HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-10 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 10, 2000
1. Proclamation Recognizing Incyte Genomics, Inc. as one of Silicon Valley’s 2000 Fast 50 Companies ................... 40
2. Proclamation Recognizing Informatica Corporation as one of Silicon Valley’s 2000 Fast 50 Companies ................... 40
3. Proclamation Recognizing Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. as one of Silicon Valley’s 2000 Rising Star Companies ........ 40
4. Appointments to the Architectural Review Board ............ 40
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................... 41
APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................... 42
5. Ordinance 4659 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Appropriation of $142,000 for Cubberley Theatre Chiller Replacement Capital Improvement Project, Number 10120 and an Additional Appropriation of $22,000 for the Temporary Lease Expense of a Chiller” ............................... 42
6. Ordinance 4660 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Accept a $5,192 Grant From the Arts Council Silicon Valley and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $5,192” ............................ 43
7. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 21.04, 21.08, 21.16, and 21.44 of Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to Conform to the Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act” .................... 43
9. Resolution 8004 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election Relating to Storm Drainage Fees Held on Tuesday, September 26, 2000” ....................................... 43
10. Appointment of Assistant City Clerk ....................... 43
10/10/00 91-38
11. Amendment No. One to Agreement No. C0117300 Between the City of Palo Alto and Avenidas to Extend Senior Home Repair Subsidy Program Services to Fiscal Year 2000-01 ........... 43
12. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and TruGreen LandCare .......................................................... 43
13. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard in the Amount of $91,296 for Software Maintenance Support for HP 3000 and HP 9000 Servers .................................. 43
14. Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto ...................................................... 43
15. Conference with Real Property Negotiator .................. 43
16. The Policy and Services Committee recommendation re the Library Advisory Commission's New Library Plan ............ 44
17. Supplemental Staff Recommendations for the Urgency Redwood Tree Protection Ordinance ................................. 52
18. Preliminary Analysis of the Downtown Library Site suitability for a Public Safety Building and Approval to Proceed with the More Detailed Study ....................................... 61
19. Participation in the Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund 67
20. Referral of Streamlining Council Procedures to Policy and Services Committee ........................................ 68
21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ............ 68
ADJOURNMENT................................................... 68
10/10/00 91-39
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamation Recognizing Incyte Genomics, Inc. as one of Silicon Valley’s 2000 Fast 50 Companies No action required. 2. Proclamation Recognizing Informatica Corporation as one of Silicon Valley’s 2000 Fast 50 Companies No action required. 3. Proclamation Recognizing Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. as one of Silicon Valley’s 2000 Rising Star Companies No action required. 4. Appointments to the Architectural Review Board FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD VOTING FOR JOSEPH BELLOMO: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR CLIFFORD CHANG: VOTING FOR JOSEPH DISORBO: VOTING FOR KENNETH KORNBERG: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR LEE LIPPERT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR HENRY LUM: VOTING FOR RICHARD SMITH: Beecham
10/10/00 91-40
VOTING FOR JUDITH WASSERMAN: Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Joseph Bellomo, Kenneth Kornberg, and Lee Lippert received nine votes, and Judith Wasserman received eight votes and were appointed on the first ballot. Mayor Kniss stated that the new members to the Architectural Review Board should decide who would serve the shorter term and report back to the Council. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS John Nagle, 999 Woodland Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Stanford. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding an invitation to a special event. John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding Stanford offer. Kip Husty, 922 Bautista Court, spoke regarding a rental problem. Jeffrey Shore, 1905 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding the Woodland Creek development. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding the Jewish Community Center (JCC) new site. Mayor Kniss left the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Jeffrey Shore, 1905 Edgewood, spoke regarding the Woodland Creek development. Council Member Mossar said she was curious about some of the issues raised by Mr. Shore, and asked the City Manager to address them. City Manager Benest said he received copies of the plans for the Woodland Creek development. The Public Works engineers were reviewing the plans to ensure they conformed to the agreement. He instructed the Public Works Department to forward a copy to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. He was following up on the boundary issue. He was unaware of the exemption from FEMA, but was going to follow up on it. Council Member Mossar said conversations regarding the project site had been difficult. She said it would have reassured the public and helped the City if the City Manager could provide all of the information in a memo.
10/10/00 91-41
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale, spoke regarding the new JCC site. Council Member Ojakian said the City did not have an agreement with Stanford regarding the JCC, only a proposal. On October 6, 2000, the Council was going to have a study session regarding that issue. Mr. Benest said that next week the Council had a meeting regarding the Stanford GUP and would address some of the issues regarding community impacts. The Mayfield deal was not to provide a site for the JCC, but for a City community center. The major tenant and service provider of the community center would be the JCC. The JCC was a non-sectarian, community services provider which helped relieve the City’s need for community services. The City planned due diligence on the offer, including investigating traffic impacts. The deal did not change the Council’s attitude toward Stanford’s 10-year use plan. Council Member Kleinberg asked Mr. Benest to address the impact of the transfer of development rights in the Mayfield deal with regard to due diligence. To reduce traffic the City needed to have housing with access to public transportation for public safety personnel, teachers, and people who worked in non-profit organizations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the minutes of September 11, 2000, and September 12, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Eakins and Council Members Fazzino and Ojakian would not participate in Item No. 13 due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Items Nos. 5 – 7, and 9 - 14.
