HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-06 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting March 6, 2000
1. Interviews for Planning and Transportation Commission...........................................................434
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m............................................................434
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS...........................................................435
APPROVAL OF MINUTES...........................................................435
CONSENT CALENDAR...........................................................436
1. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Harris and Associates in the Amount of $72,400 for Consulting Services Related to Parking Structure Assessment and Downtown Maintenance Tax District...........................................................436
2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Morrison and Associates in the Amount of $90,000 for Regional Water Quality Control Plan Public Outreach Program Assistance...........................................................436
3. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Menlo Park Fire Protection District for Automatic Aid into Inter-Jurisdictional Fire Protection Service Zones...........................................................436
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bianchi Construction in the Amount of $130,276 and Approval of Amendment No. 1 to
03/06/00 89-431
Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. for Wilkie Way Bridge Resurfacing...........................................................436
5. Request for an Increase in Change Order Authority with O’Grady Paving for Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway Improvements...........................................................436
6. Ordinance 4618 entitled “Ordinance Amending Section 5.20.290 of Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 (Health and Sanitation) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Providing for Penalties for Violation of Regulations Governing the Collection, Removal, and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials”...........................................................436
7. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, approval of the staff recommendation to: 1) approve the proposed Green Power Program; and 2) adopt a resolution adopting new Utility Rate Schedules............................................................436
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal by Phillip Lally of the Planning Director’s denial of an application to remove a protected Coast Live Oak from a neighboring property located at 734 De Soto...........................................................437
9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Site Development project, application for annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, and prezoning to allow wetlands restoration, construction of a household waste facility, and office and maintenance facility for the City solid waste collection contractor for 1237 and 1275 N. San Antonio Road (former Los Altos Treatment Plant Site)...........................................................438
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Denial, after Review and Recommendations by the Architectural Review Board, of an application for the installation of new awning signage advertising Willow Street Café located at 3398 El Camino Real...........................................................443
11. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Dark Fiber Licensing Services
03/06/00 89-432
...........................................................444
12. Ordinance 4619 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $125,000 to Miller and Van Eaton, L.L.P. for Telecommunications Contract Services”...........................................................446
13. Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Eakins, and Council Members Kleinberg and Lytle re Collaborative Middle School Site Planning with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and Stanford...........................................................445
14. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of March 13, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting...........................................................446
15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements...........................................................446
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m...........................................................446
03/06/00 89-433
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:35 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Planning and Transportation Commission No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
03/06/00 89-434
Regular Meeting March 6, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding the big 3-mph bicycle stop sign caper. Daryl Reagan, 967 Moreno Avenue, spoke regarding the eruv. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa Avenue, spoke regarding civil campaigns. Tom MacFadyen, 1225-380 Vienna Drive, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding eruv. Toni Tuzzo, 4180 Manuela Avenue, spoke regarding eruv. Jeff Brown, 660 Lincoln Avenue, spoke regarding Palo Alto summer camp registration. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, spoke regarding SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Elsie Beagle, 501 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding historic preservation. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding reality in politics. John Messina, P.O. Box 51148, San Jose, spoke regarding eruv. Sophia Dhrymes, Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding Dan Lorimer. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding South of Forest Area. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the Minutes of January 31, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Beecham “abstaining.”
