HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-18 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting December 18, 2000
1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission ................................244
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................244
2. Ordinance 4669 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 $100,000 for Homer Avenue Undercrossing Capital Improvement Project, Number 10121” .....................................................245
3. Finance Committee recommendation to the City Council re Fiber to the Home. .........................................246
4. Finance Committee recommendation to the City Council re Gas Fund Commodity Purchase Costs .......................246
5. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rule and Regulation 5 to Revise Guidelines for Utility Customer Contracts, and to Establish Large Commercial Fixed-Term and Custom Commodity Rate Schedules G-11 and G-12 .........................246
6. Contract No. 00-SNR-00241 Advancement of Funds Contract for Central Valley Project Purchase Power and Wheeling Among and the United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, and Certain Central Valley Project Firm Electric Services Contractors ........................247
7. Amendment No. 3 to Management Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Brad Lozares for Golf Professional Services at 1875 Embarcadero Road to Extend the Term of the Agreement and to Increase the Management Fee .......................247
8. Amendment No. 3 to Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration for the Palo Alto Shuttle Project .....................................................247
12/18/00 91-241
9. Amendment No. 6 to Option Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. to Provide for Use of the Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Road .............247
10. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Thelen, Reid & Priest, LLP ...........................247
10A. (Old Item No. 20) Proposed Crosswalk Guidelines at Uncontrolled Intersections ...........................247
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ...................247
11. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation ...........................................247
12. Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation ..248
13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the September 29, 2000, decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, whereby the application of William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception [00-HIE-18] was approved. Approval was granted to allow the construction of a detached two-car garage within a rear-yard setback at a distance of 71.5 feet from the front property line and 30.5 feet from the street-side property line where 75 feet is the minimum distance required from any street facing property line. The property involved is an existing single-family residence (Zone District R-1), located at 404 Lowell Avenue ........................................248
14. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City’s 2000 Urban Water Management Plan ................................248
15. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider awarding a License to Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company for Placement of Telecommunications Facilities on Property Located Under a Pacific Gas & Electric Tower on the South Side of Colorado Avenue Near the Intersection of Colorado Avenue and Simkins Court .............................249
16. Finance Committee Recommendation re Amendments to the 2000-01 Municipal Fee. .......................................250
17. Resolution Declaring the Results of the Consolidated Special Election Held on November 7, 2000 ....................254
18. Status Report re Negotiations on Terman Community Center .....................................................254
12/18/00 91-242
19. Conceptual Approval of a Residential Permit Parking Program Framework for Implementation to Coincide with the Opening of New Downtown Parking Structures ......................261
21. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of December 26, 2000, and January 2, 2001, Regular City Council Meetings ...............261
22. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements .......261
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:20 p.m. .................................................261
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in memory of Marcia Guy, Palo Alto City Clerk’s office employee, and Alan J. Garcia, retired Palo Alto police officer. ....262
12/18/00 91-243
City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 8:22 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham (arrived at 8:30 p.m.), Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 8:28 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Christine Chutkowski and Marta Thoma received nine votes and would be interviewed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding the immorality of closing a portion of her property to her tenants and owners. Kip Husty, 922 Bautista Court, spoke regarding a claim filed that evening with City Clerk Donna Rogers. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Burch, that Agenda Item No. 20 be moved forward to the Consent Calendar. MOTION PASSED 9-0. City Manager Frank Benest announced that Item No. 20 would become Item No. 10A. City Attorney Ariel Calonne spoke regarding Item No. 8, for which a memo was left at Council places addressing Amendment No. 3 to the Joint Powers Board (JPB) agreement for rail shuttle bus service. Staff sought Council authority to make minor changes to the agreement to cover contingent costs. Item No. 9 would bring to conclusion a long process involving reuse of the former Chuck Thompson Swim & Tennis facility. At places that evening was a memo from the Administrative Services Department (ASD) asking the Council to modify its direction to staff to include an amendment prohibiting the operation of community skating and tennis programs until the previously required perimeter wall was constructed. The wall was an important sound-mitigation requirement. Staff also asked that the language include direction that the perimeter wall meet the sound reduction specifications previously specified by the Council.
