HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-25 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting June 25, 2001
1. Presentation from Charlotte Powers re the Draft Sustainable Bay Area Compact............................................215
2. Council Top Five Priorities.................................215
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................218
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................219
3. Ordinance 4708 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.210 of Chapter 2.08
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add the New Division of Human Services to the Department of Community Services”.....219
4. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Approve a Transfer of $250,000 from the Public Buildings Structural Improvements Capital Project, Number 18508, to the Roth Building Wings Demolition and Seismic Bracing Capital
Project, Number 10125.......................................219
5. Resolution 8066 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule Established by Resolution No. 7933 and Establishing a Civil Penalty Schedule for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code..............219
6. Resolution 8067 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan For Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 8056 and Amended by Resolution No. 8059 to Include a Backup
Child Care Benefit that was Inadvertently Omitted...........219
7. Resolutions Fixing the Amount of the City's Contribution
Under the Public Employees' Medical And Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) for Employees and Retirees Covered by each Bargaining Unit, and Specifying Coverage for the Palo Alto
Fire Chiefs' Association as a Separate Employer Group.......220
06/25/01 92-212
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Gachina Landscape Management in the Amount of $1,360,971 for
Landscape Maintenance Services..............................220
9. Agreement with the Cities of Los Altos and East Palo Alto to Provide Information Technology (IT) Support..............220
10. Agreement with Skyhawks Sports Academy for Recreation Youth Sports Contract Camps.......................................221
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Zongar Johnson in the Amount of $125,280 for Tennis Court Cleaning Services....................................................221
12. Amendment No. 2 to Increase the Funding for Contract No. C9109355 with Flynn & Associates by $45,000 in Fiscal Year
2000-01 for Assistance to the City with Electric Regulatory Affairs for a Total Contract Amount of $400,000 for the Fiscal Year 98-99, Fiscal Year 96-30, & Fiscal Year 00-01...221
13. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Color Chart, Inc., in the Amount of $124,520 for the Cubberley Exterior
Paint, Capital Improvement Project 19018....................221
14. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Mid Peninsula Access Corporation in the Amount of $79,050 Through December 31, 2001...........................................221
15. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Dahl, Taylor &
Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $181,800 for Engineering, Design and Construction Management Services for Underground
Utility District No. 38.....................................221
16. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Planergy International in the Amount of $256,000 for the Development
and Implementation of the Summer Load Reduction Program.....221
17. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation in the Amount of $75,000 in Fiscal Year 2001-02 for the Below-Market Rate (BMR) Program Administration..............................................221
18. Contracts Between the City of Palo Alto and California Land Management in the Amounts of $17,664 and $81,620 for Park
Ranger Patrol Services in Palo Alto's Urban Parks, Refuse Area, Byxbee Park and Baylands Nature Preserve..............221
19. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C8103195 with Dillingham Associates in the Amount of $28,080 for Additional Design Work Associated with an Expansion in the Scope of Services
06/25/01 92-213
for Phase 1 of the Mitchell Park Facilities Improvements (Capital Improvement Project 19803).........................221
20. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services Contract with the Law Firm of Ruby and Schofield..................................221
21. Request for Authorization to Enter into a Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Brobeck Phleger &
Harrison LLP................................................222
22. Finance Committee recommends that the City Council approve the Ordinance Relating to the Duties of the Director of
Utilities with Respect to the Use of Financial Instruments in the Sale and Purchase of Electric and Gas Commodities....222
23. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider approval of Site and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department for a visitor information center (Gateway Facility)..........................................222
24. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider the request by Community Skating, Inc., on behalf of the City of Palo
Alto, to allow the construction of a ten-foot-high sound wall along the north, west, and east property lines.........228
24A. (Old Item No. 26) City/School Liaison Committee re
Permanent Expansion of the City Council’s Membership........240
25. Approval of Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation
Financial Statements........................................241
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................241
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m..................241
06/25/01 92-214
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:55 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation from Charlotte Powers re the Draft Sustainable
Bay Area Compact
Charlotte Powers said the Council believed in the Sustainable Bay Area Compact (the Compact) and was involved in many activities within the City regarding sustainable development. The effort was going on throughout the entire Bay Area with presentations going to the City Councils in the nine-County Bay
Area by the Alliance for Sustainable Development. The partnership was unprecedented and began in 1997, consisting of a
group of environmental, economic, and social equity interests, along with several government agencies. Strategies and actions were recommended that moved toward the essential three “Es” of
sustainability: Quality Environment, Prosperous Economy, and Social Equity. Sustainable development met the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Compact identified ten key local and regional challenges and recommended a package of ten action
strategies. No action required. REPORT OF OFFICIALS
2. Council Top Five Priorities
City Manager Frank Benest said one year prior, the Council identified its top five priorities and reaffirmed the priorities in December 2000. To implement the top five priorities, staff developed work plans, implemented a variety of activities, and
reported on the progress on a quarterly basis. To better track efforts and to better communicate accomplishments, the Council recently requested a formal set of milestones, success factors,
and a communication plan for the public. A more detailed set of milestones and success measures were listed in the staff report
(CMR:276:01). The first priority was City/School planning. Key success measures or factors included working with the City/School Liaison Committee to implement a new shuttle route, and focus on collaborating with respect to library services. The report identified a number of ongoing collaborations including
06/25/01 92-215
activities with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The second priority was the infrastructure program, better known
as CityWorks. A CityWorks hotline was introduced to keep people aware of what was going on in the City. An Internet site would be available in December 2001. Staff worked with the City Attorney to streamline contract processes for Public Works. Previously, staff inventoried, evaluated, and prioritized all
the General Fund infrastructure including buildings, streets, sidewalks, parks and open space. Bridges and parking lots were not included but would be completed by June 2001. Funding would
be encumbered for the 2001-02 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). An Interdepartmental Infrastructure Team would identify
projects and get them done. The third priority was the long-range financial plan. To complete the 10-year program of eliminating the maintenance backlog of infrastructure, $100 million was needed. Seventy-eight million dollars in projected revenue over 10 years was identified. To address the gap in
funding, staff created the $22 million solution which was based on capping growth and services and restructuring reserves. The Council directed staff to look at other possible funds for new infrastructure. One of the primary areas was development impact fees. Staff would return to the Council with recommendations on
business license fee/permits and the transient occupancy tax. Staff planned to return to the Council in July 2001 with a
recommendation to establish a redevelopment agency and return to the community to prioritize new or expanded public facilities. The fourth priority was to update the Zoning Ordinance to
reflect the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Some success factors included developing an initial format for the Zoning Ordinance
by June 2002, draft land use categories and proposed definitions for the categories by September 2002, incorporate and increase urban design elements in development standards for different
districts, and draft the final document by October 2002. The fifth priority was to promote alternative transportation and
traffic calming. Projects included implementation of the new shuttle service, completion of the bicycle plan, completion of the California Avenue underpass study, implementation of spot traffic calming treatments at four locations by June 2002, implementation of a trial installation of a roundabout, and
update the City employee commute program. Staff identified a variety of other traffic calming programs that were funded in the budget. The Director of Arts and Culture helped staff
develop banners in the Council Chambers for each of the top five priorities. The banners would keep the Council focused on the
priorities during Council meetings. “Frank’s Memo” was sent out on Thursdays or Fridays. The community was informed it could subscribe to “Frank’s Memo” by calling or emailing his office. Quarterly reports would be provided to the Council and community which would promote the five priorities. A speaker’s bureau
06/25/01 92-216
would be set up to have Council Members and management staff talk to the community about the priorities. Staff would report
to the Council and community on progress and would do its best to maintain focus on the top five priorities. Council Member Beecham presumed in the late fall it was the staff’s intention to have more discussion throughout the
community as to what were the major future infrastructure facilities to be developed.
