HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-02 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
August 2, 2004
Special Meeting ......................................................................................77
1. Proclamations Welcoming the Albi, France and American Exchange
Students .......................................................................................79
2. Proclamations Welcoming the Oaxaca, Mexico and American Exchange
Students .......................................................................................79
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. .................................79
Regular Meeting .....................................................................................80
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator.....................................................80
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................80
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................................81
2. Ordinance 4837 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Adding Section 2.40.080 to Chapter 2.40 (Municipal Elections) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Limiting the Use of City Titles
in City Ballot Measures” (1st Reading 07/12/2004, Passed 8-0, Kishimoto absent). .....81
3. Ordinance 4838 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Section 22.08.390 of Chapter 22.08 of Title 2 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Rename the South Of Forest Coordinated
Area Plan Phase I Park as Palo Alto Heritage Park” (1st Reading 07/12/2004,
Passed 8-0, Kishimoto absent) ...................................................................81
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and J.J.R. Construction, Inc. in
the Amount of $694,000 for Fiscal Year 2004-05 Sidewalk
Replacement Phase 1 – Capital Improvement Program Project #PO-89003 ...........................................................................................81
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and G & G Builders Inc. in the
Amount of $374,794 for Eleanor Pardee and Hoover Park Safety and
08/02/04 98-77
Americans with Disabilities Act Improvements and Irrigation
Improvements ...............................................................................81
6. Recommendation to Approve Fee Waiver for Sign Replacement and
Landscaping of Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo ...............................81
7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Keyser Marston Associates
Inc. in the Amount of $137,085 for Analyses to Support the City of
Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program ...................................81
8. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3148873 Between the City of Palo
Alto and SCS Field Services in the Amount of $21,054 per Year for
Services Associated with New Regulatory Requirements for Landfill
Flare Stack Testing and Title V Monitoring and Certification Reports .....82
9. The Policy and Services Committee Forwards without Recommendation
the Draft Scope of Services for an Environmental Impact Report for
the Proposed Environmental Services Center (ESC) ...........................82
10. Colleagues Memo from Vice Mayor Burch and Council Members Ojakian
and Freeman re Financial Information Regarding Award of Lease at
445 Bryant Street ..........................................................................94
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .........................97
11. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation ............................97
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: ............................................................................97
08/02/04 98-78
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:45 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Kleinberg, Kishimoto, Morton, Mossar,
Ojakian
ABSENT: Freeman
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Proclamations Welcoming the Albi, France and American Exchange
Students
2. Proclamations Welcoming the Oaxaca, Mexico and American Exchange
Students
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
08/02/04 98-79
Regular Meeting
August 2, 2004
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:02 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar,
Ojakian
ABSENT: Freeman
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. to a Closed Session.
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the
Merit System Rules and Regulations (Frank Benest, Leslie Loomis)
Employee Organization: Unrepresented Employee Group:
Management Professional Employees Authority: Government Code
section 54957.6(a)
The Council reconvened at 7:20 p.m. to the regular City Council meeting.
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters concerning labor
negotiations with the Management Professional Employees, as described in
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mayor Beecham announced there was no reportable action taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Seth Yatovitz, 207 High Street, spoke regarding finances.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government.
Norman Carroll, Emerson & University, spoke regarding Proposition 209.
Dieter Folta, Palo Alto spoke regarding Mr. Hopkins.
Enid Pearson, Forest Court, thanked the Council for adding her name to the
Arastradero Park.
Samuel Peterson spoke regarding Yank newspaper.
08/02/04 98-80
Paul Grimsrud, 3955 Bibbits Drive, spoke regarding electric power facilities.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
the minutes of June 28, 2004, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Freeman absent, Kishimoto abstaining.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-8.
LEGISLATIVE
2. Ordinance 4837 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Adding Section 2.40.080 to Chapter 2.40 (Municipal Elections) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Limiting the Use of City Titles
in City Ballot Measures” (1st Reading 07/12/2004, Passed 8-0, Kishimoto absent).
3. Ordinance 4838 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Section 22.08.390 of Chapter 22.08 of Title 2 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Rename the South Of Forest Coordinated
Area Plan Phase I Park as Palo Alto Heritage Park” (1st Reading 07/12/2004,
Passed 8-0, Kishimoto absent).