12/18/00 91-244
Mayor Kniss asked whether the Council needed to take any other action other than approve the Consent Calendar to accommodate staff’s request. Mr. Calonne said no. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said the way agenda Item No. 9 was written, allowing the project to begin without having a wall built, was not fair or legal to residents. Council Member Lytle suggested a staff memo that reflected the intent of CSI’s letter; until the wall was constructed the City would only allow the current use. Any intensification of use would involve installation of the wall. Mr. Calonne said two staff reports addressed Item No. 9. The staff report (CMR:458:00) in the Council packet was the more lenient version. The recommendation to make the CSI letter a condition to protect the residents was contained in the report received at places that evening. Council Member Mossar said Item No. 5 included a Council decision to add duties to the City Auditor’s position. The City Auditor worked for the City Council and, by approving the item, work was implicitly added to the City Auditor’s position. Item No. 7 addressed the golf fee schedule and payment to the golf pro. The pro was paid out of a different “pot” of money than the golf play fees. The bulk of revenues that paid the pro golf came from the rental of golf carts. Therefore, there was no nexus between Item No. 7 and the golf fee schedule contained in Item No. 16. Mayor Kniss announced that Item No. 18 would be taken up as quickly as possible and the Closed Session would be handled at the end of the evening. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 – 10A. 2. Ordinance 4669 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 $100,000 for Homer Avenue Undercrossing Capital Improvement Project, Number 10121” 3. Finance Committee recommendation to the City Council re Fiber to the Home: 1) Reject the proposals on September 19, 2000, for the design and construction of the Fiber to the Home (FTTH) Project.
12/18/00 91-245
2) Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $300,000 allow the FTTH trial to move forward in a revised format. Ordinance 4670 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $300,000 to Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 9916, Fiber to the Home (FTTH) Trial” 4. Finance Committee recommendation to the City Council re Gas Fund Commodity Purchase Costs: 1) Resolution authorizing revised rate schedules to incorporate a 25 percent system average retail gas rate increase effect January 1, 2001, in order to partially offset the higher cost of delivered natural gas. 2) Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) providing an additional appropriation in the amount of $1.1 million for Gas fund commodity purchases; adjusting gas sales revenue by a net $500,000 and transferring $3.2 million from the Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve (DRSR) to the Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve (SRSR). 3) Approve raising the cap of the commodity portion of the Large Commercial Core Gas Service rate schedule G-3 to $1 to reflect the gas market conditions. Resolution 8021 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, and G-7 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Gas Rates” Ordinance 4671 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $1,026,642 for Gas Fund Commodity Purchase Costs” 5. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rule and Regulation 5 to Revise Guidelines for Utility Customer Contracts, and to Establish Large Commercial Fixed-Term and Custom Commodity Rate Schedules G-11 and G-12 Resolution 8022 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rule and Regulation 5 Pertaining to Contracts and Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules G-11 and G-12 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Large Commercial Fixed-Term and Custom Commodity Gas Services”
12/18/00 91-246
6. Contract No. 00-SNR-00241 Advancement of Funds Contract for Central Valley Project Purchase Power and Wheeling Among and the United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, and Certain Central Valley Project Firm Electric Services Contractors Resolution 8023 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Execution of a Contract for Advancement of Funds for Central Valley Project 00-SNR-00241 with the United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration” 7. Amendment No. 3 to Management Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Brad Lozares for Golf Professional Services at 1875 Embarcadero Road to Extend the Term of the Agreement and to Increase the Management Fee 8. Amendment No. 3 to Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration for the Palo Alto Shuttle Project 9. Amendment No. 6 to Option Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. to Provide for Use of the Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Road 10. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Thelen, Reid & Priest, LLP 10A. (Old Item No. 20) Proposed Crosswalk Guidelines at Uncontrolled Intersections MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Kniss announced that at the request of staff, Item No. 19 would be continued to a date uncertain. CLOSED SESSION
*This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) arising out of Palo Alto Unified School District condemnation of Terman Community Center. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(b)(3)(B) & (E))
12/18/00 91-247
12. Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation Subject: Sheridan v. City of Palo Alto, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No.: CV781752 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the September 29, 2000, decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, whereby the application of William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception [00-HIE-18] was approved. Approval was granted to allow the construction of a detached two-car garage within a rear-yard setback at a distance of 71.5 feet from the front property line and 30.5 feet from the street-side property line where 75 feet is the minimum distance required from any street facing property line. The property involved is an existing single-family residence (Zone District R-1), located at [404 Lowell Avenue,] Palo Alto, California. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District [R-1 Single Family Residential.] (Continued
from 12/11/00) BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL the item was continued to a date uncertain. PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City’s 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Utilities Resource Planner Kirk Miller said the Department of Water Resources (DWR) required all water agencies to prepare a Water Management Plan. Staff had prepared the City’s Water Management Plan for 2000 and requested formal adoption by the Council. Staff was prepared to submit the plan to the DWR, subject to any comments from the public and the Council. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the resolution. Resolution 8024 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 2000 Urban Water Management