Mr. Benest said staff would go out in the fall to do a community survey and develop an outreach strategy.
Council Member Beecham asked for a list of the primary facilities that would be evaluated for prioritization. Mr. Benest said the list would include libraries, cultural
facilities such as the Palo Alto Junior Museum, the public safety building, the Municipal Services Center, and new community centers. Staff would work with advocacy groups and return to the Finance Committee during the summer with a draft of the survey.
Council Member Beecham clarified the activity in the fall was to
review how infrastructure was planned for the next 20-30 years. Mr. Benest said that was correct.
Council Member Beecham said he wanted the Council to have a
study session to understand the staff’s objectives. Mr. Benest said that was possible.
Council Member Burch appreciated the timetable and the City
Manager’s thoroughness on the five priorities. Council Member Lytle complimented staff on the staff report (CMR:276:01). The Council needed to better define its intent for each of the priorities.
Council Member Wheeler asked what the City Manager visualized for the development of a timeline for possibly an April 2002
election on revenue enhancements.
Mr. Benest said he visualized a big success. An outreach effort and initial survey needed to be done to figure out the starting point. The Council had to work with the community. The citizen’s group had to run a campaign. Major lead time issues existed in terms of an election. Staff hoped to identify the priorities in
06/25/01 92-217
the community and the capacity of funding that would be generated. The funding mechanism needed to be decided on,
whether it was a business permit fee, Transient Occupancy Tax, or parcel tax. Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff was talking about an election where the Council would discuss and try to fund the top
projects. Mr. Benest said the Council would discuss: 1) what should be
funded in terms of new infrastructure; 2) what is the funding mechanism; and 3) at what level.
Council Member Kleinberg said at the Council’s retreat, the zoning code update incorporating affordable housing as a top focus was discussed. The Housing Element needed to be referenced more clearly. She wanted to see more emphasis on affordable
housing. Mr. Benest said the Housing Element in the Comp Plan considered the regional housing allocation.
Council Member Beecham said misinformation in the community existed about the $78 million. That amount was identified
several years prior and was earmarked for certain funds. His concern was with misinformation that was broadly distributed in the community.
No action required.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding retail.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. Shirley Gee, 3077 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding Measure A. Mayor Eakins requested that Ms. Gee speak to Item No. 24 when it
comes up on the agenda later in the evening. John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding affordable
housing.
Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield Road, #203, spoke regarding proper notice for $50,000 subsidy for community skating. Mayor Eakins asked that Ms. Deng speak to the item when Item No. 24 was heard later in the evening.
06/25/01 92-218
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the Minutes of May 7 and 14, 2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Eakins announced that staff had requested that Item No. 4 be removed for discussion at the Policy and Services Committee
meeting and return for Council discussion after the Council vacation. Mayor Eakins announced that Item No. 22 was to be removed from the agenda at the request of staff.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3, and 5-21, with Item No. 4 and 22 removed at the request of staff.
LEGISLATIVE
3. Ordinance 4708 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.210 of Chapter 2.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add the New Division of
Human Services to the Department of Community Services” (1st Reading 6/11/01, Passed 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent) 4. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Approve a
Transfer of $250,000 from the Public Buildings Structural Improvements Capital Project, Number 18508, to the Roth
Building Wings Demolition and Seismic Bracing Capital Project, Number 10125 5. Resolution 8066 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule
Established by Resolution No. 7933 and Establishing a Civil Penalty Schedule for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code”
6. Resolution 8067 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan For Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 8056 and Amended by Resolution No. 8059 to Include a Backup Child Care Benefit that was Inadvertently Omitted”
06/25/01 92-219
7. Resolutions Fixing the Amount of the City's Contribution Under the Public Employees' Medical And Hospital Care Act
(PEMHCA) for Employees and Retirees Covered by each Bargaining Unit, and Specifying Coverage for the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs' Association as a Separate Employer Group Resolution 8068 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Electing to be Subject to Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with Respect to Members of the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs' Association and
Fixing the Employer's Contribution for Employees and the Employer's Contribution for Annuitants at Different
Amounts” Resolution 8069 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer's Contribution Under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with
Respect to Members of the Palo Alto Professional Firefighters Union, Local 1319 and Rescinding Resolution No. 7536” Resolution 8070 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer's Contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with
Respect to Members of the Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association and Rescinding Resolution No. 7537”
Resolution 8071 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer's Contribution under
the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with Respect to Members of the Management, Confidential and Council Appointed and Elected Officers Employee Group and
Rescinding Resolution No. 7538”
Resolution 8072 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer's Contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with Respect to Members of the Local 715, Service Employees International Union and Rescinding Resolution No. 7539”
ADMINISTRATIVE 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Gachina
Landscape Management in the Amount of $1,360,971 for Landscape Maintenance Services
9. Agreement with the Cities of Los Altos and East Palo Alto to Provide Information Technology (IT) Support
06/25/01 92-220
10. Agreement with Skyhawks Sports Academy for Recreation Youth Sports Contract Camps
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Zongar Johnson in the Amount of $125,280 for Tennis Court Cleaning Services
12. Amendment No. 2 to Increase the Funding for Contract No. C9109355 with Flynn & Associates by $45,000 in Fiscal Year 2000-01 for Assistance to the City with Electric Regulatory
Affairs for a Total Contract Amount of $400,000 for the Fiscal Year 98-99, Fiscal Year 96-30, & Fiscal Year 00-01.
13. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Color Chart, Inc., in the Amount of $124,520 for the Cubberley Exterior Paint, Capital Improvement Project 19018
14. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Mid Peninsula Access Corporation in the Amount of $79,050 Through December 31, 2001 15. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Dahl, Taylor &
Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $181,800 for Engineering, Design and Construction Management Services for Underground
Utility District No. 38 16. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Planergy
International in the Amount of $256,000 for the Development and Implementation of the Summer Load Reduction Program.
17. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in the Amount of $75,000 in Fiscal Year
2001-02 for the Below-Market Rate (BMR) Program Administration
18. Contracts Between the City of Palo Alto and California Land Management in the Amounts of $17,664 and $81,620 for Park Ranger Patrol Services in Palo Alto's Urban Parks, Refuse Area, Byxbee Park and Baylands Nature Preserve
19. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C8103195 with Dillingham Associates in the Amount of $28,080 for Additional Design
Work Associated with an Expansion in the Scope of Services for Phase 1 of the Mitchell Park Facilities Improvements
(Capital Improvement Project 19803)
20. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services Contract with the Law Firm of Ruby and Schofield
06/25/01 92-221
21. Request for Authorization to Enter into a Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Brobeck Phleger &
Harrison LLP COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 22. Finance Committee recommends that the City Council approve
the Ordinance Relating to the Duties of the Director of Utilities with Respect to the Use of Financial Instruments in the Sale and Purchase of Electric and Gas Commodities
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 2.08.200 of Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to the Duties of the Director of Utilities with Respect to the Use of Financial Instruments in the Sale and Purchase of Electric and Gas Commodities
MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item Nos. 1–3 and 5–21, Fazzino, Mossar,
Ojakian absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to
move Item No. 26 forward ahead of Item No. 25 to become Item No. 24A. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 23. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider approval of
Site and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by the City of Palo Alto Community
Services Department for a visitor information center (Gateway Facility) – APN 182-35-041, including office and meeting space, storage areas, public restrooms, and associated site improvements on City-owned property within the Arastradero Preserve open space area.
Planning Official Lisa Grote said the Planning Division had substantial involvement throughout the review process on the
application. The application was before the Council for two primary reasons: 1) the proposal was located in a PF-D zone
which stood for Public Facilities with a Design Combining District; and 2) a variance was requested to allow the small 1,200 square foot building to encroach into the 200-foot special setback to be located 75 feet back from the front property line. Staff proposed approval of the variance because they believed
06/25/01 92-222
the findings could be made. The first finding was that there was a substantial or unique circumstance on the site. The physical
conditions on the site involved a rolling topography which gradually increased going away from Arastradero Road. Locating the small building outside the 200-foot setback, the building would be on a steeper site on top of a small hill and would be visually intrusive. The second finding that granting of the
application was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right could be made in that the application provided an opportunity for a Gateway Facility at
the entrance to Arastradero Preserve and provided for needed services. Staff believed the small building would not have a
detrimental impact on surrounding neighbors, and the situation was unique. The building materials were natural and had a low profile. The variance allowed for better implementation of the Open Space Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
Superintendent Open Space and Parks Greg Betts said the design was smart, green, and included a number of innovative building concepts. In 1996, the Council passed a five-point management plan for the Arastradero Preserve. The plan included: 1) removal
of structures on the Preserve; 2) explore the possibility of a public/private partnership for both the structural work and
habitat restoration steps with respect to a park stewardship concept; 3) pursue the gift from individuals who expressed an interest in donating $350,000 to the City in connection with
implementation of the recommendation; 4) conduct habitat restoration in the areas where the structures were located; and
5) explore the potential for a new, modest facility as a gateway to the Arastradero Preserve with potential reuse of existing materials from the residential and barn structures. After the
five-point plan was approved by the Council, staff hired a team of facilitators and architects to work with the task force to
explore the questions of whether a gateway facility was needed, what uses would the gateway facility serve, where the gateway facility should be located, who would use the gateway facility, and what would the gateway facility look like. Two guidelines were set up by the Council. The Council was clear in that the
facility should not duplicate other facilities that existed in open space areas. The Council wanted the facility to be modest in terms of square footage. The proposed building was 1,200
square feet with three functions: 1) restrooms for the public and drinking facilities for people, dogs, and horses; 2) storage
area for the volunteers and stewards; and 3) meeting room for volunteers and classes. The 10-member task force included representatives of Bay Area Action (BAA), Canopy, Citizens for Green Foothills, Palo Alto Neighbors Association, the Environmental volunteers, the Responsible Off Road Mountain
06/25/01 92-223
Peddlers (ROMP), the John Marthens Lane residents, the Los Altos Hills Horseman’s Association, the City of Palo Alto Open Space
and Rangers, and citizens at large. Four public workshops and several task force meetings were held during a 14-month period. Four sites were considered for the structure. The task force looked at a number of criteria because in order to keep all the development in one place; to make sure impacts on the land were
minimized and to make sure the gateway was a welcoming facility. David Arkin, Arkin Tilt Architects, said the site selected had
the highest marks of the fours sites that were considered. Of the three goals, the first was to provide space and amenities
for visitors and volunteers to gather and learn about the Preserve. The criteria were to have Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) access to the site, provide rest areas throughout the design, to build in flexibility, and to provide information to visitors. The second goal was to integrate the facility with
minimum visual impact and to create a sense of peace and coexistence with the natural surroundings. The criteria was to work with the natural topography, minimize erosion, locate the facility near the road and within five minutes of the parking lot, and provide solar access and landscape with native and
rural service paths. The final goal was to create a simple, natural, flexible facility that stimulated curiosity, used
ecological design principles to conserve energy, minimize costs, and educate facilities. The criteria were to provide an indoor/outdoor connection, passive heating and cooling, and
reuse of salvage materials and natural materials with subdued colors.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne requested the Council incorporate the improvement plans by reference into the ordinance. The
ordinance referred to a document on file in the Planning Department, and he preferred it be attached and kept with the
City Clerk. Council Member Wheeler said when the Gateway Facility was first under discussion, one of the concerns had to do with the precedent setting nature of allowing a variance on the setback
for the facility. There were other pieces of property in the vicinity that were likely in the future to be developed or redeveloped. The concern at the time was that the City would set
precedent by allowing the variance on its own property.