ADMINISTRATIVE
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and J.J.R. Construction, Inc. in
the Amount of $694,000 for Fiscal Year 2004-05 Sidewalk
Replacement Phase 1 – Capital Improvement Program Project #PO-
89003
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and G & G Builders Inc. in the
Amount of $374,794 for Eleanor Pardee and Hoover Park Safety and
Americans with Disabilities Act Improvements and Irrigation
Improvements
6. Recommendation to Approve Fee Waiver for Sign Replacement and
Landscaping of Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Keyser Marston Associates
Inc. in the Amount of $137,085 for Analyses to Support the City of
Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program
08/02/04 98-81
8. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3148873 Between the City of Palo
Alto and SCS Field Services in the Amount of $21,054 per Year for
Services Associated with New Regulatory Requirements for Landfill
Flare Stack Testing and Title V Monitoring and Certification Reports
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3-8, Freeman absent.
MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 for Item No. 2, Freeman absent, Kishimoto
abstaining.
Council Member Kishimoto said she abstained from voting on Item No. 2
because she was not present at the July 12, 2004, Council meeting for the
first reading and did not partake in the discussion.
Council Member Kleinberg thanked staff for bringing forward the Keyser
Marston Associates Analysis to support the City of Palo Alto’s Below Market
Rate (BMR) Housing Program.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
9. The Policy and Services Committee Forwards without Recommendation
the Draft Scope of Services for an Environmental Impact Report for the
Proposed Environmental Services Center (ESC)
Council Member Kishimoto said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee
reviewed the item on May 19, 2004. She gave a summary of what had
transpired at the meeting stating that Public Works Director Glenn Roberts
and Senior Planner Virginia Warheit gave a presentation regarding the
Baylands Master Plan and the Byxbee Master Plan. Ms. Warheit had said
the parklands were dedicated in 1965 and in 1978; the Baylands Master Plan was adopted and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
The Baylands Master Plan balanced the competing needs of the land for
facilities that housed the Regional Wastewater Quality Control Plant
(RWQCP), Municipal Service Center (MSC), the airport, and parklands that
were divided into passive and active recreational areas along Embarcadero
Road. A major part of the plan was the Pastoral Park created from landfill
and provided a panoramic view of the entire South Bay and surrounding
marshlands. The main difference in the two motions that resulted at the
P&S Committee meeting was whether the 19-acre proposal would remain or
not. Three alternatives were added to the Scope of Services: 1) a study on
active recreational uses; 2) regional and interjurisdictional cooperation; and
3) a commitment to minimize the impact on parkland.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison clarified that Council was being asked
08/02/04 98-82
to approve a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant to perform an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She said alternatives could be added or
deleted from the drafted RFP. The City Auditor was asked to provide
additional information on the Proposed Environmental Services Center (ESC)
agendized for October 18, 2004. A contract would not be awarded until
after Council met with the City Auditor.
Public Works Director Glenn Roberts said the landfill would close in 2011 and
questioned the future of Palo Alto’s solid waste programs once the landfill
closed. There had been a plan in existence for the past 30- to 40-years to
convert landfill into parkland. Staff raised concerns regarding program
functions that complied with State laws in recycling, community values of
sustainability and waste reduction, and support of the Refuse Fund in a cost-
effective manner. If the land converted to parkland, all programs would
disappear and would no longer be under Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. He gave a
summary of the proposed ESC project, as outlined in staff report
(CMR:364:04)
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie gave an
overview of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. He said the
EIR was an objective description of the potential impacts the ESC would
have. The analysis provided necessary information for making decisions and
placing mitigation measures on a proposed project, which included a list of
feasible alternatives with extensive versions of the project, alternative sites
for the project, and a no project alternative. Upon the approval of an RFP,
staff would return with recommendations from the environmental consultant.
The final contract and Scope of Services would be prepared for Council’s
consideration. A scoping session would be held with the general public and
stakeholders with input taken prior to the preparation of an environmental
analysis. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) would be publicized through
mailings, publications, and other means to reach the public and stakeholders. NOP comments would be considered in the Draft EIR, which
would be circulated to all interested parties. Comments would be taken and
the EIR finalized. It would return to Council for consideration prior to placing
the ESC before the voters as an amendment to the Park Improvement
Ordinance.
Mayor Beecham declared the public hearing open.