5. Ordinance 4659 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Appropriation of $142,000 for Cubberley Theatre Chiller Replacement Capital Improvement Project, Number 10120 and an Additional Appropriation of $22,000 for the Temporary Lease Expense of a Chiller” 6. Ordinance 4660 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Accept a $5,192 Grant From the Arts Council Silicon Valley
10/10/00 91-42
and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $5,192” 7. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 21.04, 21.08, 21.16, and 21.44 of Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to Conform to the Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act” 8. Deleted. 9. Resolution 8004 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election Relating to Storm Drainage Fees Held on Tuesday, September 26, 2000” 10. Appointment of Assistant City Clerk 11. Amendment No. One to Agreement No. C0117300 Between the City of Palo Alto and Avenidas to Extend Senior Home Repair Subsidy Program Services to Fiscal Year 2000-01 12. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and TruGreen LandCare in an Amount not to Exceed $350,000 for the 2000-2001 Tree Maintenance Project 13. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard in the Amount of $91,296 for Software Maintenance Support for HP 3000 and HP 9000 Servers 14. Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 5-7, 9–12, and 14, Kniss absent. MOTION PASSED 5-0 for Item No. 13, Eakins, Fazzino, Ojakian “not participating,” Kniss absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 15. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Potential Negotiating Party: Palo Alto Elks Club City Negotiator: City Manager and City Attorney
10/10/00 91-43
Subject of Potential Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 16. The Policy and Services Committee recommendation re the Library Advisory Commission's New Library Plan Council Member Beecham said a good review of the plan was introduced in the Policy and Services meeting. The Committee supported the plan and recommended that the Council proceed with it. The new community center, the police building and other projects were putting demands on the City’s resources. He wanted the Council to remember the increasing demand on City resources when considering whether to proceed with the Library plan. Chair of the Library Advisory Commission Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said the Commission fully endorsed the Library staff’s recommendation and commended them for the work they did. The plan was going to cost money, but the libraries had been neglected for too long. He asked the Council to endorse Phase I of the Library plan. Council Member Mossar asked Mr. Benest to explain what the Council would see next if they approved Phase I of the Library plan. Mr. Benest said the difficult part was the subsequent phases, which funded most of the major capital improvements and the operational costs related to the expansions. That was where the discussion was timely, because a community conversation would occur over the upcoming months about what was really important to the community, the priorities in terms of infrastructure and public facilities, and how committed the community was to its library system, and what the community was willing to do. The current and part of the next year’s budgets would deal with some of Phase I. He had no major concerns about the vision. The third item under the staff recommendation would be difficult; where the community was going as far as infrastructure challenges. Council Member Mossar asked Mr. Benest about the design and construction of the Children’s Library, which differed from the ongoing budget. Community Services Department Director Paul Thiltgen said staff would proceed with the Children’s Library. A feasibility study was already conducted to determine whether the Children’s Library could be expanded and approval received. Staff needed to proceed with a marketing program to determine whether or not outside funding could be raised. The goal was to raise sufficient community funds to proceed. Staff also needed to proceed with architectural drawings because money was in the Infrastructure Program to renovate the building. They hoped to begin construction by 2001.
10/10/00 91-44
Council Member Mossar asked what Mr. Thiltgen meant by going to the community to raise money. Mr. Thiltgen said a community group would work with staff in a way similar to what was done with the Children’s Theater to raise outside funding and come up with additional dollars to help fund some of the renovations, if not all renovations, at the Children’s Library. Council Member Mossar thought the plan had not been discussed. Mr. Thiltgen agreed. Staff had not raised the issue but thought it could find outside funding to develop the site and had a dire need to do so because of major repairs that should be tied into the process. Council Member Mossar asked Mr. Benest about funding for Phase I. Mr. Benest said the building program dollars for some of the facilities were in the budget. In terms of construction, the major issue was the Children’s Library for which funds were available for major renovations. Council Member Mossar clarified that the monies were set aside in the Infrastructure Plan approved by the Council a couple years prior. Mr. Thiltgen said those were dollars that were not specifically in infrastructure, but were approved as part of the Capital Improvement Program. Staff would need to return to the Council for approval. Council Member Ojakian thought some of the capital costs were already approved in the past and there were some ideas in terms of raising money for future needs, but asked about operating costs. Mr. Thiltgen said the issue of operating costs was always a tough question. Over the long haul, staff anticipated some type of financial adjustment of additional funding to cover the additional operating costs with expanded facilities. Relative to the Children’s Library, staff would provide an implementation plan and cost analysis to give the Council a better idea about how to proceed with the programs. Staff was also examining feasibility studies for both the Main Library and Art Center and the Mitchell Park Community Center and Library projects to have a better handle on how many square feet were being considered. Staff would then have a better hard dollar amount rather than the current estimates. Council Member Ojakian said the City currently spent $4.3 million in operating costs, questioning what other costs were involved.
10/10/00 91-45
Mr. Thiltgen said the information technology and custodial costs were separate in another part of the budget. Council Member Ojakian asked whether that was typical of running a library service, i.e., meld dollars into their single budget or off in a different department. Mr. Thiltgen was unsure. A different library district might have costs built in. City organizations were probably structured similar to Palo Alto where not all of the costs were built in. There were also overhead and operating costs but he was unsure how the costs were offset. Council Member Ojakian asked how much the City spent in total operating costs on the library services. Mr. Thiltgen said staff could probably identify custodial costs for all community service facilities at $150,000 to $175,000, which was not very high. If the costs were spread out, each facility probably only cost around $30,000, but the sizes and cleaning rates differed. The information technology costs were determined by the amount of time spent, but the bulk of the work for equipment in the library was handled within the City’s own system. Council Member Ojakian said a few years prior the City put out the Library Automation Plan, which contained several points of work that needed to be completed. He asked how far along the City was in satisfying that plan, and how it correlated with the Library Master Plan. Library Director Mary Jo Levy, said the City was approximately one-quarter of the way through the expenses associated with the capital project, but progress was made over the past few months in terms of ordering equipment. She anticipated by the end of the year, much of what was already approved would be spent in the capital budget. Council Member Mossar asked for an explanation of how the City would pay for the item identified by the last bullet on the top of page 6 of the staff report (CMR:345:00) under description of items included in Phase I, which said, “Add library staffing to support existing and improved services.” Mr. Thiltgen said the addition of library staffing was part of the implementation plan and would be returning to the Council, representing the additional funding mentioned by the City Manager. Confusion seemed to exist between Phase I and the Implementation Plan. Staff would return with the information at budget time. Council Member Mossar referred to page 5 of the staff report (CMR:345:00) indicated “the Components of Phase I implementation
10/10/00 91-46
will include,” and then listed all of the items including the addition of library staffing, asking whether it was an action item… Mr. Thiltgen said the additional staff was an action item but would be included in the proposal that would be brought back to the Council. Council Member Mossar asked Mr. Benest whether library staffing was one of the areas that would be funded in the future. Mr. Benest said yes. Vice Mayor Eakins asked how equivalency would be determined as mentioned in the staff report (CMR:345:00) and Library Plan, which contained the comment that Mitchell Park Library would be the equivalent of the Main and Children’s libraries. Mr. Thiltgen said equivalency meant providing the same services as the combined Main and Children’s libraries; he anticipated square footage would be close but not matched. Staff would attempt to provide an equal level of services at both north and south Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Eakins thought there was quite a discrepancy in square footage between north and south Palo Alto. Mr. Thiltgen said currently there was a discrepancy. One of the feasibility studies would focus on the Mitchell Park Library. Staff anticipated increasing the size of the Mitchell Park Library to accommodate the services. Staff also wanted to examine the community center to determine whether there was a more efficient way to use all the space for both functions. Vice Mayor Eakins asked about the popular selections at the neighborhood libraries. Ms. Levy said the analysis indicated the neighborhood library collections had fallen behind and were outdated overall. The focus on the neighborhood libraries was reading and access to popular materials, such as CD Roms, music, etc. The emphasis in the neighborhood libraries was to have a greater level of currency in the collections, which would see greater turnover, be used more highly, and serve a popular audience. The Main Library, Mitchell Library, and Children’s Library would contain more in-depth and older collections over a period of time. The purpose for Phase I was to improve service at all the libraries, not just resource libraries. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether there was discussion about the neighborhood gathering and community focus aspect of the neighborhood branches.