12/18/00 91-248
Plan to be Submitted to the California Department of Water Resources” MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider awarding a License to Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company for Placement of Telecommunications Facilities on Property Located Under a Pacific Gas & Electric Tower on the South Side of Colorado Avenue Near the Intersection of Colorado Avenue and Simkins Court Council Member Mossar would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said staff sought Council approval of a license to Bay Area Cellular (BAC) to place wireless facilities on City property and a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) right-of-way. BAC had already obtained a license from PG&E for the antenna on an existing tower and sought a license for the City land beneath the tower for ground equipment. The location was ideal for BAC’s visually nondescript facilities, since the tower already existed and ground equipment would sit within the legs of the tower. Mayor Kniss said there were many “dead” areas around the community, asking whether any other areas could be offered to improve the cellular service within the community. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said as part of the City’s telecommunications ordinance, mapping was conducted of all so-called “black” areas in the City. Attempts were being made to triangulate with City-owned properties to encourage use of the properties and allow potential expediting of applications of providers who could serve the black areas to improve reception. Ms. Freeland said staff was designating certain sites for use by providers and was trying to encourage use of the sites to improve reception. Mayor Kniss asked whether a City-owned site could be found on which a tower could be constructed. Ms. Freeland said yes, but it was also possible another means of improving coverage might be found other than a tower. Council Member Kleinberg said a recent newspaper article addressed the issue about the potential radiation problems from communication towers. She asked whether staff had that a number of towers might cause danger to residential areas.
12/18/00 91-249
Ms. Freeland said the issue would be addressed in the City’s telecommunications policy on an individual basis. Each site was evaluated according to the amount of radiation emitted. The site in question was found to be within the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines at only 1.5 percent of the maximum allowed. Council Member Beecham asked whether the proposal met the four policy guidelines the Council had adopted. Ms. Freeland said yes. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:55 p.m. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the license from the City of Palo Alto to Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company (Cellular One now AT&T Wireless) for the development and operation of telecommunications facilities under a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) tower on City-owned property on the south side of Colorado Avenue near the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Simkins Court. Council Member Ojakian asked how much income the City received for the towers. Ms. Harrison thought the amount was not significant, but staff would provide that information to the Council. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar “not participating.” REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 16. Finance Committee Recommends City Amendments to the 2000-01 Municipal Fee. Council Member Mossar said the Finance Committee forwarded the item to the Council with its recommendation to accept the staff proposal to change the fee schedule for the golf course. The issue had been discussed for the past two years by the Council, the Golf Advisory group, who endorsed the fee schedule, and the Parks and Recreation (PARC), which had lengthy public hearings and endorsed the recommendation. The Council was urged to finalize the issue. It was important to note that included in the Council’s materials was information about the Senior Daily Rate which indicated a 25 percent discount over regular play fees. If a senior took the monthly rate, the proposal meant a 68 percent discount on the daily regular play fee. In comparison with other golf courses in the area, Palo Alto’s golf fees were favorable comparable. When the Council addressed the upgrades to the golf course, a decision was
12/18/00 91-250
made that golfers should pay for the upgrades. Not only were the regular golf players receiving the advantage of the upgrades to the golf course, but the seniors as well. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation to adopt the following amendments to the 2000-01 Municipal Fee Schedule: 1) Establish senior golf fees as outlined in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:445:00); 2) Establish remaining green fees and ancillary fees as outlined in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:425:00); and 3) Revise the effective dates of fee changes to take place on January 1 of each year. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2000-01 Municipal Fee Schedule For Golf Course Fees” Council Member Burch said as one of the individuals who initially raised the issue of senior golf fees, he was happy with staff’s proposal. The City had gone a long way to be reasonable with the senior golfers in giving the senior discount. Although not entirely happy with the playing hours, he was sure the seniors considered the staff recommendation a reasonable solution. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing open. Bob Carlstead, 147 Walter Hays Drive, spoke about the proposed fee schedule for senior play and the additional time restrictions. Although the fees were marginally acceptable, he voiced objection to the time restriction. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Lytle suggested the time restrictions be removed from the motion; Council Member Kleinberg agreed. Staff could monitor the senior play to determine how much revenue was actually being lost. If justified, the restriction could be imposed the following year. Council Member Mossar would not accept the changes on behalf of the Finance Committee. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to eliminate the time restrictions. Council Member Kleinberg agreed with Mr. Carlstead. Recreation should not be limited for the small number of seniors on fixed incomes. It was a small gesture on the part of the City to postpone imposition of the limitation.