Alexandra Mayer, 1427 Byron Street, supported an EIR including a green
park and a 19-acre facility. She described her vision of a “sustainability
center.” She said the site would be perfect for a recycling and educational
facility. The facility could include exhibits to educate the public on all facets
of caring for the earth. The recycling programs would remain. The ESC
could be named the Environment and Recycling Teaching Headquarters
08/02/04 98-83
(EARTH). The EARTH would be an extension of the Park, bringing park
people and the recycling people together.
Walter Hays, 355 Parkside Drive, echoed Ms. Mayer’s comments. The
Center would be a recycling and sustainability center where people could
learn and tour the ESC and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(RWQCP). Waste reduction and environmental justice were key portions of
any concept of sustainability. He was in favor of an EIR and getting the
facts before making a decision on the project and urged Council to approve
an RFP.
Clark Akatiff, 105 Rinconada, was in favor of the ESC project. He said to
reject the project meant not having a waste facility in Palo Alto and waste
would need to be disposed elsewhere.
Steve Mullen, 10 Phillips Road, said the ESC project would help improve and
maintain the environment.
Trish Mulvey, 527 Rhodes, was in support of circulating an RFP for all options
including the 19-acre facility. The RFP would give Council and the public
information necessary in making their decision should the project require a
vote.
Michael Closson, Executive Director of Acterra, 354 Poe Street, said Acterra’s
Board agreed to endorse the preparation of an EIR as long as it included a
waste reduction alternative. He was reluctant to support the EIR because
the concept was not comprehensive enough on dealing with waste. He felt
the ESC would limit other alternatives. Recycling may be a solution but to
the wrong problem. Landfills fill up and resources become increasingly
scarce. “Zero Waste” was a new emerging field and he offered to organize
a Study Session for Council and staff to explore the new concept.
Council Member Mossar asked Mr. Closson whether the concerns he noted
were Acterra’s views or his personal comments.
Mr. Closson clarified those were his personal comments and the Board
endorsed the idea of pursuing an EIR as long as it had a significant waste
reduction alternative.
Jeanette Marquess, 806 Los Robles Avenue, urged Council to reject the EIR
and seek alternative services not including any part of the Baylands. She
said open space was in short supply. Locating the ESC at the Baylands
would eliminate any hope of configuring the Baylands to meet park,
recreation, and open space needs for the citizens in Palo Alto.
08/02/04 98-84
Edie Keating, 3553 Alma Street, spoke regarding the intrusive noise the ESC
would create and the site not fitting aesthetically in the Baylands.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, did not support processing an EIR
and addressed the noise issues the ESC would create.
Jean McCown, Member Board of Directors, Government Action Committee,
Chamber of Commerce, 527 Seale Avenue, supported authorizing a RFP to
keep the process moving forward.
David Coale, 766 Josina Avenue, supported the processing of an EIR. He
urged Council to broaden the scope of the EIR, making it more
comprehensive to include the surrounding community should it require a
vote on trading parkland for the ESC site.
Betsy Allyn, Willmar Drive, said she would not support having the ESC
project on dedicated parkland or near the Bay. She proposed the continued
use of the SMaRT Station, an agreement on the Los Altos land, providing full
curbside recycling services, eliminating composting, or moving the process
elsewhere.
Enid Pearson, Forest Court, said the ESC operations did not belong in the
Baylands and would permanently destroy part of the Park. She urged
Council to end the recycling operations and reaffirm that the ESC become
parkland. She asked Council to say “no” to the Public Works Department’s
proposal and direct staff to ensure that Palo Alto become a full partner in the
regional garbage effort and use the SMaRT Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill
to the fullest extent.
Ellie Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, asked Council to reject the plan
and not take 19 acres of parkland.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, did not support the project. She urged
Council not to use parkland for an industrial processing plant. It would have
long-term adverse impacts on the Baylands.
Ellen Fletcher, 777-San Antonio Road, urged Council to go forward with the
RFP. She said an EIR would provide information on impacts and ramifications
needed to determine the future construction of the ESC site.
Douglas B. Maran, 790 Matadero Avenue, did not support moving forward on
the EIR. He felt the presentation contributed more concerns to such a
complex issue and preferred to wait for the City Auditor’s Report to help get
a more reasonable structure for the EIR.