Ms. Grote said each variance proposal was evaluated on its own merit. Approval of one variance did not necessarily mean approval of another variance. The proposed project was unique in that the terrain and topography was different than on other pieces of adjacent properties.
06/25/01 92-224
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open.
David Smernoff, 112 Foxwood, Co-Director of Bay Area Action and the Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation (ACTARA) and Project Director for the Arastradero Preserve Stewardship Project. In 1995, Bay Area Action had a vision for use of the
Arastradero Preserve facilities which included an ecological research station, a facility where the public would become engaged in habitat restoration and trail maintenance, and an
educational facility to educate students of all ages. As a member of the Gateway Task Force, he supported the facility
which would benefit the entire community. In February 1997, Bay Area Action dismantled the barn and the two homes on the preserve. Much of the material was resold and some of the material was held at the preserve for use in the facility. In July 1997, the stewardship agreement was started. The facility
served a unique purpose in the community to greet volunteers and store materials. Karen Cotter, 120 Alma Street, #4, Research Director for the Arastradero Preserve Stewardship Project, said the community
contributed over 11,000 volunteers to the preserve during the prior four years. The volunteers built two new trails and
repaired others, planted over 9,000 square feet of native grass and hundreds of oaks. A curriculum was written for high school, 55 bird boxes were added, 60 Eucalyptus trees were removed, and
bags were stuffed with weeds. A map using GIS technology was created that showed the Preserve’s trails. A large scale Yellow
Star Thistle management plan was implemented. It was time the Preserve had a community room, a space for the Program Manager, a place for a small nursery to raise native plants, and a place
for the rangers. The work on the Preserve was important for the City of Palo Alto and connected with regional and statewide
efforts to eradicate invasive nonnative plants, to restore California native grasslands, and to replenish California’s dwindling oak population. Maryanne Welton, 660 Kendall Avenue, Arastradero Preserve Task
Force member, commended the staff for committing to a participatory process that was used during the design of the project. The process was based on building consensus. The design
reflected the direction that was received from the Task Force and the community on the program, uses, and the building design.
Sustainability was the cornerstone of the design process. The use of recycled materials and the sensitive siting of the facility on the hillside were reflected in the final design. The Council was urged to approve the project. The project would serve as a role model for other City projects in the process
06/25/01 92-225
that was used to design the project and in its commitment to sustainability.
Council Member Lytle asked when the process for the project began. Ms. Welton said the process took over one year and involved four
community meetings. The Task Force met before and after each meeting to review the program and criteria that were used in evaluating the project as it went forward.
Jerry Hearn, 144 El Nido Road, Portola Valley, Board President
of ACTARA, said the project was award winning, thorough and comprehensive, and inclusive of the many users who indicated a desire to be represented. The project resulted in a design that met the needs of all the users. The project was modest and a model of sustainability. The future welfare of the Arastradero
Preserve depended on volunteers who would help build the project. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the Council recently agreed not to have a meeting on the fourth Monday. Three Council Members
who were more cautious in accepting staff recommendations were absent. He was disappointed that Agenda Items 23 and 24, which
did not require five votes, were scheduled at a special meeting on a fourth Monday. The subject issue had been before the Council a year before and the situation had not changed. The
variance proposal violated the City’s Comp Plan. The project impacted the Bressler Property in a negative and detrimental way
in terms of view. There was no evidence presented by the Chief Planning Official such as composite views to show the conclusion that was reached about the difference between siting the
facility at 75 feet instead of 200 feet. Simple arithmetic showed the project looked much larger to the Bressler Property
at 75 feet than at 200 feet. The Council was provided with evidence that the previous time the issue was before the Council, the motion was to wait until the Bressler Property issues were resolved. The Council was making a mistake if it approved the project at the current time.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member Wheeler asked the City Attorney for appropriate language related to the park improvement ordinance.
Mr. Calonne said the Council should substitute language in Section 1 of park improvement ordinance as follows: “The plan, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference is hereby approved and adopted.”
06/25/01 92-226
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve the subject Site and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications based upon the findings provided in Attachments A and B and subject to the conditions of approval specified in Attachment C of CMR:226:00, and to adopt the Ordinance approving and adopting a plan for improvements to the
Arastra Preserve. Additionally, to authorize the City Manager, or his designed, to negotiate a contract with Arkin-Tilt Architects for final design and plans for the Arastradero
Gateway facility, for a fee not to exceed $50,000 with a substitution in language to Section 1 of the park improvement
ordinance as follows: “The plan, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference, is hereby approved and adopted. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for
Improvements to the Arastra Preserve”
Council Member Wheeler said much time was spent on the issue. The passage of time and careful work that was done by members of the community, the Arastradero Preserve community, and the staff
brought back a project that the Council had a discussion about. The use of materials and the number of functions that would be
served in the modest facility were outstanding. The size was part of the definition of a modest facility. A maximum square footage was attached to the motion that defined the modest
facility. The use of volunteers within the preserve and in assisting with the construction of the facility were unique
features. Council Member Burch congratulated Bay Area Action for joining
with the Peninsula Conservation Center. Assemblyman Joe Simitian read a proclamation at ACTARA’s opening and Supervisor Liz Kniss
sent a proclamation. He suggested the Palo Alto City Council add a proclamation acknowledging the contributions of ACTARA. The siting of the facility was the right decision, and the variance was the right use.