03/06/00 89-435
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 – 7. 1. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Harris and Associates in the Amount of $72,400 for Consulting Services Related to Parking Structure Assessment and Downtown Maintenance Tax District 2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Morrison and Associates in the Amount of $90,000 for Regional Water Quality Control Plan Public Outreach Program Assistance 3. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Menlo Park Fire Protection District for Automatic Aid into Inter-Jurisdictional Fire Protection Service Zones 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bianchi Construction in the Amount of $130,276 and Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. for Wilkie Way Bridge Resurfacing 5. Request for an Increase in Change Order Authority with O’Grady Paving for Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway Improvements Ordinance 4617 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $30,100 for the Major Intersection Improvements Capital Project Number 19073” 6. Ordinance 4618 entitled “Ordinance Amending Section 5.20.290 of Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 (Health and Sanitation) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Providing for Penalties for Violation of Regulations Governing the Collection, Removal, and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials” (1st Reading 2/14/00,
PASSED 9-0) 7. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council, approval of the staff recommendation to: 1) approve the proposed Green Power Program; and 2) adopt a resolution adopting new Utility Rate Schedules. Resolution 7938 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules E-1-G1, E-1-G2, E-1-G3, E-2-G1, E-2-G2, E-2-G3, E-4-G1, E-4-G2, E-4-G3, E-7-G1, E-7-G2, and E-7-G3 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Residential Green Power Electric Service, Small Commercial Green Power Electric Service, Medium Green Power Electric Service and Large Commercial Green Power Electric Service”
03/06/00 89-436
MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal by Phillip Lally of the Planning Director’s denial of an application to remove a protected Coast Live Oak from a neighboring property located at 734 De Soto (continued from 2/7/00) City Arborist Dave Dockter reviewed the application to remove the tree and found that the tree did not meet the conditions required to remove the tree. There was no other information offered to change the determination; therefore, there was no legal reason to approve the appeal to remove the protected Coast Live Oak. The three criteria which protected trees could be removed were: 1) was the tree dead; 2) was the tree dangerous; and 3) was the tree a hazard to property and life. He presented photographs of the tree in question. The owner of the tree, Mr. Wang, provided a statement in support of removing the tree; however, the tree did not qualify under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to be removed. The tree was safely away from the foundations of both homes and not any danger to the property or infrastructure of the homes. The tree was relatively young and had a long life left. Council Member Ojakian asked how much the tree could be trimmed without causing an issue. Mr. Dockter advised Mr. Lally that the tree could be trimmed. The crown could be lifted from both roofs, and branches could be removed to allow clearance from both structures. The limbs did overhang the roofline; however, the branches and the structure remained safe. Council Member Ojakian clarified trimming back the tree a fair amount would not be an issue. Mr. Dockter said Mr. Lally was allowed to trim the tree 25 percent. P.M. Lally, 738 DeSoto Drive, said the tree was located on the property on 734 Desoto Drive. He spoke with Mr. Wang who had no objection to the removal of the tree. The statements made under criterion 2 created a misleading impression that the tree was not close to the houses. The tree was close to both houses. The trunk was approximately 1 foot from the Wang’s home and 8 feet from the roof of his carport. He could not claim the tree was a public nuisance; however, the tree was a private nuisance. The foliage was dense and grew rapidly. Even if he trimmed the tree, the foliage grew back in a short amount of time. Pruning the tree to give significant relief to the problem of debris would probably disfigure the tree. The debris from the tree accumulated on his roof year-round and inevitably clogged his downspouts. He considered having the tree removed for a few years as it became a
03/06/00 89-437
