HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-12 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting March 12,2001
1. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Human Relations Commission........................................445
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................445
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................445
2. Ordinance 4686 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year
2000-01 to Accept a $101,918 Grant from the Public Fund of the State Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of
$101,918”...................................................446
3. Resolution 8039 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Apply to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for Funds to Offset the Construction Cost of New Alternative-Fuels
Fueling Infrastructure”.....................................446
3A. Resolution 8040 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
the Enfolio Master Firm Purchase/Sale Agreement with Enron North America Corporation”..................................446
4. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C8102949 Between the City of Palo Alto and Grossman Design Group in the amount of $28,619 for Design of Replacement Expansion Joint for the Civic Center Plaza (Capital Improvement Program Project 19512)......................................................446
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Silicon Valley Paving, Inc in the Amount of $110,283 for Intersection
Improvements at San Antonio Road/Nita Avenue (Capital Improvement Program Project 21540...........................446
03/12/01 91-443
6. Request for City Council to Approve the Designation of a Silver Maple Located at 1872 Edgewood Drive as Heritage
Tree No. 5..................................................447
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Kuehne Construction Company in the Amount of $238,579 for Civic Center Eighth Floor Renovation (Capital Improvement Project 10020)......................................................447
8. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. S9114919 Between the City of Palo Alto and Sandis Humber Jones in the amount of $74,200 for Final Design of the Arastradero Road Bicycle
Path (Capital Improvement Project 19815)....................447
9. Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement
Modifying a Portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford University Campus That Would Allow the Future Development of Faculty, Staff or Student Housing Consistent with the Recently-Approved Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP) and Consideration of an
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report...........447
10. Amendment No. 3 to Special Counsel Services Agreement No. C7081794 Between the City of Palo Alto and Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C............................447
11. Removal of Items from the Policy and Services Committee’s
Referrals...................................................447
12. Policy and Services Committee recommendation re
Streamlining of Council Procedures and Facilitating Policy (Continued from 12/11/00)...................................447
13. Update on the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified
School District Joint Facilities and Services Master Plan...456
14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..............462
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. in memory of Ben Bailey, an advocate for the homeless........................462
03/12/01 91-444
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Fazzino arrived at 7:15 p.m., Lytle, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins, Kleinberg, Mossar
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Human Relations Commission
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Alexander Edelstein, Ann Ozer, Kenneth Russell, Linda Slone, and George Vizvary received six votes and would be interviewed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding electric energy transmission lines.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding Page Mill Road/El Camino Real.
Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, spoke regarding SOFA 1 public hearings.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding urban
redevelopment. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good
government.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the Minutes of January 16, 22, and 29, 2001, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 5-0-1, Wheeler “abstaining”, Eakins, Kleinberg,
Mossar absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ann Morton spoke on behalf of her daughter, Jane Sovndal, 1862 Edgewood Drive, regarding Item No. 6.
03/12/01 91-445
City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted that Item No. 9 was removed from the Consent Calendar by staff in order to be published in
the newspaper as a public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 – 8, and 10 –11, with Item No. 9 removed at the request of staff.