Council Member Beecham said the project was a community and environmental showcase. The project was environmentally sensitively designed, well sited, and met the requirements for a
variance. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian absent. 24. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider the request by Community Skating, Inc., on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, to allow the construction of a ten-foot-high sound
06/25/01 92-227
wall along the north, west, and east property lines at the rear of the parcel located at 3009 Middlefield Road. Zone
District: PF, Public Facilities. Planning Official Lisa Grote said the project was for a sound wall proposed by the applicant, CSI, on three sides of the Community Skating, Inc. site: the Price Court side (north), the
condominium side (east), and the Ellsworth Place side (west). The sound wall was a condition of approval for a conditional use permit (CUP) that was approved, appealed, and challenged in
court. The sound wall became a condition of a settlement agreement. The original acoustical analysis for the sound wall
was done as part of the CUP process and appeal process. The condition was attached as part of a Council action and carried through the settlement agreement. The parameters of the sound wall were that it be 10 feet high to attenuate the noise that came from the tennis courts, the surface weight be at least
three feet per square foot, and the construction include certain materials such as masonry panels, masonry block, or concrete panels. The Council agreed to pay for up to half the cost of the sound wall, not to exceed $50,000. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the sound wall at its May 3, 2001, meeting
and recommended denial of the sound wall based on concerns about the design of the wall. The ARB recommendation was forwarded to
the Director of Planning and Community Environment who differed with the recommendation and recommended approval of the wall with design changes to enhance the side of the wall that faced
Price Court and Ellsworth Place. The elimination of the wall that was located on the condominium side was suggested since a
fifth court would not be constructed. Because of the difference of opinion between the ARB and the Director of Planning and Community Environment, the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
required the matter be resolved by the Council. The Director of Planning and Community Environment’s recommendation was that a
crown feature be included on the neighboring side of the wall. The CSI side of the wall would be landscaped. Staff’s recommendation was that the Director’s decision be upheld. Marni Barnes, Deva Designs, Landscape Architect, 846 Boyce
Avenue, said CSI was mandated to construct a masonry or concrete wall because of the mature trees on adjacent properties. The plan was for a precast concrete wall of pier construction to
minimize root damage. The piers were 20 feet apart and spaced to span the neighboring trees. Deva Designs and CSI worked with the
Planning and Department to come up with changes which included the element on top of the wall and the color. The client was in concurrence with not having a wall on the condominium side. Extending the wall along the creekside was suggested. Landscaping was planned for the Ellsworth Court side.
06/25/01 92-228
Council Member Lytle asked what was the cost differential
between the precast wall and a cinderblock was. Ms. Barnes was unsure of the cost differential. The decision was not cost-based but was designed because of the foundations and construction of the wall.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the material could be changed without a significant cost impact if there were flexibility to
move around trees.
Ms. Barnes said there was no concern with the trees in terms of moving the wall. Council Member Lytle asked about the cost savings based on the staff recommendation that a wall on the condominium side was not
necessary. Linda Jenson, Director of CSI, estimated the cost at $15,000. Audrey Sullivan Jacob, Legal Counsel for CSI, 245 Lytton Avenue,
Suite 300, said CSI supported the staff recommendation with a straight wall along the creekside. Extensive discussions between
the Planning staff and CSI with the neighbors were held to find a solution.
Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, said CSI suggested the issue before the Council was the limited question of the height of the
wall. For seven years, CSI faced roadblocks to the community’s enjoyment of the full implementation of Measures A and B. Cost to the community was enormous in terms of staff and Council time
and lost opportunity for services. Three years prior, CSI begged the Council not to approve the staff recommendation of a 10-foot
wall. CSI’s sound consultant indicated that the added two feet produced little additional reduction to sound at a cost of turning the site into a virtual penitentiary. The ARB agreed a 10-foot wall was “overkill” and refused to give approval to the Council mandated wall. CSI would build whatever size wall it was
directed to build, but the Council was asked to clearly state that the issue had to close. Once the size of the wall was determined, the will of the voters would be fully implemented.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open.
Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, asked whether the ARB was giving a report.
06/25/01 92-229
Mayor Eakins said a report from the ARB was not expected, but ARB members were present to answer questions.
Ms. Fisher said the residents on Ellsworth Place needed mitigation. CSI’s acoustical consultant recommended that the wrap around wall was more effective to prevent noise from disturbing the neighbors on Ellsworth Place. The color suggested
by CSI for the wall was not supported. The concrete wall was a heat sink and could damage the ecology of the creek. Lynn Chiapella recommended a riparian corridor be added to protect
the natural life plants, life, and animals along the creek. The wall along Price Court could be moved closer to the court away
from the property line. The court lights were not to be used for night play and were to be removed when the courts were renovated. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said all the neighbors
agreed the project was bad for the neighbors. The City had not faced the piecemealing issue. A new park was expanded, and the decibel level would be raised with the proposed eight-foot removable seats, the 800 proposed membership keys, the relocation of a restroom, and increased parking. The residents
on Ellsworth wanted a 10-foot high masonry wall.
Keith Slipper, 2182 St. Francis Drive, said he owned property at 3060 Price Court and was unaware of the proposed 10-foot wall. He had difficulty contacting representatives of CSI. He
discussed the situation with an appraiser and found that the damage to his building which was 20 feet from the wall would be
approximately $440,000. People did not want to rent his property when they found out a 10-foot wall would be behind the property.
Shirley Gee, 3077 Middlefield Road, said in America voters had the right to assert their will. Measure A, which was passed by
the voters of Palo Alto, stated definitively that the Winter Lodge facility would be used for community ice skating and that its continuance was depended upon one primary condition: “No City subsidy” would be required. Subsidizing the Winter Lodge facility in any capacity was prohibited by the Measure and was
not the intent of the voters when the Measure was passed. The term by which Measure A was passed needed to be honored, as it was a covenant between the City and the voters of Palo Alto.
Breaking the covenant precipitated the judicial response and was not in the taxpayers’ financial interest. The issue had to do
with the integrity of the City and the execution of its duty to the voters of Palo Alto. Conditions under which a measure passed was an essential part of the voters’ directive and could not be overturned post-election by the elected official or its staff.