08/02/04 98-85
Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, asked Council to consider waiting for
the City Auditor’s Report before scoping an EIR to see what worked. She
suggested establishing a policy for the future partnership with Sunnyvale
and Mountain View and to add to the alternate sites list industrial land that
could be purchased with the Refuse Fund. She cautioned the Council to be
aware of Waste Management Inc. (WMI) asking Palo Alto to give up parkland
in the future for a transfer station and making it into a profit center when
the Oakland plant reached its capacity.
Annette Glanckopf, 2247 Bryant Street, said she was against the location of
the ESC facilities in the Baylands.
Bob Wenzlau, 1409 Dana Avenue, encouraged Council to explore the options
offered in the EIR and to use the community’s resources to accommodate
the preservation and resource recovery goals.
Thomas Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, was not in agreement with the
proposal. He advised hiring an outside solid waste expert rather than having
an EIR to look for alternatives that had not been proposed.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, suggested waiting for City Auditor’s Report
before going forward with the EIR.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mr. Roberts clarified points raised in the testimony. He said WMI was not
involved in the project. It was totally a staff initiative since 1998 and prior
to WMI purchasing the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO). He
confirmed the reduced scope alternative acreage was smaller than the 7.5
acres of composting facilities. He addressed the concern regarding the
environmental analysis and the first time using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedure that had two baseline conditions. One was
comparing the noise level of the existing landfill operations and the other to
the future use of parklands.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
the staff recommendation to proceed with issuing a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for a consultant to perform an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the Proposed Environmental Services Center (ESC).
Council Member Morton said it was important for the RFP to contain the 19-
acre option and to not preclude the possibility of a study that was important
to the community. He wanted to insure the continuation of the 14,000 tons
of curbside recovery and the 27,000 tons staff recycled from the landfill.
The 19 acres bordered on a sewage treatment plant and was an appropriate
08/02/04 98-86
location for a recycle program. It included composting and methane recovery
that were environmental functions. He felt the community needed to know
the impacts and requirements necessary to preserve the functions and it was
Council’s responsibility to provide the information in order to make an
informed choice. He requested the EIR include ESC impacts at the Baylands
and explore alternatives of accommodating the site functions elsewhere in
the community.
Council Member Mossar said there was a lot of conversation about what the
public needed to do in order to make changes to open space uses. The EIR
should provide information on the impacts and mitigations to determine
whether to keep or transport the garbage to other communities. The need
to deal with community waste was a real need the community had. She
supported staff’s recommendation.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Cordell, to
approve the scope of work with exclusion of the 19-acre proposal.
Council Member Kishimoto said in 1999, Brown, Vence, and Associates
(BVA) developed a conceptual feasibility study that showed a 6.2-acre area
could house a material recovery facility transfer station, a small composting
facility, a small wood-chip processing area, and a Household Hazard Waste
(HHW) facility at the landfill and handle 100 percent of the City’s recycling
and waste without utilizing the SMaRT Station. She could not justify keeping
the 19-acre proposal when it involved dedicated parkland. The EIR was
being done out of sequence. The BVA report confirmed her reason for
excluding the 19-acre proposal.
Council Member Cordell supported the amendment but raised concerns
regarding the process, which was flawed. The Auditor’s financial analysis
should have preceded and not followed the development of the Scope of Services. Staff informed Council that “time was of the essence” and felt a
matter with major significance was presented in a rush and pressured
manner. The Council needed all the essential information to make the right
decisions since it would have major impacts on the Baylands. EIR’s identify a
project and it was not a study giving equal weight to all of the alternatives.
She said a 6.2-acre site for the ESC needed to be explored other than having
it located in the Baylands and for staff to develop an aggressive source
reduction strategy.
Vice Mayor Burch said he would not support the amendment and reminded
Council the action to be taken at the meeting was to vote for or against an
RFP.
Mayor Beecham opposed the amendment. He said it was important to have
08/02/04 98-87
for the community all available information on the options. He supported
the original amendment.
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-5, Cordell, Kishimoto, Kleinberg yes, Freeman
absent.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved to consider
recommendations by PARC to include in alternatives the reconfiguration of
golf course to accommodate recycling and transfer station, playing fields and
other public facilities, while retaining the 18-hole course. It would be an
alternative to be looked at in the evaluation process that the EIR had
become.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved to direct staff to develop
two feasible sites outside the Baylands as alternatives to evaluate.