Council Member Beecham said Ms. Sovndal indicated in her letter that there were roots invading her lawn and causing damage in
her yard. An individual had rights to prune roots of a neighbor’s tree if the roots were in that individual’s yard. He
asked if a heritage tree would inhibit that legal ability. Mr. Calonne said if Ms. Sovndal applied for an unusual permit, the City might have jurisdiction to cause tree protection. However, in the ordinary case, the ordinance did not inhibit
those rights. 2. Ordinance 4686 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Accept a $101,918 Grant from the Public Fund of
the State Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of
$101,918” 3. Resolution 8039 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Apply to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for Funds
to Offset the Construction Cost of New Alternative-Fuels Fueling Infrastructure”
3A. Resolution 8040 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
the Enfolio Master Firm Purchase/Sale Agreement with Enron North America Corporation”
4. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C8102949 Between the City of Palo Alto and Grossman Design Group in the amount of
$28,619 for Design of Replacement Expansion Joint for the Civic Center Plaza (Capital Improvement Program Project 19512)
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Silicon Valley
Paving, Inc in the Amount of $110,283 for Intersection Improvements at San Antonio Road/Nita Avenue (Capital Improvement Program Project 21540
03/12/01 91-446
6. Request for City Council to Approve the Designation of a Silver Maple Located at 1872 Edgewood Drive as Heritage
Tree No. 5 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Kuehne Construction Company in the Amount of $238,579 for Civic Center Eighth Floor Renovation (Capital Improvement Project
10020) 8. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. S9114919 Between the City
of Palo Alto and Sandis Humber Jones in the amount of $74,200 for Final Design of the Arastradero Road Bicycle
Path (Capital Improvement Project 19815) 9. Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Modifying a Portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford University Campus That Would Allow the Future
Development of Faculty, Staff or Student Housing Consistent with the Recently-Approved Stanford University Community
Plan and General Use Permit (GUP) and Consideration of an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the First Amendment to Development Agreement Between the
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the City of Palo Alto Dated August 14, 1997
10. Amendment No. 3 to Special Counsel Services Agreement No. C7081794 Between the City of Palo Alto and Duncan,
Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C. 11. Removal of Items from the Policy and Services Committee’s
Referrals MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item Nos. 2-5, 7-8 and 10-11, Eakins, Kleinberg, Mossar absent. MOTION PASSED 5-0-1 for Item No. 6, Fazzino “abstaining,”
Eakins, Kleinberg, Mossar absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. Policy and Services Committee recommendation re Streamlining of Council Procedures and Facilitating Policy
(Continued from 12/11/00)
Council Member Fazzino asked what the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee decided to do about Oral Communications.
03/12/01 91-447
Council Member Beecham said the P&S Committee did not make changes to Oral Communications. Giving the Mayor and the City
Manager the authority to adjust the agenda order was discussed. At the retreat, there was further recommendation that the first item of discussion be the main agenda item so that it worked to the advantage of those who came for public speaking. It also gave greater assurance that Council would complete the item.
Council Member Wheeler said it was not clear how a Council Member’s request to see the scope of services would translate
into the entire Council then being made aware of the concern, and that concern addressed before the contract was actually
voted on. Council Member Beecham said after seeing the item on Friday, Council could react quickly by calling staff on Monday. It was unfortunately a short timeframe. There was major discussion of
the item at the P&S Committee meeting. Another item to consider, that was mentioned by the Assistant City Manager was that the $25,000 limit Council had been working under had existed for 25 years. The cost of living changed and prices had gone up in 25 years.
Council Member Wheeler said she could see the rationale for
changing the dollar limit. It seemed the major point of not having the Committee review contract scope of services was the efficiency factor of not taking the time to go to the Committee
and not having a 6-week lag time. She asked what would happen if she received a contract, managed to convince four other Council
Members to pull that contract on the night it was due to be signed. That seemed equally disruptive as, if not more disruptive than, the process of having a committee look at the
scope.
City Manager Frank Benest said staff would continue the practice of providing a list of projects over the dollar limit at the beginning of the fiscal year. If any Council Member had interest, staff could discuss what would be in the scope of services and resolve concerns well in advance. There was
something wrong in the system if a contract over the $65,000 limit was scheduled on the agenda, and a Council Member had a concern about the scope that staff had not addressed.
Council Member Wheeler clarified that the list would be
published at the beginning of the fiscal year, individual Council Members could notify staff of potential contracts of interest, and Council Members would be contacted by staff when the scope was written.
03/12/01 91-448
Mr. Benest said yes. Staff would address concerns, and if a Council Member did not agree with staff, the issue could be sent
to a committee. Vice Mayor Ojakian said the assumption was that the P&S Committee recommendation would streamline the meetings and make them more productive for both the Council and the public. He
asked how that would be measured, and what the impact of the various changes would be.
Council Member Beecham said the main issue was what kind of measures and objectives would be developed. It would be
difficult to come up with valid measurements. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked if after the changes were in place, whether Council would review the streamlining procedures if there was no improvement.
Mr. Benest said at least once a year, the Council generally had a retreat and talked about protocol, how the City was doing business, and whether there were better ways. If the effort did not improve, he was sure the issue would be brought up.
Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified that the measurement would be how
the public responded. Mr. Benest said it was qualitative and subjective. Questions
included whether the City was doing better in trying to be citizen friendly, and whether Council was focusing on what was
really of concern to citizens. Council Member Lytle asked whether, with regard to the
reordering of the agenda, the Mayor and City Manager would do that at the last minute.
Mr. Benest said the council packet was sent out on Thursday. At that time, people would know that the main agenda item had moved up and could plan their time accordingly.
Council Member Lytle originally thought the reordering could be done at pre-Council and was relieved to hear the agenda was posted on Thursday in the manner in which items were reordered.
She clarified the ordering was done based on the main event, not some other political strategy.
Mr. Benest said it was based on the best judgment of what most people would be interested in.
03/12/01 91-449
Council Member Beecham said there was considerable discussion in the P&S Committee meeting about ensuring that the changes were
done in advance so that when the agenda went out, people knew when something would happen. People came to meetings and would not know when the main event would start because the item would be 9, 10, 12, or 16. The interest was making the main agenda item first all the time.
City Clerk Donna Rogers said the agenda had to be sent to the paper on Wednesday in order to be published.
Council Member Lytle said her understanding was that it could
end up in the paper different from the posting. Mr. Benest said reordering would be done at agenda planning. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said there were 23 items in the
recommendation. He sent Council a letter on four of them. Regarding deferring to committees, he believed the Council’s vote was needed. Regarding the Consent Calendar, the City should continue doing things as before. There was no abuse, such as pulling an item off for second reading of an ordinance. Two-
thirds of the Council present could cut off debate on an item if they thought there was abuse. Regarding scope of consultant
contracts, one Council Member might have an idea that the City Manager agreed with to put into a consultant contract, but the other eight Council Members might have the opposite idea.
Consultant contracts should be done in public by a majority of the Council. He would not want to substitute other meetings out
in the community for meetings where decisions were made. He believed Council Members should stay in their own seats. It was the first Council he could remember who thought it was more
important to be next to each other than to sit in their owns seats, turn on their own lights for voting, and let the public
know which chairs were empty. Second, there were items that the standing committees, boards, and commissions had already acted upon. There was nothing in the procedural rules that required those items to be placed on the agenda by a date certain. Once they were on the agenda, they could be continued forever, but it
should be a majority decision of the Council not to act on a particular recommendation from a board or commission or committee rather than acted upon by the Mayor or City Manager.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the word “audience” rang
in her ears whenever she heard it. Members of the public were not an audience. Members of the public were part of the process. Years before when she was on the Council, the Council voted on whom to interview using a voting ballot that was received in the packet. Council filled it out, gave it to the City Clerk, and
03/12/01 91-450
received in the next packet a list of the people who would be interviewed. At the current evening’s meeting, it took about
five minutes to decide whom to interview. That was not a long process but unless the City Attorney said it had to be done in public, that process could be shortened. She also mentioned that years before, Council did not make speeches when making appointments. It could be done in writing with copies provided
to the press, where the public would hear about it. Council Member Fazzino said generally he supported the
recommendation before Council. The reason why many meetings were long was that the City had a very engaged constituency, and
since he and Ms. Renzel started attending meetings back in the late 1960s, nothing had changed. Meetings in the 1960s and 1970s were longer than the present ones. Also, it was not the first Council to change chairs. Many other Councils in the past had done the same. The best way of streamlining the process was to
have a 7-member Council. Some disagreed, but Council talked to fill up the time no matter how many items were on the agenda. He believed the television cameras had some impact on Council’s behavior over the past 20 or 25 years. There were public expectations of the Council and Council’s performance. Palo Alto
was the only city of 60,000 people in the entire United States that had four newspapers covering it on a regular basis. He saw
a study two years prior which indicated Palo Alto was the second most highly educated constituency in the entire nation, and the City would be most highly educated if Stanford were part of Palo
Alto. If the Council were to sit quietly, he was sure that Geoff Fein and others from the Daily News would report the fact that
Council was not being fair and candid with its constituents regarding true feelings on particular items. He agreed that major items needed to be placed at the beginning of the meeting,
and he encouraged the City Manager and Mayor to exercise their prerogative in making that happen. He had been concerned that
Council bent over backwards to be overly fair to those who spoke on a weekly basis in Oral Communications and not fair to those who came at 7 p.m. with the expectation that they would speak on a particular item. Many of the items involved parents with small children and elderly people. He also agreed that the City needed
to remove ceremonial items. He felt strongly that items should not start after 10:30 p.m. and that meetings should stop at 11 p.m. He also believed that contracts over $25,000 deserved
public scrutiny and should continue to have Council approval at the committee level.
