrew hi.s motion. Park and Recreation Building Use and Rejulation - (continued) -_ AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Spaeth, that Section 22.04. 060 (i) be deleted from the proposed ordinance. (Application for exclusive use to include "(i) Estimated number of parking spaces required. ") The amendment failed by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved that in Section 22.04. 070 (a) of the proposed ordinance that "including grounds for denial" be added.. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN: Upon advise of Councilman Clark that the subject is covered elsewhere in the proposed ordinance, Councilman Comstock withdrew his amendment. 308 1/6/69 AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, that in Section 22.04. 120 the last sentence be deleted. ("Right of Appeal The decision of the City Manager shay. be final and binding, and no further appeal shall be taken") The amendment failed by .najority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, that in Section 22.04. 120 the following sentence be added: "The City Manager shall indicate his grounds for denial". The amendment carried by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, to delete Section 22., 04. 140. (' Liabilit All parsons to whom an exclusive use permit has been granted must agree in writing to hold the City harmless and indemnify city from any and all liability for injury to persons or property occurring as a result of the activity spon?o.red by permittee and said per- son shall be liable to the City for any and all damage to parks, facilities and buildings owned by city, which results from the activity of permittee or is caused by any participant in said activity') The amendment failed on the following tie roll call vote: Ayes: Berwald, Comstock, Pearson, Spaeth, Wheatley Noes: Arnold, Beahrs, Clark, Dias, Gallagher AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, to delete Section 22.04. 150 (k). ("No more than two thousand people are permitted in Foothills Park at any one time. ' ) The amendment failed by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, to delete Section 22.04.170. ("Violation of Permit. Violation of any of the terms and conditions of the permit by the permittee, or any agent, servant or employee of the per- rnittee, is a r i sdemeanor. ") The amendment failed by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, to delete the last sentence in Section 22. 04. 240. ("Interference Unless the actual use of table, space, area, building, or facility referred to in any such permit is commenced within one hour after the period covered by such permit begins, such permit shaU thereupon be void and all rights under such permit may be cancelled by the Director.") The amendment failed by majority voice vote. 309 1/6/69 AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Spaeth, that in Section 22.04.070 (d) nos. 2 and 3 be deleted and the remaining paragraphs be renumbered correctly. (Concerns grounds for denial of application: "2. That the parking areao subject to control of the City in and surrounding the park are in- sufficient at the time of requested use. " and "3. That the pro - Posed activity__ is of a size _or nature that requires the diversion of so great a number of police officers of the City to properly - - police the areas, as to hinder police protection to the City.'") At the request of Councilman Wheatley, Mayor Arnold ruled that a separate vote would be taken on each of the two paragraphs. The amendment to delete Paragraph 2. carried by majority voice vote. The amendment to delete Paragraph 3. failed on the following tie roll call vot',: Ayes: Arnold, Berwald, Comstock, Gallagher, Pearson Noes: Beahrs, Clark, Dias, Spaeth, Wheatley AMENDMENT: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Cornstiock, that in Section 22.04. 060 "or services" be inserted afte r "facilities ". The amendment failed by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Berwald moved that in Section 22. 04. 070 (d) that Paragraph 4 be deleted, and in Paragraph 5 to insert after "all" the following: "standard3, guidelines, requirements and" and to add "and to take reasonable measure to insure that all participants similarly comply. " The amendment failed for lack of a second. See Page 324 310 116/69 AMENDMENT: Councilman Berwald moved, and it was duly seconded, to amend the footnotes on page A-1 of Exhibit A as follows: to rewrite the first sentence of (2) to read "ASSEMBLY/ ACTIVITY denotes the maximum number of persons to occupy the park under an exclusive use permit where activities such as badminton, croquet, volleyball, football throwing, softball, Frisbee play, etc. occur for part of the period of such exclusive use"; and to rewrite the first sentence of (2) to read "ASSEMBLY denotes the maximum number of persons to occupy the park under an exclusive use permit where activities of a passive nature not requiring additional space for activities such as noted above. " The amendment carried by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Spaeth moved, seconded by Pearson, that El Camino Park be made available on four Sunday afternoons per year to the youth of the community for music festivals or "Be -Ins", at which time noise ceilings on amplified sound will be waived on said occasion, subject to reasonable regulation by the City. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Councilman i`eahrs moved that the Baylands Athletic Center be substituted for El Camino 1:) ,9e. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN: Upon advice of Mayor Arnold that the proposed ordinance does not set any noise limit on sound at the Bayland Athletic Center at any time, Councilman Beahrs withdrew his amendment to the amendment. MOTION: Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Berwald, to hear from the public although there is a motion before the Council. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Sam Whiting, a.torney representing 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. The amendment failed by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Comstock, to delete Section 2 of the proposed ordinance. The arnendrnent failed by majority voice vote. AMENDMENT: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Comstock, to delete Section 3 of the Tx oposed ordinance. The amendment failed by majority voice -vote. The ordinance as amended then was approved for first reading on the following roil call vote: Ayes: Arnold, Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Dias, Gallagher, Spaeth, Wheatley Noes: Comstock, Pearson Adjournment MOTION: Councilman Wheatley moved, and it was duly second- ed, to adjourn to 7:30 p. m. , Monday, January 13, 1969. 311 1/6/69 The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. The Council adjourned at 12:40 a. m. APPROVED: ATTEST: 312 1/6/69