Mayor Beecham clarified it was not for staff to develop, but that the
contractor include in the Scope of Work that the EIR include two sites
outside of the Baylands.
Council Member Kleinberg asked to clarify whether it was to examine all
varieties of acreages.
Council Member Kishimoto said to evaluate only six-acre areas.
Mayor Beecham said the clarification was for whatever acreage size that
could be found.
Council Member Morton said the RFP was clear that staff was being asked to look at alternatives. He saw no benefit to limiting it to two, and if staff
wanted to come up with three or four alternatives, it seemed an unnecessary
complication to the RFP. He asked his colleagues to vote for the original
motion.
Council Member Cordell clarified Council Member Kishimoto’s amendment
referenced specifically alternative sites.
Council Member Kishimoto said the process would not get done unless
Council made it very clear and placed great importance to evaluate two
other alternatives outside of the Baylands.
City Attorney Gary Baum said in order to achieve the goal he advised that
the EIR include reasonable alternative sites.
08/02/04 98-88
Council Member Kishimoto said she accepted the suggestion and to use the
EIR as a feasible study.
Mayor Beecham asked if her amendment was to include “reasonable
alternative sites outside the Baylands.”
Council Member Mossar said Council needed to be realistic and understand
there were compromises to be made and should not indicate to the public
that there were funds available to buy land.
Council Member Ojakian asked if staff had comments regarding the BVA
report.
Mr. Roberts said the BVA report was a study that evaluated the acreage. It
proposed leaving the hills intact and not changing the major contours of the
landfill, which would not allow composting and bin storage. In developing
the 19-acre proposal, staff chose to advocate the full spectrum of solid-
waste program needs and the reduced alternatives.
Council Member Ojakian said alternatives resulted from EIR projects but the
proposal was different.
Mr. Emslie said it was different because the EIR preceded a policy decision
on the project.
Council Member Ojakian supported a RFP but had concerns about having a
50- to 75-foot building in the Baylands. He was in agreement of looking at
other options and alternatives.
Council Member Kleinberg supported the amendment and was in agreement of looking at all options and alternatives. She asked whether the amendment
envisioned separating portions of processing sites.
Mr. Roberts said that was a possibility but some of the facilities would need
to be co-located due to operational reasons.
Council Member Kleinberg said the City had small and useful pieces of
properties.
Council Member Morton said he needed a better definition of what
“reasonable alternatives” meant.
Mr. Baum said a better word would be “feasible” as defined by the California
Environment Quality Act (CEQA).
08/02/04 98-89
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the EIR include feasible alternative sites
outside of the Baylands.
Vice Mayor Burch asked if he were correct in understanding the SMaRT
Station would not be replicated in Palo Alto.
Mr. Roberts said there were substantial differences between the SMaRT
Station and what was envisioned for the future facility at the ESC. The
SMaRT Station became operational in 1993 and did not represent the same
concept that staff advocated. The future vision was a next generation
technology with a lead certified building to be environment-friendly. The
SMaRT Station processed 1,500 tons per day of solid-waste, and the future
ESC would handle 350 tons per day or approximately one-quarter or one-
fifth of activity the SMaRT station handled.
Vice Mayor Burch said resource reduction was critical. The City was doing
everything it could to educate the citizens on resource reduction and how to
cut back on waste. He supported the main motion.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what amount of parkland in the Baylands
was the City giving up for the site.
Mr. Roberts said he did know.
Council Member Kleinberg addressed passive recreational use and asked
whether it limited the EIR analysis since it had assumed having only passive
recreational use.
Mr. Baum said it could limit the analysis.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the language needed to be
changed in order to broaden the analysis.
Mr. Baum said the word “passive” could be dropped but was not sure of the
direction of her question.
Council Member Kleinberg said there were several envisioned possibilities for
recreational usage in the Baylands that could or could not be done because
of landfill in terms of active recreation. She did not want the EIR to preclude
those types of possible actions.
Mr. Baum suggested changing the word “passive” to “recreation.”
08/02/04 98-90
Council Member Morton said the motion was being moved from usage of the
19 acres into a larger area of parkland. He would not accept the
amendment.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether a value analysis could be done on
the undeveloped land.