12/18/00 91-251
Council Member Burch said not all seniors were on a fixed income. He asked the Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen about the different charge to a senior who began play before 8:30a.m. versus after 8:30a.m. Community Services Director Paul Thiltgen said the difference in the case of a single play was approximately $10 per round. If a 10-play card was purchased, the difference was about $8 or $9 per round. The more the senior played on the monthly play card, the less expensive it became. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the City had three senior programs. Mr. Thiltgen said yes. Council Member Ojakian asked how many seniors played on a given week. Mr. Thiltgen said approximately 2,200 seniors played per year. Council Member Ojakian asked which program was favored by the seniors. Parks & Golf Course Division Director Paul Dias said the most heavily used program over the past year was the weekday discount card. Since July 1, 2000, 41 of the weekday discount cards were sold. Of the senior discount card, which was the 10-play card, 38 were sold since July 1. Council Member Ojakian asked about the time restrictions on the two programs. Mr. Dias said most seniors played with the monthly discount card before 8:30 or 9:00a.m., which was the reason staff chose that particular time. Council Member Ojakian asked whether there were any hourly restrictions on the monthly card. Mr. Dias said none currently. Council Member Ojakian asked how many days per week the seniors could play on the monthly card. Mr. Dias said the seniors could play Monday through Thursday with the monthly play card. Council Member Ojakian asked how many days seniors could play with the other card.
12/18/00 91-252
Mr. Dias said seniors could play Monday through Friday with the 10-play card. Council Member Ojakian thought the City also offered a general discount to seniors. Mr. Dias said yes. The Golf Course offered a daily senior rate fee of $21 for play any time Monday through Friday. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion from the Finance Committee because a variety of options were offered to seniors. The program was very good for seniors, including paying less for restricted hours but pay no more, still at a discount, for more hours of play. He would not support the substitute motion because the Finance Committee’s recommendation was a fair and balanced approach that allowed for different options. Council Member Kleinberg was not comfortable creating two classes of seniors. Vice Mayor Eakins thought the one-time restriction was only in effect during daylight savings time. She would not support the substitute motion. The deeply discounted rates were a fine way to provide play times during hours when people who were not working could play golf. It made sense to provide incentives through discounts, using more times during the day and to keep the play times that were most in demand at the standard fees. The City was “managing the yield” better. Staff and the PARR were doing a fine job of handling the issue sensitively. Council Member Mossar said the Council chosen to add boards and commissions to its variety of advisors. The PARC, at the Council’s direction, took up the matter, held public hearings, and supported a recommendation. The Council had the responsibility to reaffirm to its boards and commissions the role, trust, and responsibility it placed in them to review and make recommendations to the Council. She would not support the substitute motion. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Mossar. The golf fees should not be micro-managed. He would not support the substitute motion. Mayor Kniss would not support the substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-6, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle “yes”. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RESOLUTIONS
12/18/00 91-253
17. Resolution Declaring the Results of the Consolidated Special Election Held on November 7, 2000 MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the resolution. Resolution 8025 entitled “Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated Special Election Held on November 7, 2000” MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 18. Status Report re Negotiations on Terman Community Center Council Member Beecham would not participate due to a conflict of interest. City Manager Frank Benest updated the Council on staff’s efforts with regard to the middle school/community center challenge. The City’s partners in the effort included a number of stakeholders, principally, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), the Jewish Community Center (JCC), and Stanford University (Stanford), all working together in an attempt to resolve the issue. With declining enrollment in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the PAUSD sold or leased a number of school sites no longer needed at the time, including the Terman Middle School site. The City purchased or leased some of the sites as locations for community centers, one of which was Terman. As a result of the community-driven Terman Specific Plan (Terman Plan), the City identified the need for a community center to serve southwest Palo Alto in 1981, and recruited the JCC to be the anchor tenant and major service provider. The JCC entered into a long-term lease with the City at the Terman Community Center. Over the past 18 years, the City paid