greater nuisance. The constant maintenance of the tree was a problem. Council Member Mossar lived in a home that had a tree exactly on a property line between two homes. The lots were only 50 feet wide so the homes were close to the tree. The neighbors considered having the tree removed at one time but chose not to. The tree became an asset to the neighborhood and, at one point, the neighbors fought to save the tree. She noted that the tree was pruned in such a way to discourage rampant growth at a reasonable cost. When trimmed vigorously, trees responded with vigorous growth. She suggested professional assistance when pruning the tree would help in addressing Mr. Lally’s issues. The community benefited when trees were maintained instead of removed. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the original protected tree removal application denial. Council Member Lytle agreed with Council Member Mossar. There was pressure throughout the City to remove trees such as street trees that dropped leaves on private property. CANOPY, a nonprofit organization, could connect Mr. Lally with the proper professional or volunteer assistance. Council Member Burch said a city with trees always had debris to clean up from rooftops. It was not feasible to plant all the trees in the City far enough away from buildings to prevent leaves from collecting on roofs. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Site Development project, application for annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, and prezoning to allow wetlands restoration, construction of a household waste facility, and office and maintenance facility for the City solid waste collection contractor for 1237 and 1275 N. San Antonio Road (former Los Altos Treatment Plant Site) Deputy Director of Public Works Michael said the project site was the northeast portion of San Antonio Road and to the north was the flood basin in the Baylands. The site project was divided into three areas: Area A was four acres of undeveloped remnant flue, Area B was 6.64 acres and was the site of the treatment facility, and Area C was mostly undeveloped although there were some industrial buildings present and a metering station. From 1958 to 1972, the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) operated as a wastewater treatment facility for the City of Los Altos. The LATP was currently vacant. At the time the LATP was operating, The cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Los Altos each had its own wastewater facility. In 1968, the cities formed a partnership to
03/06/00 89-438
construct the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The metering station, constructed in 1972, measured the flow from the cities of Mountain View and Los Altos and sent it to the RWQCP. The metering station determined the operation percentage shares for each city. The LATP was abandoned in late 1972 or early 1973 and the majority of the buildings were demolished. In 1984, the City purchased one-half interest in the property for $2.25 million from the Refuse Fund that was paid out over eight years. In 1991, the first of several feasibility studies was conducted to determine future uses with intent of developing a solid waste facility and a transfer station. In 1996, a full initial study was conducted. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was determined, and a wetland delineation was accepted by the Army Corp of Engineers (ACE). In 1997, the Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared and circulated from November 7, 1997, through December 22, 1997. The comment period was extended to January 14, 1998, when the Planning Commission held public hearings. The original proposed project had three primary objectives: 1) a permanent household hazardous waste facility; 2) a solid waste collection contractor’s facility; and 3) a construction of a utilities storage staging yard. On April 17, 1997, preliminary Architectural Review Board (ARB) review was held and although architectural siting, massing, and materials were commented on, the ARB was supportive. The Planning Commission held its public hearing on January 14, 1998, and recommended to the Council that the reduced project alternative be selected. The reduced project alternative removed the utility storage yard from the project. The Planning Commission approved the adequacy of the DEIR and requested staff initiate annexation. The Planning Commission recommended the Comprehensive Plan map amendment from public park to public-owned conservation land and major institution/special facilities as well as pre-zoning to the public facilities zoning district for the site design overlay. The reduced project alternative was charged to develop an environmentally sensitive project that fit community needs with three key elements: 1) permitting a household hazardous waste facility; 2) providing the City’s solid waste contractor with a facility that met building codes and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, and provided adequate spaces for offices, employee parking, storage, and maintenance of collection vehicles; and 3) creating a mosaic of habitats totaling 7.4 acres of jurisdictional area within publicly-owned conservation land with only .5 acres impacted. The 7.4 acres consisted of 4.4 acres of marsh habitat, 1.9 acres of mudflats and channels, .7 acres of open water habitat, and .4 acres of island habitat. Staff intended to remove the dike and breach the dike with open channels, extending the marsh into the ponds. The ponds would be hydraulically connected to the slew that was connected to the floodbasin by a 42-inch culvert pipe. There were three nesting islands which would provide safety for the nesting habitat. He summarized future events that had to occur after the Council took action at that evening’s meeting. Council Member Burch took a special interest in the project because he lived off San Antonio Road in South Palo Alto. He frequently
03/06/00 89-439