Mr. Roberts asked whether she was asking for an evaluation of the land as if
it were neither landfill nor land for the ESC use and to remain as parkland.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what the value of the parkland was in
terms of community asset and if the alternative was to remain as parkland.
Mr. Roberts said a cost benefit analysis would be completed as part of
evaluation and clarified the intent was to compare the value of the parkland
use versus the value of the ESC use.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Cordell, to
remove the word “passive” in areas that speak to passive recreation in the
analysis.
Council Member Morton said he understood the issue of passive and non-
passive activities in the large area but could not understand how it would
apply to the 19 acres.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what the value of the parkland would be if
the 19 acres were used for recreational parkland and the ESC was not built.
Council Member Morton asked whether it was to determine the value if it
were used for recreational parkland.
Council Member Kleinberg said she did not want to limit it to passive.
Council Member Morton asked Council Member Kleinberg if she was
questioning the value of the 19 acres as parkland to allow active and passive
recreation. He said he would need to turn to staff before he could accept the
amendment.
Council Member Mossar said she would not accept the amendment.
Mr. Roberts said in terms of evaluating passive open space, staff could
review the Los Altos Treatment Plant site appraisal and determine the value
of adjacent open space. There would be a problem with the landfill portion
since it was not suitable for active recreational use.
08/02/04 98-91
Council Member Kleinberg said it was not whether the 19 acres could be
used for other recreation but by placing the ESC on the land would it
preclude nearby active recreational usage. She felt the word “passive”
limited the analysis.
Council Member Mossar said her non-acceptance of the amendment was
because the motion introduced another complicated policy issue of playing
fields in the Baylands. It was controversial, and she did not want the EIR to
be the vehicle to address the issue.
AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Cordell, Kleinberg yes, Freeman absent.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved to add the wording in the
Scope of Services under Task 4, “The cost analyses shall include but not be
limited to:” and then the descriptive bullet points so it was not a limitation
but a exemplar of what could be done.
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF MAKER AND
THE SECONDER to change the wording in the Attachment G Scope of
Services under Task 4 in CMR:364:04, from “The cost benefit analyses shall
include:” to “Should include but not be limited to:”
Council Member Kleinberg said the RFP for an EIR generated a proposal that
would turn into the public’s vote to undo parkland. She suggested having an
educational sustainability center separate from the ESC. She addressed Mr.
Clossen’s “Zero Waste” approach and asked why have an ESC if there was
zero waste. She would vote for the RFP if the EIR provided all the facts she
was looking for and looked forward to seeing the factual analysis.
Council Member Kishimoto asked for clarification on the constraints placed
on the BVA Report. The calculated figures were used to design the facility, to size refuse receiving storage, and to process and transfer operations. The
report covered all scenarios, including the 100 percent processing on a 6.2-
acre site. She asked why the report, that had been commissioned and paid
for, was not taken more seriously into consideration. She expanded on the
cost and issues incurred in acquiring and developing alternative outside
sites. She said in December 2001, when the other half of the Los Altos
Water Treatment Plant was acquired, the Refuse Reserve Fund had $11.1
million. It was her understanding that the fund was reduced to $2.2 million.
The amendment she was going to suggest actually fed into Council Member
Kleinberg’s suggestion to add an alternative to evaluate aggressive source
reduction strategies to reduce the need for recycling and refuse
management land.
Council Member Morton said he would not accept Council Member
08/02/04 98-92
Kishimoto’s suggested amendment. What was being asked was to evaluate
the possibilities in terms of land usage.
Mayor Beecham suggested asking staff to return with an assessment of how
to reduce the waste and to incorporate the assessment into the needs for
the ESC. He asked staff to clarify the recommendation that needed to be
voted on.
Ms. Harrison said staff’s recommendation was only to proceed with issuing
an RFP for a consultant to perform an EIR for an ESC.
Mayor Beecham said there were two incorporations to the motion: 1) to
include feasible alternative sites outside the Baylands; and 2) Under Task 4,
that the cost benefit analyses be clarified to include but not be limited to the
list.
MOTION PASSED 6-2, Cordell, Kishimoto no, Freeman absent.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Beecham, for
staff to return to the Council with a strategic plan on waste reduction and
management to be scheduled before approval of the Environmental Service
Center (ESC) Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Ms. Harrison asked if Council wanted to bring back the strategic plan at the
time the EIR results came back.