Mr. Benest said contracts over $65,000 would go to Council for approval. The public could comment on anything in that contract, including the scope of work.
03/12/01 91-451
Council Member Fazzino clarified the proposal was for committees to discontinue review of the scope of consultant contracts over
$25,000. Mr. Benest said that was correct. The City Manager currently had the authority to approve contracts under $65,000. That had gone up over years as inflation increased. The same standard was
applied for the scope of work of contracts. All Council Members received at the beginning of the fiscal year a list of projects. Anyone could comment as the scope of each project was developed.
Then contracts above $65,000 went to Council for approval. Council and the public would see the full contract and scope of
work and could comment. Council Member Fazzino asked whether committees considered any contracts between $25,000 and $65,000.
Mr. Benest said no. At the beginning of the year, Council received a list of all contracts, including the ones between $25,000 and $65,000. Most of the time, nobody said much about them.
Council Member Fazzino wanted to continue to provide information to the public regarding all contracts over $25,000.
Mr. Benest said the standard was $65,000.
Council Member Fazzino thought that had been the standard for the Council, but that the standard for the committee was
$25,000. Vice Mayor Ojakian said from the list of contracts, during the
Finance Committee meetings, the Finance Committee chose certain ones to look at. The contracts and scopes of services came back
in a subsequent meeting for review. Council Member Fazzino said all major issues were assigned to relevant boards, commissions, and committees prior to going to Council. He believed the City Manager needed to think through
whether or not any board or commission had relevancy associated with a particular item. Regarding interviewing candidates for boards and commissions, he believed there were alternative
approaches. He suggested the possibility of ending all terms at the same time and devoting two Saturdays per year to meeting
with all candidates. There would be much visibility associated with the board and commission openings, which could lead to additional applications. Also, Council could get the recruitment done in two days’ time. An alternative to that was to simply have subcommittees do the work with respect to most boards and
03/12/01 91-452
commissions and have the full Council meet with candidates for the Planning Commission. He wanted to see something more
radical with respect to committee appointments. Council Member Beecham said he and Mayor Eakins had spoken with Council Member Mossar and believed she was comfortable with the item. The P&S Committee minutes were detailed. Regarding
requiring five Council Members to pull items from the Consent Calendar, the recommendation was for items for second reading. Council still had the ability to pull items from the Consent
Calendar and talk about them at its pleasure, but there was concern on the P&S Committee about pulling off an item at the
second reading and processing it without due consideration to everybody else who might be involved. Council Member Lytle agreed with most of Council Member Fazzino’s comments. In particular, the issue of really
streamlining would require reduction in Council size, and she believed seven would be the perfect size. She was not as concerned about the $65,000 contract limit for Council review. Other jurisdictions raised their amount through the years commensurate with what a minor contract was in present times,
and it was micromanaging for Council to be down at the $25,000 level. Most organizations she knew raised their limit higher
than $65,000. She thanked the P&S Committee for its work and supported the recommendation.
Council Member Wheeler said very few contracts were pulled for committee review of scope of services. The contracts that were
pulled tended to be large expenditures or of great interest to the community. In the past, committees made good suggestions and improvements in the scope of services. In the P&S minutes,
Council Member Burch mentioned that the storm drain contract had not been reviewed by a committee. However, the contract was
reviewed by the Finance Committee under the leadership of former Council Member Rosenbaum, and the scope of services was changed very significantly. The Finance Committee had broken the multimillion dollar consultant contract scope into several phases and built in some stop and go checks along the way. The
committees did not abuse the privilege of reviewing contracts. She was nervous about one Council Member having an inordinate influence on the scope of services and then have the rest of the
Council look at the contract after it had been placed on the agenda. She would raise the limit to $65,000, but as long as
the committees continued to use great discretion over the numbers and types of contracts to see, she would rather leave the ability to them to make that selection once a year. There was a value added benefit when that was done.