06/25/01 92-230
The City made the most creative interpretation to allow it to forge ahead on its plans rather than focus on the voters’ plan.
Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield Road, #203, said the staff report (CMR:285:01) stated, “An eight foot sound wall was also required along the eastern property line, but only if a fifth tennis court were constructed.” The settlement agreement with the
Middlefield Road Homeowners Association (MRHA) and the City and CSI, stated, “MRHA and CSI agree that the use of temporary tiered seating shall be discontinued unless and until the
existing six foot (6’) high fence between their respective properties is raised to eight foot (8’) high at CSI’s expense
and extended at such height the full length of the common border.” The wall was mandated by the settlement agreement. The public notices regarding the sound wall did not mention the $50,000 subsidy to CSI. The notices gave confusing and misleading information to the public.
Michael Lee, 3069 Middlefield Road, #204, supported the comments of Ms. Gee and Ms. Deng. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the reason the ARB voted to deny
the project was in the verbatim minutes of the May 3, 2001, ARB Meeting, pages 37-41, and had to do with the piecemealing of the
project rather than the reasons given by staff or the applicant. The Council received different project descriptions. The ARB project description was the wall. The project description before
the Council at the current meeting was the wall plus refurbishing the tennis courts. Renovating the tennis court was
alleged to be included in the settlement agreement, but that was false. Comments made by Jack Morton on page 22 of the May 3, 2001, ARB minutes indicated that renovating and refurbishing the
tennis courts was separate from the wall, which was the opposite of what was presented to the Council at the current meeting. The
same project description should have been at both hearings. The sound wall was supposed to mitigate a more intense use than the prior use permit, but it was not tied to a use permit. The Council needed to prohibit the uses that were deleted from the lease, to prohibit tournaments and league play and remove the
lights. Council Member Lytle left as Chief Planning Official in the spring of 1997, and one year later and six months prior to approval of the use permit, a letter was submitted to the Zoning
Administrator from CSI saying they wanted to use the old use permit but also wanted to have tournaments. That was not part of
the public record in the Council’s discussions of the 1996 UP-1. The plan was to have done more than the 1997 use permit allowed, but to not have anyone have an opportunity to discuss it or to mitigate it with uses. The fence required a variance according to the Assistant Building Official. The PAMC allowed a 12-foot
06/25/01 92-231
fence with the first six feet solid as long as the fence was outside the setback. The planting should have been from the
neighbors’ side of the fence. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, said the first use permit issued to Chuck Thompson in 1968 allowed the use of a swimming pool, gymnasium, and one tennis court. The swimming pool and gymnasium
were gone years prior. The one tennis court was in disrepair and padlocked since 1996. In 1977, Chuck Thompson added three new tennis courts adjacent to the parking lot. The 1977 use permit
was issued to allow the use of the three new courts. From a site visit, people could tell that the courts were by the parking
lot. That information was verified in an original drawing of the use permit at the City’s Development Center. The two courts that were open to the public throughout the years were under the 1977 use permit. According to PAMC 18.90.80.b., the 1968 use permit was null and void due to not being used for over one year. That
fact made all the subsequent use permits issued to Chuck Thompson null and void. The 1968 use permit stated, “shall remain in force and effect.” The new use permit approved in 1998 was sued by neighbors, revised and never issued. She was told the City had no intention of issuing the permit. Piecemealing
two invalid use permits in important legal documents without disclosing facts for the purpose of getting a multi-million
dollar lease signed was a violation of California Penal Code 484-487PC. A memo should be sent out to explain all the use permits mentioned in legal documents for the project were
invalid. She questioned the purpose of the wall and whether it was for the sole purpose of spending taxpayers’ money.
Art Koolpe, 3073 Price Court, said in January 2001, CSI asked the Council’s permission to use the Chuck Thompson use permit.
CSI said they would put the wall up since that was what the neighbors wanted. The proposal from CSI was not approved by the
Council. In December 2000, the issue was before the Council on the Consent Calendar and indicated that as soon as CSI completed the application of the wall, it could have the lease. The item was approved on the Consent Calendar. At that time, none of the property owners on Price Court knew about the wall. The property
owners found out through a newspaper article and told their story to the ARB. Currently the wall was said to be mandated by a lawsuit settlement agreement. The lawsuit settlement talked
about raising a six-foot high fence between Winterlodge and the condominium to eight feet high for the full length of the common
border under certain circumstances. The Winterlodge used the existing use permit issued to Chuck Thompson for the four existing tennis courts. There was no existing use permit. According to the PAMC, Section 18.90.080d, the 1968 use permit was null and void due to not being used for over one year. All
06/25/01 92-232
the subsequent use permits issued to Chuck Thompson were null and void because there was a common statement that said the 1968
use permit “shall remain in force and effect.” The current Winterlodge lease, its option to lease agreement, and the Number Six amendment were based on the 1968 use permit that was null and void. The current Winterlodge was not a legal lease, so the Winterlodge was not able to proceed with the sound wall or
tennis club. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, said the use permit was issued to
Chuck Thompson in 1968. The same use permit was used by the Winterlodge at the current time. The 1968 use permit was null
and void if not used for one year. Audrey Sullivan-Jacob said Measure A was silent as to the use of the Chuck Thompson tennis facility. An opinion was previously issued by the City Attorney. Comments were made by Shirley Gee
about the violation to Measure A by the City providing a subsidy. Shirley Gee signed the settlement agreement in the litigation. The settlement agreement was contingent upon the City providing Winterlodge with the $50,000 to build the sound wall. The issue was raised that a fence had to be built along
the condominium side of the property. The only time a fence needed to be built between the condominiums and the tennis
facility was in the event the tiered bleachers were used and if the Winterlodge violated the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance more than three times in 12 months. A state government code section
indicated even if there was a local ordinance that said a use permit expired or lapsed because of non-use, it would only
become invalid when the city took formal action to declare it invalid.
Ms. Barnes said if the wall was moved to the edge of the tennis court, a separate issue with the sound was raised. The sound
engineer’s analysis was done on the property wall, and if the sound wall was moved, a new analysis had to be done. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, recognized the neighbors’ concerns and every effort was made to address the concerns. The
greater issue was whether the community would finally get the benefit of Measures A and B. The Council was asked to bring the matter to a conclusion by determining the size of the wall.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed.