10/10/00 91-47
Ms. Levy said yes. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether discussions included the snack or coffee facilities. Ms. Levy said the coffee and snack facilities were not discussed in the context of neighborhood libraries primarily because of the cost. The appendix at the back of the conceptual plan listed the plans for each facility. The Main, Mitchell Park, and Children’s Libraries were the potential sites. The focus of the plan was greater efficiency but it was expensive to have everything at every location. The proposal was a compromise to maximize in a few libraries while still providing libraries in a neighborhood context. Vice Mayor Eakins said she and Ms. Levy had often talked about the Multnoma libraries with a Popular Room in the Central Library. Ms. Levy said the Popular Room had a Starbuck’s franchise. Popular materials would still be found at Main, Children’s and Mitchell Park Libraries, but the emphasis overall from a library service point of view was to primarily have popular items in the neighborhood libraries. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the annual cost of $4.8 million was on top of what was already being spent. Ms. Levy said yes, the cost would more than double. A large portion of funding was for the recommendation to increase the hours by 30 percent. Staff was trying to give the Council options, without knowing how the programs would be flushed out or the size of the libraries. The cost was staff’s best estimate and was admittedly at the upper end, in the case that the City implemented every idea in the larger report. If some of the options in the report were removed, the cost would be reduced. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve the Policy and Services Committee recommendation, with one modification, to take the following actions regarding the Library Advisory Commission's New Library Plan: 1. Approve the key components of the Plan (Attachment 1 of CMR:345:00) in concept, i.e., the creation of two Resource Libraries at Main/Children’s Libraries and Mitchell Park Library and the preservation of Neighborhood Libraries at Downtown, College Terrace, and Terman Park Libraries.
10/10/00 91-48
2. Direct staff to proceed in development of Phase I of the Plan and return to Council with a proposal that outlined expenses to implement it. 3. Direct staff to return to Council with a multi-year plan to implement and finance the key elements of the Plan; including projected operating and capital expenses and incorporate the plan into the City’s master infrastructure community plann and return to Council with a proposal that outlined expenses for implementation. Council Member Lytle complimented the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and the P&S Committee on the fine report and recommendations. The incredible progress made over the past several years on the issue should not be overlooked. There was alignment of purpose between the City Manager, City Council, a commission of citizens responsible for giving recommendations on the issue, and the citizens of the community on the direction to head on improving the libraries, which was a giant step forward. The Finance Committee was also complimented for its legitimate questions. Even if the capital campaign was accomplished, which was not easy, libraries were one of the most beloved community assets; however, the ongoing operational costs would also have to be financed. Ongoing operational costs were under criticism in the wake of the defeat of the storm drain measure. The citizen commission was a tremendous asset to the City because of the leadership it had already developed and the education and understanding of the issue enabling it to move forward in communicating with the community about financing both capital improvements and ongoing operation expenses. Council Member Mossar agreed with Council Member Lytle. She also appreciated the LAC. In order to move forward, support of the voting public was necessary. The Council promised the voting public the right to weigh in on projects, give their priorities, communicate their range of financial comfort, and to indicate how to be approached to participate financially, particularly for new infrastructure. Although libraries were a beloved institution, supporters of libraries reinforced one another’s love but never asked the general public how much they were willing to support the libraries in addition to what was already being paid. She would vote for the motion but with reluctance because in her mind, the ideal way to proceed would be to develop some options and alternatives as part of a package to be taken before the public when the public was asked how it wanted to deal with storm drains, public safety, and community centers. Various segments of the community were interested in a number of issues. Although the present group might be interested in libraries, another group might be interested in something else. The City would not be successful unless it did a good job of incorporating the efforts into the Infrastructure Long-Range Master Planning process.
10/10/00 91-49
Council Member Kleinberg agreed with her colleagues. The P&S Committee minutes referenced a discussion about financing. The Council would not enter into such an open-ended wish list easily, so there were some in-depth conversations about options, such as what would happen if there was a recession; where the money would come from; what would happen in terms of staffing and capital improvements. However, things came before the City earmarked with concerns about finances. The storm drain fee vote was a wake-up call for people concerned about fiscal care. She talked with the City Manager and her colleagues about having a “teach in” about finances. It would be an opportunity that could be folded into a general overview conversation regarding where the City got its money, dispelling myths about property values versus revenues, where revenues came from and how the revenues were spent in the past. Then listen to the public about how money should be spent. The community was not being asked to spend untold numbers of dollars without any regard. She hoped some important forums would be made available to the community whereby everyone would learn about the fiscal strategies in terms of spending and linking to the community’s priorities. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion. What he supported most was the City trying to endorse a vision, with which he agreed. Several aspects of the City’s libraries could be improved, but change was costly. Having visited about six important libraries in the area, he saw what others communities had compared with Palo Alto. There was no blame to be placed on anyone for the situation; Palo Alto’s libraries were built 20 to 30 years prior in a different environment and time. The other libraries had dedicated computer areas where people could access information. Some libraries had private reading rooms with computer hookups. The teen and children’s programs with clearly dedicated areas were very admirable and would not impinge on adult areas. The City could implement several of the proposals, but there was a sacrifice because of the tremendous cost. The suggestions for Palo Alto would result in a world-class operation. Few cities would have the number of open library hours as Palo Alto. Most operated in the 60-to-70-hour per week range; Palo Alto proposed to have 300-plus hours. Few cities had the type of square footage, even for a city the size of Palo Alto. There was a tradeoff between service and cost, because there was some logic behind the former City Manager’s decision to have fewer branches—sacrificing a level of service for a more cost-efficient operation. By concentrating resources into a single library or a couple of libraries, one could maximize dollars and get a tremendous amount in a particular area. The offset was not having the ability to keep the branch libraries open. There was a benefit when a service was provided directly to the folks, giving easy access to the service, which was an important concept. Raising the necessary funds for operating piece of the project was going to take a staggering effort. A significant amount of money would be needed. The City might want to consider something like an
10/10/00 91-50
endowment fund or private industry both in terms of advertising or support services in return for giving some use of the libraries. Council Member Fazzino said since he ran for Council, he heard kudos as well as complaints about Palo Alto’s library system, which had not changed in 20 years. The City had wonderful resources, great librarians, and a community and neighborhood-oriented library branch system. The complaints included the fact the libraries were not open long enough, the lack of state-of-the-art technology, etc. The proposal was an exciting step forward. The LAC and staff were thanked for putting together an exciting potential master plan for library development in the community. He endorsed the plan, which would require a tremendous amount of discussion with the community. He supported the idea of neighborhood-based libraries. He believed in the concept of a neighborhood community center/library system throughout the City where people had access to materials available in either the traditional Guttenberg format or Internet format. At the same time, he took to heart Council Member Mossar’s comments concerning the storm drain fee election. It was essential that discussions took place as a broader master plan and budget. There were good discussions about such issues as consultants in the Spring of 2000 by the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, the word did not seem to get out to the community at large about the issues and priorities with which the committee and City needed to deal. It was imperative as the City moved forward that such discussions occur and that everything possible was done to teach and involve the entire community. The priorities had to be evaluated against the transportation infrastructure, storm drainage fees, creek improvements, and other priorities. The community had to make a decision as to whether or not it would support the additional costs, both capital and operational. It was also very important to consider alternative ways to operate. He was still a very strong supporter of the concept of a city/school library; Palo Alto should also consider the possibility of working more closely with Stanford in the future, with its wonderful library resources, to see whether there were not different and unique ways of providing library services to the community. Council Member Burch was supportive of the proposal when it went before the P&S Committee and was equally supportive now. The concept of a major resource library in both the north and south was excellent. The Mitchell Park Library would be increased fourfold, from 9,000 square feet to 36,000 square feet. It would still be smaller than the northern library, but represented a significant commitment to the people in the south, which was appreciated. A community’s libraries were a mark of the civilization and always had been, whether books, CDs or Internet. The ability to educate the people who would become the leaders of the future was critical. When looking at resources and the cost, there came a time when one looked at how to spend money and buy quality. Quality was purchased for the City when libraries were fully supported.