the PAUSD $15.2 million to purchase the site, the last payment of which was recently made. Another $2.6 million was invested in improvements. The JCC also made $2.4 million in improvements to the Terman Community Center. With increasing enrollment, the PAUSD informed the City that it needed to reacquire Terman as a middle school and that it was pursuing an eminent domain action. The City Council was committed to facilitating the transition of Terman from the City to the PAUSD and seeking another site for a community service center to serve southwest Palo Alto as well as the larger Palo Alto community. Given the lack of available property and astronomical real estate values in Palo Alto, the search for a new community center had been very difficult. As staff searched for a replacement site, Stanford came forward to offer the old Mayfield School site at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Stanford’s offer was contingent on Santa Clara County’s (the County) approval of the Stanford Community Plan and General Use
12/18/00 91-254
Permit, which had occurred. The offer letter contained a number of other conditions including the requirement that the square footage of the community center built on Mayfield be transferred to another site in the Stanford Research Park. In guiding City staff with respect to the challenge, the Council established four primary goals. (1) Work with the PAUSD to facilitate the transition of Terman to the PAUSD, enabling the PAUSD to meet its timeline for reestablishing the middle school at Terman and recognizing the importance of education in the community. (2) Develop a joint use program for the new Terman Middle School. The City desired to work with the PAUSD to preserve certain community service functions such as the library. (3) Secure other property for a replacement community center to serve the Palo Alto community, especially in southwest Palo Alto, with the JCC as an anchor tenant and primary service provider. (4) Work with the JCC and the PAUSD to avoid any interruption in services for the JCC and the community center. As stipulated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the City was responsible for ensuring the delivery of community services just as the PAUSD’s primary responsibility was delivering educational programs, to children and families. The City and the JCC entered into a partnership and lease 18 years ago, so the JCC could provide community services to southwest Palo Alto and the community at large. The JCC was a non-profit, non-sectarian, United Way agency providing health and human services in the same fashion as the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA). The partnership made a great deal of financial sense to the City. The JCC provided community services at a lower cost than the City. The JCC had a long-term lease with the City and, therefore, had legal rights should the PAUSD exercise eminent domain and dislocate the JCC from Terman. At a recent meeting with Stanford, discussions focused on how to move forward on its offer for the Mayfield site which was zoned for housing. The Stanford offer was contingent on the City’s transferring the community center square footage built on Mayfield to one or several sites in the Stanford Research Park. Stanford wanted the equivalent square footage to be commercial office. The possible amount of square footage possible under the City’s Comprehensive Plan on the Mayfield site was 240,000 square feet of residential. If the City built 100,000 square feet of public facilities on Mayfield, and transferred another 100,000 square feet of commercial office to another part of the Stanford Research Park as part of the arrangement, a problem arose with the amount of traffic and housing needs generated by jobs in the commercial/office space. The Council needed to evaluate the offer of Mayfield on its merits once the application moved forward through the land use process. Time was of the essence, so staff was trying to move forward as quickly as possible to address a number of issues related to Mayfield. The issues included potential uses, proposed service plan and service providers, access issues, mitigation of traffic, groundwater contamination, other environmental issues, parking on the site, governance of the community center, and funding. Mayfield was not free. While the
12/18/00 91-255
land was being offered by Stanford for $1 per year, there were substantial predevelopment and development costs. The City’s share of structure parking could cost upward of $30,000 per space. As the anchor tenant, the JCC would be required to raise $40 to $50 million for constructing the lion’s share of the community center site. With all the other infrastructure needs Palo Alto faced as a City, it did not have sufficient funds to replace the community center. To replace the community center, the City needed to sell or lease Terman to the PAUSD for a fair amount. Council Member Mossar asked whether conversations about fair value for Terman included both cash and other value. Mr. Benest said yes. Staff and the other stakeholders had discussed many ways of coming up with value. The Terman land, not including the fields, was valued at about $35 million. The $17 million the City had invested along with the playground and parks as part of the school site, at about 7.7 acres, represented a valuable contribution. The question was how to come up with a value that served the best interests