03/12/01 91-453
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, that
the City Council approve the recommendations of the Policy and
Services Committee regarding streamlining Council procedures and facilitating in-depth discussion of key policy issues outlined in CMR:410:00. Further, to add the following procedures: the agenda will be set by staff and the Mayor in order to have the main item be first on the agenda; the list of contracts over
$65,000 will go to the committees where the majority of members can request any contract return for discussion.
Council Member Burch said as a member of the P&S Committee, he supported corrections or suggestions from colleagues.
Council Member Wheeler clarified that Council received the list of contracts at the beginning of the fiscal year and if a Council Member requested a particular contract be assigned to a committee for review of the scope of services, then the
committee would look at that particular contract. Council Member Beecham said that was correct. Mr. Benest said in terms of the effort of moving business
forward, the staff would send out a list of contracts over $65,000 to both committees. A majority of a committee could say
a contract needed committee review, which was easier than having one Council Member suggest committee review.
Council Member Wheeler believed it should be a decision made by multiple Council Members, not an individual Council Member.
Council Member Fazzino said he would move to add a proposal that stipulated Council would not begin major items after 10:30 p.m.
and that Council would try to avoid taking action after 11 p.m. except for extraordinary reasons.
Council Member Beecham said he was no fan of late night meetings, but he would not want to tie Council’s hands and have Council run out of time when Council needed to get something done. He would include Council Member Fazzino’s suggestion as a
guideline, not a firm requirement. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add guidelines not to start new agenda items after
10:30 p.m. and not to continue discussions of agenda items after
11:00 p.m. Council Member Burch understood that the Council was moving toward one major item per meeting, which would be the first item on the agenda.
03/12/01 91-454
Council Member Fazzino agreed to include his suggestion as a guideline.
Council Member Beecham said often there were items that had to be addressed, which were not necessarily major and did not necessarily take much time. If there were a major items and it was past 10:30 p.m., Council had to be able to pick up the other
items.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the existing policies stated
that City Council made every effort to end its meetings before 11 p.m. Before 10 p.m., the Council would decide what, if
anything, would be taken up after 11 p.m. Vice Mayor Ojakian believed Council did not have to add anything to the current rules since they already existed.
Mr. Calonne said the change in emphasis was important. The spirit of what the Council was doing needed to be captured. Vice Mayor Ojakian supported the motion and strongly suggested that Council not make too many other alterations, especially in
the event three Council Members were absent. If Council Members felt strongly about some additional items, they could be brought
up at a future date. Council Member Lytle believed one of the reasons the retail
ordinance was a thorn in the Council’s side was the way it was handled. Some agendas in the latter part of the previous year
had urgency measures scheduled by colleagues, not by the City Manager or anyone else. So regular major items were overlapped. When that happened, it was difficult for the whole organization
to recover. She believed a more successful approach was to schedule urgency matters as a special meeting because it did not
work well to overlap them in addition to a regular set of business. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Eakins, Kleinberg, Mossar absent.
Council Member Fazzino proposed that Council adopt different rules with respect to interviewing candidates for board and commissions. He suggested that the issue of Council commission
and board appointments be referred to the P&S Committee for discussion and consideration of alternatives.
Council Member Lytle said it might require some calendaring to be incorporated in the description of boards and commissions in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), which was well worth considering. It was a great idea, and other great ideas had
03/12/01 91-455
come up that evening. She believed Council should keep the self-improvement in progress, and additional ideas could come
from the community. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Lytle, that in order to sustain streamlining effort and make it a continual exercise, to refer the issue of streamlining back to the Policy
and Services (P&S) Committee with particular emphasis on possible alternatives for Board and Commission appointments. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Eakins, Kleinberg, Mossar absent.
Mr. Calonne said in July 2000, staff issued a booklet that had the then extant policy recommendations. The format would remain the same. Mr. Benest said Council’s approval would be incorporated and the
booklet would be brought up to date. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
13. Update on the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified
School District Joint Facilities and Services Master Plan
Council Member Wheeler would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because her employer, Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC), had significant long-term contracts with
both the City and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD).