10/10/00 91-51
Vice Mayor Eakins agreed with her colleagues and appreciated the strategic direction of the two kinds of library services to better provide for what the community said it wanted. The resource libraries and neighborhood libraries were a significant breakthrough in distinguishing the libraries, thus directing resources. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. ORDINANCES 17. Supplemental Staff Recommendations for the Urgency Redwood Tree Protection Ordinance City Attorney Ariel Calonne said two forms of ordinance were before the Council, the first of which was under the cover of the City Attorney’s report dated October 5, 2000, which followed the Council’s direction of September 18, 2000, creating an urgency addition to the existing protected tree ordinance until January 1, 2001 that indicated redwoods 18 inches in diameter or more would be treated like a native oak. The Planning staff had additional ideas for the Council, as seen in the supplemental staff recommendations. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said when staff examined the proposed urgency ordinance, they believed a few things could be added for clarification and improvement. One recognized that the growth and pattern of Redwood trees were somewhat different from Oak trees. Staff identified an additional condition that would allow a tree to be removed: overcrowding conditions. Oak trees tended to grow singly with a large drip line, but it was not unusual to see several Redwood trees on a single lot. Another important issue was having a clear effectiveness date. Mr. Calonne said in the absence of any special Council action, the default rule was that any unissued permits in the City’s collective hands on the effective date of ordinance would be subject to follow the ordinance. Staff’s recommendation would soften the general rule so that any development application on file before the effective date of September 18, 2000 would not be subject to the ordinance. Council Member Lytle said most of the circumstances under which the addition to the Heritage Tree Ordinance would interfere with construction was flat patio work, deck work, small storage buildings exempt from building permits, etc., which would not require a permit. She asked how the City planned to communicate to the public and initiate enforcement of the provision for property owners who might be planning landscape projects in the fall.
10/10/00 91-52
Mr. Gawf said quite often the Planning office received inquiries about whether a building permit was needed for various activities such as those mentioned by Council Member Lytle. An orientation would be held at the Development Center to ensure staff communicated with people who walked in from that date forward. Secondly, staff would provide written information for people to take with them. The action would be from the current day forward. Council Member Lytle clarified no outreach would be made to the general community; residents might have already contracted with landscapers to do the work. It would be a matter of the City receiving a complaint that something illegal was going on, and the people would be stopped in the middle of a project. Mr. Gawf said a more extensive outreach could be conducted. If the Council adopted the urgency ordinance, staff could examine some communication methods through the local newspaper or some other means. Council Member Lytle asked whether any outreach had been conducted since the Council mentioned the need for the ordinance to consider some of the circumstances where Redwood trees were improperly planted, often by amateur gardeners and how they might be impacting people’s property rights. She asked whether staff had discussed the problems associated with Redwood trees. Mr. Gawf said going back to the public outreach question, in addition to the pamphlets or fliers available at the development center, pamphlets could be sent to neighborhood associations, the Chamber of Commerce, Real Estate Board, tree professionals, and people who might actually be doing the work of removing trees. In addition to the outreach the City Arborist had already conducted, he held conversations since the original adoption of the Tree Protection Ordinance as to whether the ordinance should be expanded in the future. Redwoods were clearly one of the species the City had been considering. City Arborist Dave Dockter stated that he spoke with some real estate individuals and landscape architects about the planting of trees and overcrowding situations. The real estate individuals were relieved about the ability to have the discretion to allow removals of trees in overcrowded situations. Mr. Gawf said staff was only looking at the larger trees. The standard tree measuring 18 inches in diameter and 54 inches above natural grade represented a major tree in the community. Council Member Lytle said a commonly misplanted Redwood tree was one that was planted beneath backyard utility lines. The Utility Department would top the tree to keep it from interfering with power lines. The Redwood tree would begin to grow in an odd
10/10/00 91-53
rectangular shape rather than the traditional form. The trees began to consume an entire backyard and after a while was a large trapezoid shape that began to knock down property line fences and interfere with the enjoyment of property. She had been told it was a common occurrence, but she saw no provision in the current ordinance for people to be able to remove the very healthy but awkwardly shaped heritage Redwood tree. Mr. Dockter said staff would pay the resident to remove the tree. The Public Works Department had a program to plant the right tree in the right place. Anything involving interference with utility lines could be removed without question because it would be defined as a public nuisance, which was one of the allowable removal criteria for any protected tree. Council Member Lytle said when the trees were pruned, they were pruned out of the way of the utility lines, so the tree was no longer interfering with the site. She was interested in knowing to which section Mr. Dockter was referring. Mr. Dockter said Section 8.04.050 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) addressed the nuisance issue. The section identified public improvements, sewers, curbs, signs, and utility wires. The Public Works staff said trees that continually had to be topped were a nuisance and would pay for some of the removal. Council Member Mossar said many of the issues raised by Council Member Lytle pertained to Oak trees. The Canopy provided an important service by spreading information about how to care for and protect trees and the importance of trees. The Canopy had also been pushing the Council for a number of years to expand the number of species it protected. The Canopy would probably work hand-in-glove with the City to help implement the Redwood Protection Ordinance. She asked whether the Council should pass the emergency ordinance or whether sufficient work had been done to bring the City to a good position to implement the ordinance in regular due course. Mr. Gawf said staff spent so much time on Redwood trees over the past several weeks that much of the work was done. Regardless, if the Council adopted the emergency ordinance, there would still be a December 31, 2000 expiration date, by which time staff would have replacement ordinance. If the Council elected not to pass the emergency ordinance, staff had a work plan in place by which to proceed with the ordinance. Council Member Mossar clarified the difference between passing or not passing the emergency ordinance was protection of Redwood trees from the current date through the end of the year or just having a final ordinance come go the Council in January 2001.