Mayor Beecham said Council needed the time to work on the strategic plan.
Ms. Harrison said staff would bring it back during the processing of the EIR.
Council Member Kleinberg asked if reducing landfill from house demolition
was in the works.
Mr. Roberts said yes. Staff could report back in the interim on the current
programs and activities and follow up with additional initiatives.
Council Member Kishimoto said Palo Alto prided itself on being leaders. Palo
Alto was down to 55 percent diversion that was barely above the State’s
minimum. If Palo Alto could achieve a 15 percent renewable rate by 2015,
75 percent could be reached. She hoped aggressive goals could be set
rather than adding small programs in increments. Recycling was extremely
expensive in terms of economic, land and environmental resources. A great
emphasis should be made on waste reduction.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Freeman absent.
08/02/04 98-93
COUNCIL MATTERS
10. Colleagues Memo from Vice Mayor Burch and Council Members Ojakian
and Freeman re Financial Information Regarding Award of Lease at 445
Bryant Street
Council Member Ojakian said Council Member Freeman, Vice Mayor Burch,
and he asked Council to direct staff to come back with a financial report on
the property located on 445 Bryant Street.
Neal Aronson, 150 Waverley Street, said fitness facilities drew its members
from a five-mile radius. He advised Council to not base their decision on
new revenue that would be brought to the community by the new facility.
Overhead was a large part of the fitness balance sheet. For the City to offer
a full profit business a subsidy in rent of an already competitive market
place, other fitness businesses would suffer economically. Council
established criteria for an RFP, which was executed by staff. If the Council
did not like the results, their responsibility would be to reject all the
applications and bids, revise the RFP and go back out to the market. To
reject the process, the results and recommendations, and not to start over
was not fair to the RFP, to the losers, and taxpayers who would bare the
burden of a hasty decision. Anything less than market rate was a subsidy
and on the back of other services provided.
Sabena Puri, 786 W. Greenwich Place, said a fair decision was not made on
445 Bryant Street. Her party came through with a higher bid than Form
Fitness and was voided. She believed the information provided by the
fitness center created confusion. The City informed her that maximization of
lease income was the key criteria for evaluating the bids. She urged Council
to look at the numbers because the conclusion was inaccurate. In cumulative
cash flows for the City, the higher rent generated sales tax and capital investment results from Crimson Palate, Inc. DBA Saffron Club Restaurant
(Saffron), which would generate 41 percent or $1.2 million more than Form
Fitness. Saffron’s bid was 26 percent higher. Fitness centers catered to
clients that lived within a 4- to 5- mile radius from the facility. Saffron was
not limited to a small geographic area and would attract clients throughout
the Bay Area. She urged Council to reconsider the decision that was made
on July 19. 2004.
Neeraj Bharadwaj disagreed with the July 19 decision. He said it was flawed
for three reasons: 1) Council’s discussion ignored the time value of rental
payments. Saffron’s rent started at $3 per square foot, which was 62
percent higher than Form Fitness; 2) Council did not factor in sales tax
revenues from Saffron. Saffron would bring in $40,000 per year and Form
Fitness would not generate sales tax revenues; and 3) Council did not factor
08/02/04 98-94
benefits from tenant improvements to the City. As per the proposals, the
City needed to pay $295,000 for Saffron improvements versus $74,000 for
Form Fitness. Saffron’s contribution was $1 million from its own capital for
tenant improvements for handicap access, sprinkler systems, and
restrooms; three times what the City was providing. The City would benefit
from the tenant improvements at the end of the lease. Saffron would
generate $1.2 million more than Form Fitness in net cash flow to the City
than Form Fitness over the 10-year period. He encouraged Council to award
the lease to Saffron.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the restaurant expressed their concern of
Council making a decision on criteria different than what they were asked to
submit a proposal on. He felt the reason why the two conversations
happened was because Council never approved the Request for Proposal
(RFP). He said staff never gave Council a response that directly answered
the policies and procedures and who had the authority to decide what was in
the RFP. Council was prohibited from giving responders a fair hearing if
Council was not the body that set the terms through the proposal. There
was the question as to whether the public noticing requirement was followed
of advertising the RFP, and the June 19 hearing, in an adjudicated
newspaper.
