HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-23 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
July 23, 2001
1. Welcoming Visitors from Sister Cities Albi, France, Oaxaca, Mexico, and Enschede, The Netherlands .............. 308
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ................. 308
1. Community Outreach on New Planning Director ................ 309
ADJOURNED TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AT 7:15 P.M. .............. 310
2. Consideration of Options for Accelerated Implementation of Library Master Plan ...................... 310
RECONVENED TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:25 P.M ..... 325
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 325
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 326
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Need for a Redevelopment Agency to Function in the City of
Palo Alto and Declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Palo Alto ............. 326
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Utility Constructors in the Amount of $1,898,747 for Providing Overhead and Underground Construction Services with
Options for $3,891,490 ..................................... 326
5. Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and
Nolte Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $157,102 for Design Services for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing, Capital Improvement Project 10121 ........... 326
6. Ordinance Clarifying and Restating Certain Budgetary Actions Relating to the Intended Rebate of a Portion
of the Utility Users Taxes ................................. 327
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 327
07/23/01 92-306
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to a Closed Session. ............................................ 328
7. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation ........ 328
8. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation .......... 328
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in memory of Robert Joseph Debs, former Palo Alto City Council Member (1961-1967), whose passion was civic
life, and he was considered one of the original residentialist. ............................................ 329
07/23/01 92-307
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:45 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Ojakian,
Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Lytle, Mossar
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Welcoming Visitors from Sister Cities Albi, France, Oaxaca, Mexico, and Enschede, The Netherlands No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
07/23/01 92-308
Special Meeting July 23, 2001
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in
the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg,
Lytle, Mossar arrived at 8:15 p.m., Ojakian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Community Outreach on New Planning Director
City Manager Frank Benest stated he was seeking community-wide input for candidates to fill the position being vacated by Ed Gawf of Planning and Community Environment. A special community meeting was to take place on August 7,
2001, from 4:30 -6:00 p.m. Mr. Benest addressed two key questions for the residents to consider: 1) what were the planning, land use, transportation, and housing issues
facing Palo Alto presently and in the future, and 2) what were the attributes, skills, competencies, attitudes, and
experiences to be addressed as the community moved forward. A similar meeting was also taking place with the business community through the Chamber of Commerce. He strongly encouraged community input as he recruited for the new Director.
Council Member Fazzino stated that per the City Charter, the Council would need to ratify the City Manager’s selection. He asked whether a member of the public would be involved in the final stage of the selection process.
Mr. Benest said he would consider Council Member Fazzino’s suggestion, but since he was held accountable for the
performance of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, it was important that he had the final say.
Council Member Fazzino agreed that the City Manager should be responsible for making the final recommendation to the
Council, however during the interview process, input from members of the staff and possibly the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) would be beneficial.
Mr. Benest said he would take Council Member Fazzino’s
suggestion under advisement. No action required.