10/10/00 91-54
Mr. Gawf said the ordinance could go before the Council earlier than January 2001. Council Member Burch said a few days prior, a 100-year old Redwood tree was taken down. Anything the Council could do to keep such trees from being removed without regard for the rest of the City was something the Council should do. He hoped his colleagues would pass the urgency, not emergency, ordinance. The Council had encouraged staff to draw up the ordinance because neighboring cities covered all tree of a certain size in their ordinances, including Atherton, Burlingame, Campbell, Mountain View, Hillsboro, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Jose, and San Mateo. Palo Alto only covered Valley Oaks and Coast Oaks. The goal was not to cover trash trees, but larger trees. Council Member Kleinberg said the last time the issue came up, staff indicated it was tracking tree cuttings. She asked the age of a tree that was 18 inches in diameter and 54 inches from the ground. Mr. Dockter said a Redwood tree of that size was approximately 20 years old. Council Member Kleinberg asked how old a Heritage Oak tree of the same size was. Mr. Dockter said at least 40 years old. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the trees removed over the last two weeks were removed with or without permits in terms of construction. Mr. Dockter said no construction was associated with the removals. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff knew why the trees were removed. Mr. Dockter replied no. Council Member Kleinberg asked how staff knew the trees were being removed. Mr. Dockter said City staff received complaints from residents of the different areas who were interested in retaining the redwood trees in their area. Council Member Kleinberg clarified staff was not aware of any construction associated with the removal of the Redwood. She asked whether all the removed trees would go under the proposed ordinance.
10/10/00 91-55
Mr. Dockter said since September 18, 2000, ten Redwood trees were removed, three of which were not substantiated. Of the seven trees he physically viewed, five were 18 inches in diameter or greater. One was probably a century old and was three or four feet in diameter. Council Member Beecham said if he supported the urgency ordinance, he would not support an extension and wanted reassurance that on January 1, 2001, staff would have sufficient time for an ordinance to go before the Council, allow for discussions, and go into effect by that date. Mr. Gawf said yes. On September 18, 2000, the Council expressed concern about a clear date when the urgency ordinance would expire, and the Council was not interested in renewing it. Staff returned to examine its work program and the time line necessary for ordinance adoption; the January 1, 2001 date was very tight. In November, staff would attempt to return to the Council with a first reading of the ordinance. Council Member Beecham clarified staff planned to return to the Council in early November. Mr. Gawf said staff planned to return to the Council November 13, 2000 for the first reading. Two weeks later the second reading would occur. Thirty days later should be December 31, 2000. Council Member Beecham asked whether staff would have substantially more leeway to return to the Council with the ordinance if the urgency ordinance was extended from January 1, 2001, to February 1, 2001. Mr. Gawf said yes. It was always difficult around the holidays for a variety of reasons. Vice Mayor Eakins thought the groves or clumps of Redwood trees occurred naturally and that Redwood roots were very shallow and interlaced to support each other, in other words, a single Redwood tree was more prone to wind damage and toppling. She asked for a distinction. Mr. Dockter said there was a distinction. Redwood trees that grew naturally grew in a fairy ring around a perimeter as stump sprouts. Staff would respond to homeowner requests to remove one or more of the grouping, evaluated on an individual basis. The other situation where trees were over-planted, staff would also evaluate on its own merits. If trees were over-planted along a fence line, staff might authorize removal of every other tree. Staff would be responding to homeowner requests where specific trees would be evaluated on the basis of whether or not the tree was detrimental to a neighboring or adjacent tree, in which case the lesser tree
10/10/00 91-56
would be removed. Vice Mayor Eakins opened the public hearing. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale, spoke about the screening and privacy the trees provided residents regardless of their heritage status. The loss of such trees was an abrupt diminution of property value for neighbors. Some developers indicated more trees were planted than removed, but something out of a 15-gallon can was not the same as a large Redwood tree. She personally knew of one property in College Terrace where six Redwood trees were removed by a developer since September 18, 2000. A few moments of silence were observed in honor of the lost trees, which could not be brought back. Jean Wilcox, 4005 Sutherland Drive, opposed the urgency Tree Protection Ordinance to allow more time for members of the community to voice their opinion. City government telling homeowners certain trees could not be removed was infringement of property rights. Large Redwood trees were inappropriate for small lots. The legal responsibility of the City was questioned since Redwood trees toppled so easily and could destroy houses and kill people. The Council was urged to reject the proposed ordinance. Gloria Brown, 1766 Fulton Street, spoke about a neighbor’s nuisance trees, some of which were Redwood trees, which prevented her from being able to enjoy her backyard. After much work with the City Arborist and lawyers, she was finally able to plant in her backyard. However, a Redwood planted near her property line had grown and caused green to grow and rot her roof, which would cost thousands of dollars to replace. She asked the Council was asked to consider protecting homeowners living near destructive trees. Joette Farand, 724 Bryant, spoke about the need to respect large Redwood trees. Although she supported the urgency ordinance, the final ordinance should be reasonable because there were very legitimate reasons why some trees should be removed. Herb Borock, Post Office Box 632, supported the draft ordinance proposed by the City Attorney without any additions. The proposal from the Planning staff to add an exemption for trees that grew close together was too big a loop hole and too subjective, defeating the purpose of the proposed ordinance. The need for the addition to the ordinance in Section 8.10.050(b) was unclear since the Redwood tree was defined as a protected tree and it would seem the paragraph would cover Redwood trees in any event. The question about comparing the ages of respective trees of different species should use the diameter specified for the Oaks in the PAMC, 11.5-inch diameter, rather than the 18-inch diameter designated for Redwood trees. He requested clarification about the intent of the Council’s direction to staff.