Norman Carroll, Emerson & University, said there were 90 eating-places in
the Downtown Area and five were non-operating restaurant sites not
requiring subsidies from the City and could pay market rent. Form Fitness
was an existing business growing in the same market it served and only
required $25,000 for improvements. If vacated, it would cost less to
renovate for a new tenant and would cost the same if the new tenant were a
restaurant.
Sassan Goldfsham, 203 Forest Avenue, supported Form Fitness. He said gyms put in bathrooms, showers, walls, and the equipment occupied the
remaining space. Restaurants had all the valuable improvements if occupied
by another restaurant; otherwise there was the expense of removing all of
the equipment.
Council Member Morton said staff was directed to review the proposal. Two
proposals were presented. Council had the ability to review the proposals
and decide who should be awarded the lease and would be subsidized by the
City. The decision was based on how the community would benefit. In
reviewing the financial data, he was not convinced to add another restaurant
in the area. Realtors expressed the need to increase office occupancy.
Restaurants could not be filled if office buildings were unoccupied.
Downtown sales tax was generated through full occupancy. Major space
owners in the community were in favor of Form Fitness because that type of
08/02/04 98-95
business offered enhancement to long-term office tenants.
Council Member Mossar echoed Council Member Morton’s comments and
would not support another restaurant. She read from Mr. Bill Rueller’s
correspondence, which stated that in evaluating alternatives, risk and
financial returns must be considered and because of the risk factor, he would
not consider investing in interior improvements that were very costly and
very specialized. Flexibility was the key. She wanted future Councils to have
the flexibility and to not get driven into one restaurant tenant after another
because of the capital investment required from the first restaurant.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to direct
staff to return in September, prior to Council action to award the lease with
the following:
a. A comparison of the overall economic benefits provided to the
General Fund by both proposals over the 10-year term of the
lease, including General Fund sales tax revenue generated;
b. A comparison of the net cost to the General Fund for both
proposals over the 10-year term of the lease. This would take
into account the difference in the debt service over the ten-year
life of the lease resulting from the difference in tenant
improvements paid out of the bond proceeds;
c. Information regarding an appropriate valuation methodology to
compare the two proposals over their 10-year lease term (e.g.
net present value, net future value, etc.)
Council Member Ojakian said it was important that Council and the public
clearly know the financial situation.
Vice Mayor Burch said it was not Council’s position to decide on a restaurant or a fitness club but to look at the financials and what would provide the
greatest yield to the City on its investment.
Council Member Cordell said when the matter was voted on previously, there
was strong disagreement. The Colleague’s Memo implied the Council
Members who voted for the fitness center did not fully understand what was
being considered. They understood. She felt the only reason to bring a
matter back to Council, once it was voted on, was if there was new and
different information to be presented. Council’s decision was based on
dollars and the quality of the business. She was not supportive of reopening
the matter.
Mayor Beecham would not support reopening the matter and agreed with
Council Member Cordell.
08/02/04 98-96
MOTION FAILED 2-6, Burch, Ojakian yes, Freeman absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Kleinberg noted she and other Council Members had
received an anonymous letter with complaints concerning matters in certain
neighborhoods. She confirmed there was a policy not to follow up on
anonymous complaints.
Council Member Ojakian requested the meeting be adjourned in honor of
Jimmy Larkin, born to Patrick and Jennifer Larkin, City of Palo Alto
employees, on July 2, 2004.
Council Member Burch stated Officer William Baldwin died over the past
weekend and noted his 23 years on the Police force. He requested staff
return with a proclamation honoring him and to adjourn the meeting in his
memory.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to a Closed Session.
11. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
Subject: Service Employees' International Union, Local 715 (Miller)
v. City of Palo Alto, CSMCS Case No. Arb.-03-1899
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters concerning
existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 11.
Mayor Beecham announced the following is the City Council’s report
out of that closed session, per Government Code, Section 54957.1(a)(3)(A): City accepts the settlement offer signed by Kirk
Miller. Mr. Miller has waived all existing and future claims in
exchange for $60,000.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m in honor of
Jimmy Larkin, born to Patrick and Jennifer Larkin, City of Palo Alto
employees, on July 2, 2004. Further, the meeting was adjourned in memory
of Officer William Baldwin, a 23-year Palo Alto Police veteran, who died over
the past weekend.
08/02/04 98-97
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.
08/02/04 98-98