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the Master Planning effort was initiated at the time the community was faced with the decision of where to locate a third middle school. If school
enrollment continued to grow, the PAUSD would need to look at other vacant school sites, which would have a significant impact
on community services provided by the City. To provide predictability for the community, the City and PAUSD worked together on a master plan for facilities and services. Phase I of the plan involved gathering information through interviews and needs assessment surveys and the development of evaluation
criteria which would be applied toward potential joint use proposals. Phase I included preparation of a refined scope of services for Phase II of the master planning effort. Phase II of
the plan had three objectives: (1) the development of City policy for non-profit use of City facilities; (2) creation and
evaluation of alternatives for joint use of facilities or joint provision of services; and (3) creation of a model cooperative process for future joint use initiatives. The City/School Liaison Committee developed a comprehensive list of potential uses for collaboration. The Plan was for the City and PAUSD to
03/12/01 91-456
equally share the cost of the Phase II Master Plan work. The City Manager indicated he would recommend the City provide up to
$100,000 to be matched equally by the PAUSD. It would be necessary to prioritize the collaboration opportunities to fit the scope of services that could be accomplished with the monies devoted to the project.
Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified the intent was for Council, especially those who were not part of the City/School Liaison Committee, to have input in the process. The Council Members who
were on the City/School Liaison Committee included Council Members Lytle, Burch, Ojakian, and Kleinberg.
Liza Hendrickson, Avenidas, 450 Bryant Street, reminded Council of the urgency of a response to Avenidas’ request for a lease of half of the Ventura school site, so that along with PACCC, Avenidas might build an intergenerational community center.
There was more work needed for the joint facilities planning process. Unfortunately, time was working against Avenidas’
project. here was less than four and one-half years to relocate the Senior Day Health Center. The previous Friday, she met with the executive director of a nonprofit that built an
intergenerational community center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The design process of that center took four years. Avenidas did not
have four years. With the assistance of people who had built such centers around the country, the design time could be shortened, but at best, Avenidas would have two years. The
timeframe was tight, and she hoped that Council would share the enthusiasm for building the project in the community and respond
promptly to Avenidas’ request. Council Member Beecham asked how well Avenidas was represented
in the findings in the survey that was done.
Ms. Hendrickson said Avenidas was not surveyed. Ms. Harrison said both PACCC and Avenidas were participants in the nonprofit facilities survey. PACCC responded to the survey for City facilities and were also part of the nonprofit survey.
Ms. Hendrickson said Avenidas was part of the nonprofit survey.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said there were two separate surveys. He clarified that one surveyed people both within the City and the
PAUSD, and the other surveyed nonprofits. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. The nonprofit survey would be sent to Council in the following week’s packet.
03/12/01 91-457
Council Member Beecham clarified the nonprofits’ needs were not in the document before Council but were in the document that
would be forwarded to Council the following week. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Emily M. Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said with the Terman school
site, the ink was barely dry on the final check to pay for it when the PAUSD decided it wanted the site back, which created disruptions. The Ventura school site was in the heart of the
Maximart, 12 acres of zoned housing, which might be housing in 25 years. There was high density housing, and perhaps there were
enough school sites south of the Ventura neighborhood to accommodate projected enrollment. If there were an outright sale, there should be an agreement with the PAUSD that it would never want the site back. She urged Council to proceed with great caution and to make sure that the City Attorney
anticipated that the PAUSD might want the site back. Council Member Lytle wanted the Council to be responsive to the proposal received from Avenidas/PACCC and accelerate its focus on and consideration of the request in the master planning
process. She suggested narrowing the focus to the Cubberley and Ventura sites and moving the scope of services forward with
Parsons Brinckerhoff. Task 6 allowed the City to look at alternatives for two properties in a public workshop, which would bring planners working on the zoning ordinance to the
table. Avenidas/PACCC could present their project to both the City and PAUSD decision makers and force decision alternative
analysis and decision within their timeline. She had not heard opposition to the intergenerational proposal. The only issue raised was where the proper spot for it was. Avenidas/PACCC
needed to know that in order to meet four and one-half year timeline. If there were a process that could be made part of the
Joint Facilities Master Plan to get the answer for Avenidas/PACCC quickly, it would be a great service.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the Avenidas/PACCC proposal and the Ventura site seemed to be the most visible item in discussing some of the joint master planning, but there was a whole series
of other facilities and service suggestions, including a set of evaluation criteria. He referred to pages 4 and 5 of the staff report (CMR:162:01).