10/10/00 91-57
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the staff supplemental recommendations for the Urgency Redwood Tree Ordinance in Attachment A of CMR:385:00 and to move up the effective date from January 1 to February 1, 2001. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibiting the Removal of Redwood Trees that are Eighteen Inches in Diameter or larger Measured Fifty-Four Inches Above Grade and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to exempt pending projects from enforcement of the ordinance. Council Member Beecham supported the proposed urgency ordinance in part because it had a short life. He asked whether the ordinance was considered both an urgency and emergency ordinance. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Beecham said often when an urgency or emergency ordinance passed there was insufficient time to assess the impact. Redwood trees could be nuisances and grow beyond what people planned. Because the ordinance was short-term, requiring that some of the gratuitous removals were put off, the ordinance allowed removal of dead, dangerous, nuisances, etc., and the addition for groupings and recognized construction, he would support the motion. Four months was a minor inconvenience compared with the inconvenience many lived with for years. He looked forward to a more thorough assessment of what an appropriate ordinance for Redwood trees might be. Council Member Lytle supported an update of the City’s tree ordinance and wanted more species included in the ordinance than just Redwood trees. However, she could not support the emergency ordinance because the City needed to find ways to build trust with the community. Many innocent people would be caught, in addition to the not so innocent people who were removing public assets on their property. By declaring the emergency, the City did not have a chance to think about the well-meaning people and their circumstances. Most of the communities quoted as having the broader ordinances all had provisions for hardship to allow for circumstances like Birch Clark walls, etc. Staff pointed out a provision for what was a common problem throughout town, such as planting of Redwood trees under utility lines. City staff and the Council had not thought of everything. There were situations that were not addressed and she would not want to create bad will, even in the few months the urgency ordinance would be on the books. It was heartbreaking to lose trees unnecessarily and she felt bad about it. She wished there was a way to accomplish both, but there was a tradeoff. She would rather see a few trees go and not offend 10/10/00 91-58
the community and well-meaning individuals. Vice Mayor Eakins stated Ms. Brown’s neighbor’s tree was not protected by the ordinance, but there was no way for a neighbor to force the removal of a tree. Trees, fences, dogs, children, and music were all things one had to live with as neighbors. Where the sense of neighborliness ended and property rights advocacy began always resulted in tension. The community valued its canopy of trees, especially the redwood trees. The findings that were part of the ordinance included protecting and conserving aesthetic and scenic beauty, encouraging and assuring quality development, protecting the environment, aiding in the reduction of air pollution, reducing potential damage from wind, providing shade, and protecting property values, all of which were aspects of trees with which no one would argue. She agreed with Ms. Farand’s desire that the ordinance be reasonable; staff’s recommendations went a long way toward being reasonable. Education was an important element. She supported extending the date to January 31, 2001. The Council would be depending on staff for good sense and faith with the community. Staff would be supported in its effort. As one of the original signers, she was happy to support the ordinance. Council Member Ojakian asked how many votes were necessary to pass the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said four-fifths of the Council Members present had to vote in favor of the motion for it to pass. Council Member Fazzino wanted to support the motion and move quickly on the ordinance; however, he shared Council Member Lytle’s concerns about urgency. He suspected staff was ready to bring an ordinance to the Council quickly and preferred to have a meaningful debate and discussion involving the public about the issue before approving an ordinance. He thought staff could return in the next several months and move ahead with the ordinance rather than passing an urgency ordinance. He went through the first round of discussion on the item. In theory he was supportive of a far-reaching ordinance, but recalled the challenges associated with getting oak trees preserved. Admittedly, some large Redwood trees needed to be protected. MOTION FAILED 4-4, Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Mossar “yes,” Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved that instead of an urgency ordinance, the same ordinance be considered a first reading and passed as a first reading. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to 10/10/00 91-59
direct staff to bring a proposed ordinance back to the Council regarding Redwoods, reaching out to public, and the proposed ordinance be brought back to the Council by November 15, 2000. Council Member Kleinberg said her major concern did not have as much to do with whether the proposal by Council Member Burch was good or bad. She was concerned that the City had not engaged the public in a conversation about the issue. The public wanted to be involved in the decision making about such issues. Regardless of whether the Council voted right or wrong on the proposed ordinance, there was some consensus in the community that some matters, particularly issues regarding property rights and relationships between neighbors, were highly sensitive. She personally wanted to hear from the public. Council Member Ojakian had an aversion to both urgency ordinances and eminent domain, both of which were his own personal biases. In terms of an ordinance, he wanted public input. If the City was looking to mandate or dictate to something, it needed to be coupled with some sort of incentive. It was the same concept used before on another thorny issue. The result was public support because it was a win-win situation. Council Member Beecham raised the issue of staff returning with a well-crafted ordinance by November 15, 2000. The Council decided not to handle the situation with an emergency ordinance, which did not redefine the capability of staff to return with an appropriate ordinance any sooner than it would have otherwise. Mr. Gawf agreed. Given the amount of public outreach, an extra month would be appreciated, for instance, December 15 rather than November 15. Drafting the ordinance was less of an issue because the staff had certainly thought about the issue. The public outreach part was important. Mayor Kniss returned to the meeting at 9:40 p.m. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved to change the date to December 1, 2000 MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member Lytle was more comfortable with the motion knowing the time was extended, although the timeframe imposed on staff was very tight. She would rather see a well-crafted ordinance and suggested staff examine the types of criteria other communities used for hardship cases for very fast growing Redwood trees. A different circumstance arose with faster growing trees than with the slower growing Oak trees. Council Member Mossar would not support the motion because the
10/10/00 91-60
Council did not support an urgency ordinance. There was no legitimate reason for the Council to change a timeframe that staff had put into its work program. Discussions always centered around staying on task, staying in schedule, and delivering products on time. If the Council was not willing to have an urgency ordinance, she questioned why it was urgent that staff return with a perfect ordinance sooner. She wanted and looked forward to staff returning to the Council with a revised ordinance that protected Redwood trees in a timely manner and was consistent with staff’s work plan and the schedule that was already put together. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, that staff return to the Council by January 31, 2001, at the latest, for first reading with a revised Tree Protection Ordinance to protect redwood trees. Council Member Lytle wanted to ensure the City did a good job on the ordinance, which should be well thought out. Council Member Burch said the Council often heard about the lack of time people had to discuss everything, but there were an equal number of people who asked why the Council was not doing something instead of just talking about it. A large number of people in the public thought the Council failed to act on things. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 6-2, Kleinberg, Fazzino “no,” Kniss “not participating.” Council Member Fazzino suggested a change in the agenda to hear from the public and then discuss how to proceed. RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION: 9:50 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Property Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 15. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 15. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 18. Preliminary Analysis of the Downtown Library Site suitability for a Public Safety Building and Approval to Proceed with the More Detailed Study City Manager Frank Benest said the item referred to staff’s preliminary analysis of the Downtown library site as one potential site for the proposed police building. The purpose of the item was not for selecting a site for the public safety building (PSB), but to seek approval to add the Downtown library site to the other four existing options. Previously, the Council provided staff with 10/10/00 91-61