of the total community, both cash and non-cash. Council Member Mossar clarified value could include the Cubberley or Ventura sites. Mr. Benest said the value would include any number of things. Council Member Lytle said the Stanford offer for Mayfield of $1 per year came with the condition that Palo Alto transfer commercial development rights equal to the size of the new community center somewhere in the Stanford Research Park. She asked whether that transfer of rights for commercial use would be a legislative decision that was referendable and whether the amount of commercial square footage was within the Citywide growth cap of $3.8 million as contained in Policy L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benest said Stanford indicated it was in the process or had the right to build 535,000 square feet. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) anticipated 800,000 square feet, but staff would be checking the figures. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff expected the legislative act would be subject to referendum. Council Member Lytle questioned whether the amount of square footage requested by Stanford was within the Citywide cap. Mr. Benest thought staff needed to clarify that information. There were no perfect solutions to any complex problem. The issue had been incredibly complex from the very beginning. The question was
12/18/00 91-256
what set of tradeoffs were desired for the community when all was said and done. Council Member Lytle said the answer was that the City wanted it all. Council Member Ojakian said part of the problem was that half of the items conflicted with the other. Mr. Benest mentioned the appraised value for Terman of $35 million was strictly for the current active site on which the JCC sat. Mr. Benest said yes. The figure represented the academic grounds the City would transfer to the PAUSD under some sale or lease arrangement, including the parking but not including the 7.7 acres. In addition to the eight acres, the City was providing a 15-to 16-acre site. Council Member Ojakian asked whether part of the eminent domain proceedings the PAUSD initiated involved an appraisal. Mr. Benest yes. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff knew the appraised value. Mr. Benest said staff anticipated receiving the appraisal soon. Council Member Ojakian said there was a clear distinction between the monies that the City paid for improvements, $17 million, and the value of the property. Mr. Benest said yes. The City purchased the property at fair market value. Council Member Ojakian said the queries from some members of the public suggested that somehow the City was taking money back from the taxpayer when, in fact, appraised value was not being used for the PAUSD. If the City sold the property, it would receive somewhere in the $30 to $35 million range. Mr. Benest said yes. Council Member Ojakian said because the property was being acquired by the PAUSD, a lesser amount of money was being considered. Mr. Benest said the City was trying to be supportive of its partner, yes. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing open.
12/18/00 91-257
Joe Hirsch, JCC Board of Directors, 4149 Georgia Avenue, spoke about JCC’s vision of what might happen on the Mayfield site. Council Member Burch asked for an estimated amount of square footage necessary for the JCC. Sandy Blovad, JCC Executive Director, 4152 Thain Way, said the JCC was considering exceeding 100,000 square feet. After spending $50 million, they would not want the facility to become obsolete, particularly in consideration of a 51-year lease. Mr. Hirsch said the JCC was conducting an organizational needs assessment. Unfortunately, it might not be completed until late summer. However, City staff was also conducting a needs assessment for completion around April 2001. Council Member Burch asked whether multiple buildings were being considered. Mr. Benest said one issue was a community service campus with the JCC as the anchor tenant and major service provider. Either the facility would provide dedicated City space or shared space for City programs. In many cases, the programs could be co-sponsored with the JCC. Discussion had also included possible non-profit space and minimal housing on the site. Although all of the ideas were desirable, some site-planning to see what the site could handle, particularly certain parking solutions, was needed. The other question was whether the City wanted one building or several buildings. Council Member Burch said the City could be facing a TDR for Stanford for a lot more than 100,000 square feet. Mr. Benest said that was one of the tradeoffs. In staff’s discussion with Stanford about the transfer, Stanford agreed to return to City staff with a figure. Council Member Ojakian asked what the JCC “dreamed” for the site, if it had free reign to do whatever it wanted and whether it could raise the funds to do so. Mr. Blovad said the JCC would give its best effort. Early indications from donors indicated the JCC had one shot to build a facility for the new generation. The JCC was cautiously optimistic that it could achieve its goal. Council Member Ojakian said City money would still remain involved in the facility, even if the JCC had free reign, because of the need to remediate many of the conditions surrounding the site and traffic. Reasonable rent involved the expectation that the City might charge a certain amount.