RECESS: 9:30 p.m to 9:40 p.m.
06/25/01 92-233
Mayor Eakins said the discussion from members of the public ranged considerably and asked the City Attorney to help the
Council focus clearly on what the item was before the Council. City Attorney Calonne said the issue was the construction of the sound wall. Construction of the sound wall was informed and guided by the environmental analysis that went in to support the
original approval. The issue was the staff recommendation to construct two of the three pieces of the wall. Staff confronted the subsidy concerns at the time the settlement was negotiated.
His predecessor correctly advised a strict interpretation of the no subsidy language and the ballot measure in order that not
even loans by the City for the skating facility could be made. The measure also distinguished the tennis portion and did not restrict City subsidy of the tennis facility. The settlement agreement with the Middlefield Road Homeowners Association, signed by Ms. Gee, acknowledged the City funding and did not
bind Ms. Gee. The settlement agreement anticipated and was contingent upon the City authorizing the funding, which the Council did. With regard to the issue of whether the old use permit remained in force, the argument was not that there had been non-use of the courts but that there was non-use of the
part of the courts that the 1977 use permit covered. His understanding was the factual situation was that there had been
continuous use so the City non-use provisions were not called into play. The City was bound by the determination that the old use permit was sufficient for the current use. The settlement
agreement specifically authorized CSI to use the old use permit. The new use permit was an effort by the Council to develop some
impact mitigation for the immediate neighbors. The Council went through an extensive mediation process with the various parties to work out a happy arrangement for everyone. The reward was a
set of three California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuits that were settled, acknowledging that a) $50,000 would
be appropriated, and b) the old use permit was sufficient. Staff used a Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for two reasons: 1) it was justified; and 2) it avoided the process of a full EIR. The problem with the approach was that the Council did not have the
policy prerogative to do what was called a statement of overriding considerations. A full EIR would conclude there was a negative noise impact to Price Court but that impact would be
overridden because the aesthetic impact of a wall was not wanted. The Council did not have that flexibility with a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Council and staff mediated a battle between a pair of competing noise experts at the time the use permit was crafted. The City’s consultant, Mr. Rodkin, gave good information as to what parts of the wall were necessary to live up to the letter and spirit of the previous environmental
06/25/01 92-234
approval. The Council was stuck with the previous environmental approvals unless it wanted to launch into a full EIR. The phrase
“piecemealing” used by many people was unclear to him. A body of law related to the environmental law that said a big project could not be broken up into several small ones in order to avoid environmental review. The project was not broken into pieces to avoid environmental review.
Architectural Review Committee Member Joseph Bellomo said the ARB reviewed the project although a complete master plan was not
reviewed. Issues were addressed at the ARB meeting regarding acoustic impacts, grading issues, wall designs, alternative
design solutions, height undulation, breaking up of the mass, neighborhood outreach, and neighborhood design impacts. The ARB did not get a handle on the design and felt it was best to deny the application.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Council could allow the tennis use on the site in the absence of a wall. Mr. Calonne said staff had much history. Saying an old use permit was in effect was not logically consistent, but a new
environmental review was necessary to exercise the old use permit. There was a way to try to argue that the old use permit
was in effect. When staff went back to the Council to support the amendment to the option, that was with the specific intention to preserve as much of the previous use permit as
possible. The City Manager sent a letter to CSI indicating that, under his authority to control operations under the lease, he
would insist on compliance with the mitigation conditions that were in the use permit that was not in force. Stripping away the protections that the Council spent years developing was not
staff’s intention.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether making modifications to the height of one or more of the walls was within the Council’s purview. Ms. Grote said staff spoke with Rich Rodkin, the acoustical
consultant, the prior week to ask him to reevaluate any reduction in the height of the wall. The full use of four courts required a 10-foot high wall to fully mitigate the noise
impacts.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff had an opportunity to review the issue raised about the potential safety concern of blocking the view by the wraparound wall.
06/25/01 92-235
Ms. Grote said staff talked to the Police Department about the concern, and the Police Department did not confirm whether there
was a significant safety concern. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there was a legal requirement that the Council was committed to regarding locating the sound wall on the property line.
Mr. Calonne said there was no requirement in the settlement agreement.
Ms. Grote said typically the closer the sound wall was to the
noise source, the more effective it was. The sound wall could be moved closer to the courts and have the wall be effective. Council Member Kleinberg asked why the ARB was not allowed to consider relocating the sound wall.
Ms. Grote said she did not know whether the ARB was not allowed to consider the relocation or whether that would have addressed their concerns. The ARB’s concerns had more to do with the actual materials and design of the wall.
Mr. Calonne said he had a vague recollection that there was
concern in prior years about creating a demilitarized zone behind the wall which may have resulted in the property line issue.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what the result was with respect
to the question about where the noise would bounce if the wall were 10 feet on the property line.
Ms. Grote said the noise would be contained within the CSI site, and any noise that escaped the site would be below the threshold
allowed by the noise ordinance. Any bounce, in effect, would not exceed the allowances in the noise ordinance. The ARB was asked to review the design of the wall. The movement of the wall was not seen as a design issue.
Council Member Kleinberg questioned the outreach to neighbors, noting that one speaker claimed he was not aware of the issue.
Ms. Grote said many mailings were sent out during the prior five to six years as the project went through its review processes
and appeals. All property owners within 300 feet were sent notices.
06/25/01 92-236
Rachel Adcox said reports were sent to the addresses provided by the residents at the ARB meeting, and letters were hand
delivered to the mailboxes on Price Court. Ms. Grote said notices went to all residents and property owners within 300 feet. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, as follows:
1) Approve the application for construction of a ten-foot
high sound wall along the north and west property lines at 3009 Middlefield Road, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment A of CMR:285:01; and
2) Deny the application for construction of a ten-foot high sound wall along the east property line at 3009 Middlefield Road. 3) Further, to add the following conditions:
a. Keep the wall 10-feet on Ellsworth Place and
reduce to 8-feet on Price Court, if possible. b. Require higher quality texture, darker more residential material on the wall.
c. Give staff flexibility in siting location of the wall away from the property line on the Price
Court side a few feet, if possible. d. Require climbing vines be part of the landscaping plan that would climb on both sides and as part
of the conditions, beginning with the neighbor side.
e. Wrap around wall along Ellsworth Place. f. Evaluate whether conditions were possible and return to the Council on the Consent Calendar prior to the Council vacation.