approval to conduct a preliminary analysis of the suitability of the Downtown library site as a possible location for the new PSB. The project was contingent on moving the Downtown library two blocks away to a renovated and modernized Roth Building. Library services would be enhanced if moved to the Roth Building. Once renovated, the Roth Building was larger, featured a beautiful historical exterior, and accommodated additional community space in the basement. The Downtown library would also benefit from being located in a beautiful park setting. The move was discussed with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and was compatible with the Library Master Plan discussed earlier that evening by the Council. Staff proposed the cost for relocating the Downtown Library to come out of the PSB project and not the Library Master Plan. The site was a viable alternative to locate core police operations with one story below-ground and two floors above-ground with similar facility footprints. Staff considered the footprint would also include the space covered by overhangs and the patio. Assuming that, for the moment, the two buildings would have similar footprints. The property and evidence functions, and most parking, would remain on the City Hall site. Staff recognized there were some very legitimate concerns regarding possible neighborhood impacts; however, staff and consultants believed the facility could be designed to minimize neighborhood impacts. The building design features could address privacy and aesthetic concerns. The current police facility and all related uses and impacts were only 60 feet north of the library site. A key finding was related to cost. Preliminary estimates of cost savings at the site were $16 to $30 million; compared to the other possible options the Council had reviewed. The cost included site acquisition and construction costs only. The numbers for the retrofits of the Roth Building and existing City Hall would come from any further detailed analysis staff recommended. In terms of the staff recommendation, the Council was asked to direct staff to complete the detailed analysis of the Downtown library site and consider the site along with the four other previously determined sites. Given his responsibility as City Manager to be a good steward of the City’s tax dollars, it was necessary to return to the Council with the issue. However, he would not want to spend additional dollars to complete a detailed analysis and site plan and design unless the Council was open to serious consideration of the option. Mayor Kniss opened the public hearing. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, opposed locating the police station in the current Downtown library site, which was not appropriate for a police facility. He urged the Council to take the site off the list. The mitigation measures found on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:381:00) promised a great deal, including the visual impact to the neighborhood. The cost figure was hard to overlook, but did not include the cost of removing, demolition, or buying a replacement facility. The cost estimate should include
10/10/00 91-62
the cost of the building to keep a level playing field. The real intrusion of the building into neighborhoods was about 205 feet, more than three times the 60 feet quoted. High-speed police vehicles would have an impact on the neighborhood. Arnold Zwicky, 722 Ramona Street, spoke about the location of the police services. The current location was far from ideal for a police facility and would not improve by moving it across Forest Avenue. The current location also failed to provide good access to major arteries and was in a densely used business area with a lot of street and pedestrian traffic. The value of the current library building and surrounding grounds as a civic amenity was high and should not be removed. George Browning, 2081 Harvard Street, spoke about the costs associated with building a PSB, estimates of which were in the $50 to $60 million range. The library site cost was half that amount. The $60 million cost would probably not be passed by the voters, and the City would be left with an inadequate facility that did not meet present state regulations. The current facility had serious deficiencies that posed safety risks to police personnel as well as citizens who visited the facility. The City needed to consider the practical aspects of financing. The current police facility was located near 80 percent of the action, which was much more efficient. The two-story proposed building was located close to a three-story condominium. He urged the Council to reconsider using the library site, if feasible. Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, spoke regarding libraries. She questioned which City department would be responsible for the cost of relocating the Downtown library, since the $16 million estimate included no reference to the cost to relocate or renovate the Roth Building. The Council was urged not to make the libraries pay for what would be a disruption and setback for implementation of the master plan that identified the needs the libraries had. Jim Schmidt, 244 Forest Avenue, spoke about the Council minutes from July 17, 2000, urging the Council to remove the site from consideration for a PSB again. The proposed building would not avoid intensification, since it would double the size of the existing facility. Any estimated cost would increase by one-third if not 50 percent. The Council was asked to reaffirm its previous decisions to remove the Downtown library site from the list of PSB possibilities. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington, spoke about the Library Advisory Commission’s (LAC) involvement and lack of approval of the project. Every study should be conducted using the same “yardstick.” If the architect could remove core space requirements from the Downtown library facility by 36 percent, the same stringent standards should be applied to each of the other sites. Parking space requirements
10/10/00 91-63
indicated the need to use the Civic Center garage for police and employee vehicles, so the spaces would not be available for people working or shopping Downtown. If the PSB were relocated, spaces would be vacated thus easing the parking crunch. When the Council gave staff approval to reexamine the Downtown library for the PSB, it was on the condition that usage of the site would not be intensified nor would the neighborhood be impacted. He urged the Council to emphasize that all potential sites be considered using the same standards and all tradeoffs recognized. Terry Shuchat, 290 California Avenue, spoke as a representative of CADA, a group of business and property owners in the California Avenue area. One of the sites considered for the PSB was the current police building, which the consultants decided was too expensive and disruptive. The second site was on the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real, which was deemed undesirable because Stanford had no interest in letting go of the land until recently in exchange for favors from the City. The Downtown library site faced great opposition from residents in the area. The Sherman Avenue site in the California Avenue area was opposed by business owners, property owners, and residents in the surrounding condominiums, and was the most expensive of all of the proposed sites. The fifth site was the old cement plant on Park Boulevard, which offered the least disruption, adequate space for a quality facility, and was endorsed by California Avenue merchants and property owners. He urged the Council to stop spending time and money on sites that were unpopular with the citizens of Palo Alto and to move forward with the Park Boulevard site. Joette Farrand, 724 Bryant Street, spoke about the Council’s direction for staff not to study the Downtown library site if the usage of the site would not be intensified and the neighborhood impacted. Page 4 of the staff report (CMR:381:00) under Neighborhood Concerns indicated the loss of the buffer area; “The impact the neighborhood would be absolutely minimal.” Making such a statement without data was irresponsible and self-serving. The report states the Planning Department was involved, but only made comments on the parking. The proposed library facility was estimated to be expanded to 65,000 square feet of use, while the current facility was only 9,479 square feet of use. The noise created by a 28,000-square-foot parking lot operating 24 hours per day was significant. Just because the lot had the same zoning did not mean it had the same use. The study session report from the City Manager of June 12, 2000, introduced the idea of the library site and stated as a disadvantage increasing the size of the current police station. “To achieve the needed square footage, three additional stories would have to be added, the size of the structure so close to residential area would be incompatible.” The original feasibility study stated the three additional stories on the current police department would be an increase of 28,800 square feet. The current proposal was a contradiction. She urged the
10/10/00 91-64