Council Member Burch had spoken with representatives from
Avenidas and PACCC and understood that the Cubberley site did not work as well as the Ventura site. Because of the urgency, he asked the City Manager about the possibility of assuring
03/12/01 91-458
Avenidas and the PACCC of development and what would be required from PAUSD to release that possibility.
City Manager Frank Benest said the future of both the Ventura and Cubberley sites had to be determined over the long term. In both cases, the community needed to be involved. Discussions had been initiated with the PAUSD superintendent, who was also
having discussions with the PAUSD board. The item was scheduled for the following day’s school board meeting. The scope of the master planning needed to be focused because the City and PAUSD
did not have the money to do a global study of everything.
Council Member Burch said Avenidas and PACCC were simply looking for an indication that it was a possibility, not something that went on for months and ended up with a final answer of “no”. He believed they could be assured or at least an indication could be given.
Mr. Benest said PAUSD agreed to return at the March 23, 2001 meeting with a “yes” or “no” answer to proceed or not proceed. Vice Mayor Ojakian said on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report
(CMR:162:01), some criteria were listed that would be used as part of the process. There were a group of facilities and a
group of services. Council Members needed to identify which projects colleagues should emphasize at the City/School Liaison Committee discussions regarding joint use and joint service.
Ms. Harrison said the list of all the items on page 5 needed to
be rearranged in priority order for the March 23, 2001 meeting. The items on the list would be discussed in that order, intermixing facilities and services, until the money was
depleted. Council Members who were on the City/School Liaison Committee wanted other Council Members’ input.
Council Member Fazzino said it was difficult to establish priorities. He asked what value he would provide in the discussion unless Council could focus on several key decisions that the Council and the City Manager needed to make. He
believed it was more an issue of Terman/Gunn Joint Library versus 25 Churchill or Terman/Gunn Joint Library versus the joint use of the Ventura site. The PAUSD needed to act quickly
and say what its intentions were with respect to Ventura before the City made a commitment to the site.
Mr. Benest said it would be very helpful if each Council Member could identify the one or two most important items to focus on, given time and money.
03/12/01 91-459
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether they had to be specific items under the facilities area.
Mr. Benest said the one or two items could be facilities and/or services. Council Member Beecham said it was difficult to say which were
most important. The criteria seemed to be a loose list of values of the City.
Council Member Lytle said there was an opportunity to deal with two facilities where there was a sense of urgency. She
recommended refocusing without giving up on broader evaluation in the City’s long-term relationship with the PAUSD. For the purpose of the Parsons Brinckerhoff contract and the City/School Liaison Committee’s current year efforts, she recommended moving forward with the Ventura and Cubberley sites. She would also add
Terman, but she understood Council had already given direction, and there was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in progress on the shared use of Terman. She suggested meeting the timeline for Avenidas/PACCC, which was the end of April. Moving Task 6 forward in the scope of services and completing it would allow
PAUSD to embrace the proposal. The City did work on the housing yield in the Ventura area over the next 10 to 15 years. More
work and a workshop could be done to answer PACCC and Avenidas quickly. Staff already had people working on the zoning ordinance and could move the neighborhood ahead. She asked
whether Avenidas/PACCC would be willing to accept an alternative location for the intergenerational project if an alternatives
analysis showed that the Cubberley site was a better option. Margo Dutton, Executive Director of PACCC, said the option at
Cubberley was interesting, but PACCC had been residing in the Ventura area for 20 years. The large center was a key component
in the proposed intergenerational center. The possibility of moving the infant/toddler preschool center to Cubberley was monumental. It also eliminated childcare for about 75 people from Ventura. There was the option of keeping the infant/toddler center at Ventura, which PACCC had the lease
through 2010, but that still left the issue of spending a significant amount of money to upgrade the buildings and facilities. For PACCC to do both an intergenerational center at
Cubberley and an upgrade of the Ventura facility was not doable.