Council Member Lytle said she was anxious for CSI to continue with their recreational programming for children in the community. Many situations existed in the City where there were
similar circumstances that the Council was able to resolve with a good neighbor wall between the recreational use and the
neighbors’ back yards. The issue came up heatedly for Price Court because of the height of the wall. Good acoustical reduction would be achieved on the residents’ side with a slightly lower wall.
06/25/01 92-237
Council Member Beecham clarified the five conditions be carried out via consultation between staff and the applicant.
Council Member Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Beecham supported the motion based on the decision made by staff in consultation with the applicant.
Mr. Calonne suggested staff have the opportunity to meet with people and that the motion gave direction to staff to study the
feasibility of the suggested changes. Ms. Grote gave the Council evidence that Mr. Rodkin said the height could not be reduced.
Staff did not know whether there was flexibility on the Price Court side to move the wall. Two people indicated they would sue the City if the Council went forward on the issue. The Council needed to identify the changes it wanted to pursue, give staff direction to make it happen, and staff would return to the
Council. Council Member Kleinberg asked the City Attorney whether he suggested there was a wall that could be built that satisfied residents so there would not be a lawsuit.
Mr. Calonne said if the Council thought it would take a lawsuit,
it should be in the best position to defend the lawsuit. The best position was not to attempt any response to the recent positions that were articulated. The noise that Council Member
Kleinberg was concerned about escaping from a 10-foot wall was the sound of a tennis racket whacking a tennis ball. The scale
of the concern was hyper-magnified. Council Member Beecham asked how much time was involved for the
issue to return to the Council.
Mr. Calonne said the time depended upon the time the Council wanted staff to create. Council Member Beecham suggested Council direct staff to return quickly.
Mr. Calonne said he would. Everything the Council had done was attacked for lack of notice and lack of community involvement.
The Council had to be willing to deal with the issue. The Council needed to give a clear indication of the type of
coordination the Council expected from staff. Staff would talk to residents who raised issues about the wall. Council Member Lytle said her preference was to approve what could be approved at the current meeting and return with what
06/25/01 92-238
the Council could not approve. She asked whether there was a way the Council could approve the application with the concerns that
were raised and that the Council wanted to see incorporated into the design. Mr. Calonne suggested approving conditions 1 and 3 provided that mitigation was the same level of noise attenuation as previously
provided. Council Member Lytle said the same level of noise attenuation
should not be the standard.
Mr. Calonne said the noise mitigation imposed on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was designed to reduce the impact to an insignificant level. If Council Member Lytle asked whether there was other mitigation that reached no significant level, he understood and was in agreement. The City would find itself
stuck with the quantitative analysis that was in the record of Mr. Rodkin. Council Member Lytle clarified the Council used the lesser standard rather than a more stringent standard.
Mr. Calonne said the Council was saying if it could make the
changes without negatively impacting the noise mitigation, that should be done.
Council Member Lytle clarified two of the conditions were “if possible,” that is, the Price Court wall height, siting of the
wall. Council Member Beecham suggested directing staff to evaluate
whether a reduced height and flexibility in siting were possible and, if so, implement; if not, proceed with the staff
recommendation and not return to the Council. Mr. Calonne said he would bring the action back on the Consent Calendar when staff reached a decision as to what was feasible or possible.
Ms. Grote said the issue could return to the Council on the Consent Calendar within one month.
Mr. Calonne asked that the Council direct staff to return prior
to the Council’s vacation. Mayor Eakins said final action would be on the Consent Calendar prior to the Council vacation.
06/25/01 92-239
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS 24A. (Old Item No. 26) City/School Liaison Committee re Permanent Expansion of the City Council’s Membership Mayor Eakins said unlike other standing committees, policy
direction could not be given without going back to the Council. Council Member Kleinberg said the City/School Liaison Committee
was temporarily expanded for several months and was privileged to have the participation of both the City Manager and the
School Superintendent at the Committee meetings. The City and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) were in a collaborative and productive relationship, working on areas of mutual interest and need. The Committee asked that the status of the temporary expansion be made permanent.
Council Member Burch understood the Mayor would continue to have the prerogative to appoint the four members to the Committee. Council Member Lytle said the statement in the “City/School
Liaison Committee Structure and Organization” about focus on services rather than facilities could be toned differently to
say, “focus on both services and facilities.” Council Member Kleinberg said the “City/School Liaison Committee
Structure and Organization” memo, attached to Agenda Item No. 26, was not a final policy statement but was a discussion
blueprint. Both sides had ample interest to look at facilities at the appropriate times.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said his concern was about the apparent focus on services rather than facilities. During the
prior 20 years, the most contentious issues between the PAUSD and the City were facilities. He suggested the wording be modified to talk about “working cooperatively to provide better services and more useful joint uses of facilities as appropriate.” Council Member Kleinberg said included in the packet was a memo to the City/School Liaison Committee for discussion and was not
a policy statement.
Mayor Eakins said the issue to vote on was the permanent expansion of the Council’s membership on the City/School Liaison Committee.
06/25/01 92-240
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the motion should include direction for staff to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
to identify the City/School Liaison Committee as a new Council standing committee. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to
permanently expand the configuration of the City/School Liaison
Committee to four Council Members and two Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board members and this be reflected in an amendment in the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 25. Approval of Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation Financial Statements
ADJOURNED TO A MEETING OF THE PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF THE DIRECTORS AT 10:35 P.M.
MOTION: Board Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve the 1999-2000 Financial Statements for the Public
Improvement Corporation. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian absent. RECONVENED TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:38 P.M.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Eakins stated that the California Energy Commission sent a letter congratulating the City on completing its Light Emitting Diode Traffic Signal Project.
Council Member Lytle understood that the Council had received a letter from Assemblyman Joe Simitian asking the City to send a strong letter in response to SB910, which had been done. Council Member Kleinberg sent best wishes to Human Relations
Commissioner Eve Agiewich who recently had surgery.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
06/25/01 92-241
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.
06/25/01 92-242