07/23/01 92-309
ADJOURNED TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AT 7:15 P.M.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
2. Consideration of Options for Accelerated Implementation of Library Master Plan
Mayor Eakins explained that the purpose of conducting a Committee of the Whole was to provide more discussion
opportunities, facilitate constructive discussion of issues requiring more in depth consideration, and to improve the Council and public interaction. City Manager Benest stated he was given the task of looking
at options for fast tracking the planning and construction aspect of the new Library Master Plan (LMP). In doing so he
reviewed the implementation activities to date, the sequence of project development, budget and timing issues, the current versus fast track schedule, cost implications,
and the timing of potential tax measures. He stated activities to date included the completion of the building programs for the three resource libraries, and the Site Feasibility Study (SFS) for the expansion of the Children’s Library. The SFS was proceeding as scheduled for expansion
of the Main Library and the Art Center. The process had begun for the selection of the architect for the SFS
expansion of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. On August 6, 2001, the contract was awarded for the Children’s Library preliminary design, and $500,000 was being sought
in Federal and State grants funds for the Children’s Library expansion. A key issue required in expanding the
library building involved analyzing the library staffing requirements, and that task would be completed by December 2001. The next phase of the LMP involved project
developments whereby one process was to follow the next, building on each other. Those phases included the building
program, the SFS, the conceptual design, the preliminary engineering and design, and the final design and construction documents. Mr. Benest reviewed the Project
Development Process that showed the accuracy of the estimate. Those estimates ranged from 50 - 90 percent
accurate. Discussions of the three resource libraries brought out key issues and the phase of completion that was attained. The Children’s Library was ready to contract for conceptual planning. The main issues for the facility included the possibility of adding parking, and whether the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required an
07/23/01 92-310
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration. The key issues that faced the Mitchell Park Library
involved rebuilding or expanding the existing library, whether to incorporate community center functions, how much parking should be added, and whether the additional parking should be underground, a surface lot, or some combination. The significant issue that faced the Main Library also
involved rebuilding or expanding the existing library. Other issues included the level of impact on the existing community gardens, the extent to which the expanded Main
Library and the Arts Center would share common facilities, and whether the additional parking should be underground, a
parking structure, or a surface lot. Mr. Benest suggested forming a review group composed of representatives from the various boards and commissions and to collectively empower them to make recommendations directly to the Council after the SFS was done, but prior to the conceptual design. The
final determinations regarding policy issues would require CEQA review. The advantages to forming a review group would allow projects to be completed sooner and help maintain the current momentum towards a tax measure. The disadvantages to forming such a group was the reduced time available to
discuss complex issues, less accurate cost information available at the time of the tax measure, and the legally
mandated timeline for conducting the CEQA process. The budget implications of the fast track approach involved an additional $305,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-02. The funds
included $45,000 to retain a Contract Planner for six months and $60,000 for a Project Manager from the Public
Works Department. For Fiscal Year 2002-03 an additional $670,000 was needed that included $550,000 for the Children’s Library final design. There was presently
$585,000 in the Infrastructure Reserve for the existing Children’s Library, and those funds would be used for the
expansion. Funding sources for the library projects would come from the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) which would keep the Infrastructure Reserve whole. Mr. Benest spoke of the proposed tax measure whereby a consultant would conduct a community survey to determine voter
approval. If a June 2002 Election was to occur, the Council would need to approve the resolution to call a Special Election in March 2002.
Council Member Fazzino clarified that under State law, the
Primary Election for 2002 was held in March, and nothing else would be held in June of that year.
07/23/01 92-311
Mr. Benest replied that was correct. For a November 2002 election, the Council would need to approve the resolution
to consolidate with the Santa Clara County’s (the County) General Election in August of 2002. City Clerk Donna Rogers said if the Council preferred the November 2002 Election, Palo Alto could be consolidated
with the County. The June 2002 Election would be a stand-alone election.
Mr. Benest said without the fast-track approach, the project would take an additional two years for each
process. With the fast-track method staff would be added to manage the projects, the review process would be consolidated, and parallel planning and design would be implemented.
Council Member Fazzino asked whether the public would be involved in the process. Mr. Benest said public input would be done during the SFS process starting in the fall of 2001. During the review
process attention would be focused on different perspectives with ample public involvement.
Council Member Fazzino commented that the 1987 Utility Tax Measure was developed in large part, as a result of
community involvement. If the community believed the LMP was a consultant driven process it would not succeed.
Mr. Benest said he agreed.
Council Member Fazzino said he was surprised that parking at the Children’s Library was the most significant issue.
Mr. Benest clarified that he had simplified the matter. He believed the other issues, except parking, had been resolved to staff’s satisfaction.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked of the total budget amount of $305,000 for the present year and $670,000 for the subsequent year, how much of those funds had the Council
already approved.
Mr. Benest said the Council had approved $400,000 for the current fiscal year, and staff was suggesting an additional $200,000 for the current year plus an additional $550,000
07/23/01 92-312
for preliminary and final design for the Children’s Library and staffing needs.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the additional $750,000 was to come from the BSR. Mr. Benest said yes.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what percentage of funds would be used from the BSR.