walked the Baylands and was familiar with the project. He reviewed the plan and believed staff did a good job. Council Member Beecham said the Planning Commission recommended the utilities area would go to the Geng Road facility. He asked whether there was still space available and, if so, what was the status of the development. Mr. Jackson said property utilization would be a policy decision. Council Member Beecham clarified that there was space available in the Geng Road facility that would be adequate for utilities. City Manager June Fleming said staff believed that was the preference. Council Member Beecham asked whether there was a cost impact to the City if the utilities service area went to the Geng Road facility. Ms. Fleming did not have an estimate. Council Member Mossar asked for more information on the total projected costs. Mr. Jackson said the City invested $2.25 million to acquire half of the property. The cost to acquire the other half was not known; however, there would be another $400,000 that needed to be spent for the final development, and construction costs would total approximately $3 million. Council Member Mossar clarified the $3 million was for the refuse facility. Mr. Jackson said yes and also for the hazardous waste facility. Council Member Mossar asked what the cost was for mitigation. Mr. Jackson said staff estimated approximately $.5 million. Council Member Mossar asked whether the estimates included input from the permitting agencies. Mr. Jackson said the estimates included input from the permitting agencies. Council Member Mossar clarified there was reason to believe that the permitting agencies found the scenario acceptable. Mr. Jackson said staff would pursue grants available for household hazardous waste facilities through the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). There were also redevelopment grants available through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
03/06/00 89-440
Ms. Fleming said there were a number of issues that needed to be resolved concerning the project. Staff only had cost estimates. What was before the Council was not approval of the project. The issue was staff required approval of the final EIR and needed to have the Council review the mitigation program. The project had many difficult aspects, particularly in terms of funding. She reminded the Council that it was not committing to the project at that evening’s meeting. Council Member Mossar clarified the Council was to only certify the EIR. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said the Council was to certify the EIR, adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan, and adopt an ordinance prezoning the property in anticipation of annexation. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, reminded the Council that members of the public were not only audience members but participants in the process. She was pleased that staff pursued the scaled-down version of the project. She recalled there would be 14 feet of fill which would be 7 feet above San Antonio Road. She hoped that was not so and that the Council would explore the matter prior to approving the project. She urged the Council to direct staff to pursue park dedication of the wetland restoration portion so it would no longer be a target for miscellaneous governmental projects. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Adopt the resolution certifying the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the former Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) Site Development Project; 2. Approve the Mitigation and Monitoring Program; 3. Adopt a resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from “Public Owned Conservation Land” and “Major Institution/Special Facilities; 4. Introduce and place on first reading an Ordinance pre-zoning the site to the Public Facilities Zoning District with a Site and Design Overlay [PF(D)] and, 5. Direct staff to initiate annexation of the subject site. Resolution 7939 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for Property Located at 1237-1275 San Antonio Road” (former Los Altos Treatment Plant Site) Resolution 7940 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the LATP Site
03/06/00 89-441
Development Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 97032039) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act” 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Prezone Certain Property Known as 1237-1275 San Antonio Road to PF(D) District” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to instruct staff to consider pursuing park dedication for the wetlands restoration. Council Member Lytle asked how much fill was proposed. Public Works Director Glenn Roberts clarified the fill proposed for the utility storage yard was completely gone and would be restored as wetlands. Council Member Beecham said the land was to be dedicated as public-owned conservation land. He asked how it differed from a park. Senior Planner Luke Connolly said a park was an area that was public park oriented and actively used; whereas, conservation land was a designation that preserved natural features of the land. Ms. Fleming said there was more security if the Council pursued the wetland portion and the area former Council Member Renzel suggested to park dedicate. Council Member Beecham said it was difficult to undedicate a park. He did not know whether that was true for conservation lands. Ms. Case said the only way to undo a park dedication was by vote of the people. The only way to undo a Comprehensive Plan designation was by passing a resolution. Council Member Mossar believed staff made great strides. Conceptually, she did not have a problem with what staff