Council to reaffirm its March 1, 1999, decision to remove the Downtown library site from consideration. Eileen Berg, 707 Bryant Street #305, opposed locating the Police Department in a residential neighborhood. The police station should be located near main traffic access roads to be most effective. Downtown traffic should be reduced, not increased. Low cost estimates for the library sites were estimates only, not necessarily the final cost. The present building for the library was charming and adequate; the Roth Building was inadequate as a library site. Palo Alto should maintain its reputation as a city of culture and its library as its crown of culture. Margaret Cooley, 830 University Avenue, spoke about sufficiency of the Downtown Library without enhancements. The functional and lovely building should not be destroyed. The neighbors had been disrupted enough, which affected the sense of place and community. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, opposed adding the Downtown library site back on the list of possible sites for the PSB. Although converting the Roth Building to a library was possible, it was not optimal and there were costs involved. The Roth Building could be used for the Planning Department. If money were spent to move the Downtown library, the community would look at it as a cost against the total renovation of the library system. The community would be asked to fund the PSB and the libraries. Six acres of the Mayfield School site were being offered by Stanford, which also might be an excellent location for communications and could be tied in with police activities. Instead of taking the Downtown library site, which none of the neighbors wanted, the Mayfield School site should be considered. Elaine Meyer, University South Neighborhood Group, 609 Kingley Avenue, said in 1967, the City demolished the original Carnegie Library and built another library in its place, which was not a good thing. Again, the City was talking about demolishing a beautiful library, which was not a good tradition. Replacing a 9,500-square-foot structure with a building four times its size adjacent to homes and apartments could not be disguised as good design. The use was vastly different between library use and police use. She urged the Council to leave the library alone. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the staff report (CMR:381:00) indicated the size of the building was reduced from 67,000 square feet to 43,000 square feet; however, the feasibility study of July 1997 indicated the combined police and fire building was 50,000 square feet, of which 6,000 was fire administration leaving a net of 44,000 square feet. The Council was asked to consider ongoing operating expenses. The City currently had as many sworn officers as it had 30 years prior, yet the daytime population had increased significantly. The site at Page Mill Road and El Camino Real
10/10/00 91-65
should be considered for the police building. The first choice was the Park Boulevard site but, because of the cost of the land, was prohibitive. The Council should require that the data it received compared with the various options and over time. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embaracadero Road, opposed the Downtown library site as a possible site for the PSB, primarily because of transition. The transition between the Downtown commercial area and the residential area was extremely sensitive and finely balanced. Support was voiced for an updated police facility, but not a 40,000-square-foot addition to an area already severely impacted. The City was endangering its own credibility by stating the addition of 40,000 square feet of office space would add minimal impact. Lana Costanzo, 240 Forest Avenue, spoke about the difference in the Bay Area over the past three years, the major change of which was the quality of living. After living in Europe for those three years, she urged the Council to consider the quality of legacy and life in the community. Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, agreed with the previous speakers, particularly Mr. Bubenick and Ms. Farand. The current Downtown library was a nice transition between the very intense Downtown and the pleasant residential zone. The police needed good facilities, but should not be located in a residential area. The Council was urged to reinstate its prior decision not to include the Downtown library site in the possible sites for the PSB. Carl Anderson, 4044 Araranta, spoke in appreciation for the police force and supported improved facilities but not at the Downtown library site. In spite of the recent storm drain vote, he sensed citizens were willing to support projects that were tightly defined in terms of scope and cost. Some in the community questioned the purchase of the Roth Building, but pushing the library into the building to justify its expense was questioned. Many citizens perceived the City to have a “unicentric” orientation, in other words, the thrust of City decisions seemed to relate to the proximity to University Avenue. He urged the Council to place the new PSB more centrally in Palo Alto, both for operational and symbolic reasons. The decision to keep all public safety offices within the same location was questioned. Mary Jean Place, Library Commissioner, 809 Northampton Drive, said the LAC did not take a position on the issue because a feasibility study was not being conducted simultaneously on the Roth Building to determine whether or not it was a possible site for a library. Many conjectures and opinions existed without a sufficient amount of information for the LAC to make a decision. She urged the Council to closely consider the issue.
10/10/00 91-66
Council Member Fazzino shared concerns that a wonderful library was destroyed in 1967. In 1965, a chain of events was set in place when the Rinconada neighborhood park defeated a proposed public safety facility in that neighborhood, pushing it into the Downtown area which then set up a chain of events resulting in a public vote, leading to the demolition of the Downtown Library. Mayor Kniss requested that the item be continued to a date uncertain. COUNCIL MATTERS 19. Participation in the Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund Council Member Mossar said the item was a request from colleagues to support a direction to staff to identify funding and develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a contribution to the Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund. She understood the money that would be given to the Trust Fund was money that was currently restricted and could only be spent for affordable housing. City Manager Frank Benest said Council Member Mossar was correct. Staff supported the initiative by Council Member Mossar and Mayor Kniss, which was a good way to leverage existing housing dollars. The development fees were on hand and could only be spent for affordable housing. Staff was ready to come forward over the next few weeks with a specific proposal. Council Member Mossar sat on the committee for the Trust Fund that funded a certain set of products, two of which pertained to Palo Alto because of the cost of housing: the affordable housing and transitional housing for the homeless. The City had projects on the horizon for which the funds would return to the City leveraged with additional monies. It was an opportunity for Palo Alto to be a player for affordable housing in the region. Industry was seeking local governments to provide funding for such uses. Because local governments were joining with the Trust Fund in making contributions, industry was also willing to make contributions. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to direct staff to identify potential sources for funding a contribution to the Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund and to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Fund for Council approval. The MOU should include the provision that these moneys would return to the City, as part of a funding package, for the building of affordable housing and transitional housing for the homeless. The City’s contribution should be not less than $250,000. Council Member Ojakian asked about the funding source.
10/10/00 91-67
City Manager Frank Benest said the funding source was existing affordable housing dollars that originated from development fees that were tied to affordable housing and could only be used for affordable housing. Council Member Ojakian clarified the money would not come from the General Fund. Mr. Benest said no. Council Member Ojakian referred to the comment “no less than $250,000,” and asked about the maximum. Mr. Benest said staff would look at the maximum, not wanting to over commit the City. It would probably be more than the $250,000 but staff would return with what was reasonable. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. 20. Referral of Streamlining Council Procedures to Policy and Services Committee MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to refer the issue of Streamlining Council Procedures to the Policy and Services Committee. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kleinberg asked staff how to respond to the crisis of turnover of retail uses to office space. Council Member Kleinberg stated the Council was wearing purple ribbons because October was Domestic Abuse Awareness Month. Council Member Burch asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Joe Carleton, a former member of Neighbors Abroad. Council Member Kleinberg asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Betsy Crowder, an environmentalist who cared about the community. Council Member Kleinberg asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Adrian Heideman, a Palo Alto High School graduate. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. in memory of Joe Carleton, Betsy Crowder, Adrian Heideman. ATTEST: APPROVED: 10/10/00 91-68
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/10/00 91-69