12/18/00 91-258
Mr. Blovad said if the JCC constructed the facility, was liberal in City uses on the facility, and $50 million was invested in building, the JCC would seek the most favorable rates. In conversations with city staff, one of the visions the JCC had in terms of shared usage was a large gymnasium. He said Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen hoped to give the citizens of Palo Alto access to a gymnasium seven nights per week. In the scenario the JCC envisioned at the current time, that could happen and be built by the JCC. Mr. Hirsch said another possibility was a good-sized aerobics studio, which both the City and JCC would be able to access at different times, to be built by the JCC. The JCC thought it could be very flexible at the Mayfield site. The current site included a ground lease with the buildings. For the new site, the JCC anticipated having only a ground lease with a fair amount of money to build a world-class, first-rate building to which it was committed. The JCC was willing to work collaboratively with the City to ensure that expanded City services were available and the JCC’s needs were met. Mayor Kniss asked how the Foster City/JCC lease agreement came into being. Mr. Blovad said two agendas existed. Foster City needed community services and did not have the finances to erect a building but had the land on which to erect a building. The JCC located in Belmont was seeking land, so a lease agreement was reached. The language of the lease was very interesting. The JCC was offering a much more liberal approach in terms of shared or joint partnership with the City of Palo Alto. In the Foster City agreement, straight membership was being offered, where 1,000 discounted memberships were available to Foster City residents. The discount was 10 percent. The offer to Palo Alto was much more of a partnership. Former Council Member Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, expressed concerns about the overall land use planning aspects of the proposal. She urged the Council to keep open the possibilities of other sites that might become available because there were many problems with the Mayfield site. Page Mill Road and El Camino Real was one of the most congested intersections in Palo Alto. The Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study found that little could be done to improve the intersection. An additional 200,000 square feet to the intersection meant the same amount had to be subtracted elsewhere in the community. The Mayfield site was one of the few sites rezoned for housing back in 1975 that was still designated as housing. An EIR was critical for the site. Lisa Hendrickson, President of Avenidas, 450 Bryant, expressed the need for an intergenerational community center at the Ventura site
12/18/00 91-259
and the possibility of negotiating a release of the PAUSD’s purchase options for the site in the Terman negotiations. She asked the Council to direct staff to negotiate a release of the PAUSD’s purchase option on Ventura and to begin the process for entering into a long-term lease with Avenidas and Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC). Margo Dutton, Executive Director of PACCC, 3990 Ventura Court, expressed the need for major renovations at the Ventura site. With Avenidas as a partner, the fundraising efforts and campaigns made the renovations achievable for PACCC. Former Mayor Larry Klein, former Board Member of Avenidas and current PACCC Board Member, expressed enthusiasm for the intergenerational community center on both Boards and the time constraints on both organizations to accomplish their goal. He urged the Council to add a fifth point to its priorities to negotiate with the PAUSD with respect to Ventura. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Burch clarified Avenidas and PACCC were asking that the City Manager, in negotiations with the PAUSD, ask the PAUSD to relinquish its option to buy back the Ventura school site. Having secured that from the PAUSD, the City would grant a long-term lease to Avenidas and PACCC to develop half of the property. He asked whether it was appropriate for the City to include the request in the negotiations. Mr. Benest thought the issue should be discussed in Closed Session. Council Member Lytle said Ms. Renzel raised the issue of exploring alternatives, asking whether any EIR would include alternatives and whether the City was still pursing alternative sites in the event the Mayfield site negotiations failed. Mr. Benest said staff was still discussing other possibilities but reiterated that there was no perfect site. Any site in Palo Alto would involve negatives. Any full EIR would, by necessity, evaluate other options. Council Member Lytle assumed the City would have to do an EIR because it had a statement of over-riding considerations on the intersections the last time an EIR was conducted. Mr. Benest said staff was evaluating the issue. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the City provided any childcare and senior services directly under its own authority or outsourced the services.
12/18/00 91-260
Mr. Benest said the City outsourced services and did not provide childcare or senior services directly. Council Member Ojakian said the City had a real advantage to have a third party at minimum cost provide the services to the City. Mr. Benest agreed. The services were subsidized through real estate. The City’s part of the partnership was to provide discounted real estate and other incentives. The City received tremendous value from a variety of providers. No action required. 19. Conceptual Approval of a Residential Permit Parking Program Framework for Implementation to Coincide with the Opening of New Downtown Parking Structures Item continued to a date uncertain at the request of staff. COUNCIL MATTERS 21. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of December 26, 2000, and January 2, 2001, Regular City Council Meetings MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to cancel the December 26, 2000, and January 2, 2001, Regular City Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 22. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Eakins asked the Council to adjourn the meeting in memory of Marcia Guy, an employee of the City Clerk’s Office, and Alan J. Garcia, a retired Palo Alto police officer. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:20 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation and Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 12. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 12. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in memory of Marcia Guy, Palo Alto City Clerk’s office employee, and Alan J. Garcia, retired Palo Alto police officer.
12/18/00 91-261
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
12/18/00 91-262