presented at that evening’s meeting; however, because the costs were unknown, the Council did not know what the City would pay the City of Los Altos to acquire the land. The mitigation had an estimate, but there were no permits. One way to view the mitigation piece was as an opportunity to expand the Baylands. She believed the mitigation should be zoned exactly as the rest of the Baylands; however, as soon as it was zoned, the City would be committed to spend the funds and would not know the cost until it was too late. She was uncomfortable with making a significant commitment with limited data for a piece of property that had great importance to the City. Ms. Fleming understood and agreed with Council Member Mossar’s concerns. Zoning had to be in place before the City could do the annexation. The City had to have a feel on how it was going to be done before developing cost estimates. The Council needed to
03/06/00 89-442
certify the adequacy of the EIR or staff could not do anything because the EIR would lapse. Staff needed the EIR and the rest of the motions as guidance, knowing that staff would not proceed to make anything final until brought back to the Council for review. She urged the Council not to look at the matter as final, but to give staff the parameters with which to work to preserve the integrity of the EIR. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the Council was asked to approve an EIR as an adequate analysis of the land and proposed projects, to approve the mitigation program, and to take “paper steps” that would make it possible to go ahead. The Council was not asked to authorize any construction. All the mitigation measures dealt with construction impacts. A decision to approve the EIR or proceed with the Comprehensive Plan amendment or zone change did not set in motion the requirement to carry out either the mitigation or the project. Approving the EIR did not commit the City to perform the restoration work. Council Member Ojakian asked what the City’s options were if the City of Los Altos wanted “x” amount of money for the land and the City felt it was too much money. Ms. Fleming said staff would question the viability of the project and look for something else. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion. He commended the Planning Commission for taking a step toward the more superior environmental project. Council Member Beecham supported the motion. He was not concerned with the on-site costs. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Denial, after Review and Recommendations by the Architectural Review Board, of an application for the installation of new awning signage advertising Willow Street Café located at 3398 El Camino Real Council Member Mossar asked whether there was any limitation to continuing an item. City Manager Fleming was not aware of a limitation on continuing an item. Ed Gawf was not aware of a specific number. He spoke to the owner and after some conversation, the owner decided to revise the plans and work with the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
03/06/00 89-443
Council Member Beecham understood the item was in the process for a long time. He urged staff to resolve the matter as soon as possible. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to continue Item No. 10 to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RESOLUTIONS 11. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Dark Fiber Licensing Services Vice Mayor Eakins said she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Engineering and Operations Assistant Director Larry Starr said the City was three years into its dark fiber licensing program. There were 40 miles of cable in the City, and 16 customers were connected over a three-year period. The City’s largest customer used a total of 12 fibers. Staff recently offered a customer a large number of fibers in the vicinity of 70 and 100. Staff calculated a price for the fiber, and the pricing model gave a price that was cost prohibitive. Staff determined in order to attract a customer who needed a large number of fibers, the prices on the high-end for a large number of fibers needed to reduced. The customer was charged a $500 advanced engineering fee to review what it would cost the City and what the routing would be. There was no interconnection fee, and staff estimated the cost to connect to the backbone and charged an annual backbone license fee for the use of the fibers the City already had in place. The City was fortunate in that it had the second largest Internet exchange in the country, soon to be number one in the next year or so. The pricing model used was complex. The City had a maximum amount of $2,792 if the customer wanted to license one fiber for a mile. He described the changes staff made to the pricing model. The minimum cost was lowered from $1,117 per fiber mile to $500 per fiber mile. The discounts were put into a formula based on the number of fibers, how far the fiber went, and whether the customer used a ring. A new formula was added to give credit to people who had a contract longer than five years. He compared the City’s cost to other fiber providers and a typical calculation for a small fiber customer. The City wanted to revise its prices to be more competitive. Council Member Fazzino asked what alternatives were available to the customers. Mr. Starr said there was only one other dark fiber provider trying to obtain business in the City.