Ms. Hendrickson said Avenidas was flexible. However, it seemed to be a less practical location because of the complicated process of determining whether Avenidas was the right group of people to move into Cubberley. Somebody would have to be displaced.
03/12/01 91-460
Council Member Lytle understood the logistics and complications of additional facility movement. However, if it were more
important to locate at Cubberley for reasons that had to do with broader community purposes and if logistical issues could be overcome, she asked if PACCC would be open minded to that option.
Ms. Dutton said PACCC was open to any solution that worked. Given the parameters of what was reasonable, doable, and made practical sense, PACCC would move to Mountain View if the right
space were to be made available.
Council Member Fazzino said a more systematic process was needed to determine what the priorities should be. He suggested putting together a matrix which included information on current and prospective sources of funding, the lead agency, options as far as usage of each of the sites, critical services, and any
obligations to various groups. He believed Terman/Gunn Joint Library was a priority. He believed that with the possible move of the Jewish Community Center (JCC), library issues needed to be addressed for that side of town. He also believed the Ventura Center was a priority. PACCC and Avenidas deserved an
answer. It would be a huge loss to the community if the Senior Day Health closed without a long-term alternative to the current
site. He encouraged the school board to work with the City to provide an answer. Since the Performing Art Center came up during his term as Mayor, he was partial to it, particularly if
private sources of funding could not be identified. Another priority was the shuttle/transportation of students, which was
one of the most outstanding initiatives the City embarked on over the last few years. There had been so much attention paid to macro-transportation systems, but he believed that the
challenge in the area would be micro-transportation programs of getting people from their homes and neighborhoods to their jobs.
The degree of usage of the shuttle by students in the school system was a surprise. If it were not for students, the program would be less successful. The City needed to move forward with providing shuttle service to the southern and western parts of the City as quickly as possible.
Council Member Beecham said regarding PACCC and Avenidas, he knew the difficulties of working out issues. He believed that
as more housing were added and more families lived around Ventura, the services were appropriate. He encouraged the City
and the PAUSD to talk specifically about the site to find out if there were any fatal flaws and if there were things the City and the PAUSD could do to make it happen. He understood the short timeframe and supported moving forward with it.
03/12/01 91-461
Vice Mayor Ojakian believed the first thing the City should go after was potential for joint financing of facilities or
services with the PAUSD because one of the issues for both agencies was funding. A joint library service was beneficial to both. He voted for the joint library at Gunn High School and wanted to see a joint library at Terman also. The shuttle service had been working effectively for the young people taking
the shuttle to Palo Alto High School in the morning. He hoped the PAUSD could partner with the City to make the service work for all parts of the community. Recreational service was one he
picked out that was not mentioned. There was a growing need in the community. There was also legislation directed at schools
that required involvement of young ladies in athletics. He was on a committee that spent much time trying to find gym facilities. There was a growing enrollment, and many children were turned away. Regarding the Ventura property, there needed to be some specific talks with PAUSD about certainty and
improving the facility. Projections could be done to see what would happen in 15 or 20 years, but in the meantime, Ventura was not in the best of conditions. The City did not have money to improve the facility. If the Avenidas/PACCC operation moved somewhere else, it would be a loss to the community. The sooner
the Ventura site was discussed, the better.
Ms. Harrison said Council’s comments were very helpful. She asked the consultant what area in Phase 2 was more beneficial dollar-wise, and the consultant’s response was the joint library
proposal and the Cubberley Site Plan. No action taken.
COUNCIL MATTERS
14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Council Member Lytle asked a question regarding the informational report on dog and cat cornea replacement. Council Member Burch clarified that no staff would be dedicated
to the program. Vice Mayor Ojakian requested that the meeting be adjourned in
memory of Ben Bailey. Council Member Burch stated he attended the recent memorial
lunch in honor of Ben Bailey.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. in memory of Ben Bailey, an advocate for the homeless.
03/12/01 91-462
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.
03/12/01 91-463