03/06/00 89-444
Council Member Fazzino asked what the City marketed as the competitive advantages for Palo Alto. Mr. Starr said the City offered its customers unlimited bandwidth. If the customer bought or licensed a pair of fibers from the City, there was literally no bandwidth limit. There was only a limit to the amount of money the customer wanted to spend to put on each end of the fiber. Council Member Beecham commended the Utilities Department for moving forward on dark fiber. It was difficult for the City to be dynamic in its pricing when the market was competitive. The City had some success with dark fiber; however, not as much as anticipated. He was happy the Utilities Department was looking into something that might gain a significant customer for the City and provide a good amount of payback for the original cost. Mr. Starr said staff did the same thing at the Elwell Court facility by using the fiber connected to City Hall. With unlimited bandwidth, the Elwell Court facility had a sophisticated Geographic Information System (GIS) with high level workstations on its mappings. The mappers at Elwell Court could not tell the difference between working in City Hall, being directly connected to the main computer, as being out at the Elwell Court facility. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the staff recommendation to approve: 1. The proposed Rate Schedule EDF-1, with revised prices for Dark Fiber Licensing, and 2. Resolution 7941 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Dark Fiber Licensing Services” Mayor Kniss said the City started dark fiber in 1994 and was at a point to profit from the fiber. Mr. Starr said the City was close to approximately $1 million in revenue. Mayor Kniss said once the fiber gained momentum, the City could see a dramatic return. The fiber should be a utility for the City. She believed the fiber had potential. Mr. Starr said things could change in the future; however, the City currently had more business than it could connect. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins “not participating.” ORDINANCES
03/06/00 89-445
12. Ordinance 4619 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $125,000 to Miller and Van Eaton, L.L.P. for Telecommunications Contract Services” Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Miller and Van Eaton, L.L.P. in the Amount of $125,000 for Preparation of Telecommunications Documents and Materials MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Miller and Van Eaton, L.L.P. in the amount of $111,000 to prepare comprehensive telecommunications policies, procedures, and related implementation materials. 2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Miller and Van Eaton, L.L.P. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $14,000. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Eakins, and Council Members Kleinberg and Lytle re Collaborative Middle School Site Planning with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and Stanford Council Member Mossar said she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Avenue, suggested the Council keep in mind that the Jewish Community Center (JCC), provided a library, community center, and playing fields, and also represented the relationship between the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). When Terman school was sold to the City, it was part of a package deal which included a number of other things that he wanted to see placed on the table as part of the overall discussion of Terman. For example, the City was paying approximately $.5 million a year to the PAUSD not to develop school sites. He believed the City should reconsider that. When the City took over the use of both Terman and Cubberley, the buildings were in terrible condition and the City spent millions of dollars in renovations. The funds spent should be recovered from any further use of Terman. He urged the Council that whatever was done, it should not be done in isolation. If the Council wanted to return Terman to the PAUSD, the PAUSD should consider replacing uses and facilities that were available at Terman; for example, Terman offered a joint library at Gunn High School. A number of people who lived in the neighborhood used the
03/06/00 89-446
recreational facilities at the JCC which would no longer be available. The PAUSD had opportunities to provide other facilities in place of Terman. The City should not give up on the idea of finding alternate sites. He recommended considering the Fremont Hills school site and the Mayfield school site. The Council should address the matter in a comprehensive manner. The area that Terman served was underserved and, if the neighborhood lost the facility, it would go back to being underserved. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Beecham, that the City Council conduct a special meeting on March 8, 2000, to identify guiding principles and the City’s objectives, and to create an opportunity for public participation. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar “not participating.” 14. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of March 13, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to cancel the March 13, 2000, regular City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Ojakian reminded the public that Tuesday, March 7, 2000, was Election Day and to vote. Council Member Kleinberg asked that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Adam Politzer who was leaving the City of Palo Alto to head the Parks and Recreation Department in Sausalito. Mayor Kniss announced that there would be a tour of the Terman Community Center on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 3 p.m., and that Council Members Burch, Beecham, Eakins, Kniss, and Ojakian would be in attendance. The parking lot adjacent to the library would be the meeting place prior to the tour. Council Members Lytle, Fazzino, and Kleinberg announced they knew the facility well and would not be attending. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. in honor of Adam Politzer who left the City of Palo Alto to head the Parks and Recreation Department for City of Sausalito. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
03/06/00 89-447
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.
03/06/00 89-448