Mr. Benest said the BSR was currently at 18.5 percent and
all incoming revenues would go into the BSR first to replenish it, so the funds used would not affect the BSR percentages. Taking funds from the BSR required the City to commit to meeting the goal of depositing $2 million a year in savings.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what would happen if the projections to produce income did not come through. Mr. Benest said staff would need to look at operational
spending across the board.
Council Member Lytle said the budget needs did not take into account the $585,000 that had been set aside for the Children’s Library from the previous cycle, and thus did
not show in the current Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Mr. Benest said those previous funds had been set aside in the Infrastructure Reserve. It was possible to spend those funds at the present time and retrofit the Children’s
Library, but would be a waste of money since the library was in need of expansion. For now, the $585,000 was to
remain in the IR and would be part of the contribution to be used for construction. The present projection of the additional $500,000 was for planning and design work so construction could begin.
Council Member Lytle asked why the completion of the Main Library was to take longer than the Mitchell Park Library, and why did Palo Alto take longer to complete those
renovations than other cities in the area.
Mr. Benest said the City was not fully staffed for major CIP’s. Cities that had Redevelopment Agency’s had more aggressive and ample capital spending programs with staffed
07/23/01 92-313
project managers. Palo Alto had doubled and sometimes tripled the CIP spending in the previous three years. In
addition, the City benefited from thoughtful review that other cities did not. Council Member Lytle clarified that staffing, the review process, and doing the conceptual planning all as one
effort could speed up the process by two years. Mr. Benest said that was correct.
Council Member Lytle asked why staffing would save the City
two years, and fast tracking would only save a few months. Mr. Benest said when the project was fast tracked the review process was consolidated, and the planning and design work would be paralleled instead of sequential.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the reason the Main Library was to take 62 months to complete, and Mitchell Park Library was to take 58 months had to do with moving staff from one phase to another.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the time
schedule included an intentional 18-month delay period to complete the renovation of the Mitchell Park Library first.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether a scenario was created to run a parallel track of the Main Library and the Mitchell
Park Library. Mr. Benest said the scenario was conceivable but not
recommended.
Mr. Roberts said parallel tracking was proposed on the up- front activities through the final design. The intentional pause was during construction so both libraries would not be out of operation simultaneously.
Council Member Wheeler asked Council Member Lytle whether any of the cities she used in comparing Palo Alto’s timeline were doing multiple or single library structures.
Council Member Lytle said only the City of San Jose was
doing multiple library structures at the same time, and they had an enormous program in which to do that.
07/23/01 92-314
Council Member Wheeler asked whether the need for additional staff and materials for the new and expanded
buildings had been discussed. Mr. Benest said yes. The staffing analysis was to be completed at the same time as the SFS.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the fast-track timeline was to occur while the review group commenced and finished, but before the design was completed.
Mr. Benest said that was the CEQA process. The work of
consolidation and review was from January through March of 2003. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the preliminary designs would be completed so the community knew what they
were being asked to pay for, and what the costs to build would be. Mr. Benest said it was expected with the fast track schedule, that reliable “cost estimates” would be available
by the end of June 2002.
Council Member Kleinberg asked how the Council would be able to ask the public to pay for a project where accurate costs are not available.
Mr. Benest said the tax measure was to spell out what the
project looked like, how large it was, what services it offered, and what the cost estimates were.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff believed the community would accept a lack of accuracy in the proposed
tax measure. Mr. Benest said once the community was made aware of the significant cost to get to the 90 percent accuracy rate, they would have the choice of whether or not to spend the
money on the library structures. Council Member Kleinberg asked what was the cost comparison
of having a June Election versus a November Election.
Ms. Rogers said the cost for the stand-alone election in June was approximately $175,000 versus approximately $75,000 for a consolidated election in November.
07/23/01 92-315
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff gave consideration of bundling children’s infrastructure
facilities for a fast-track project. Mr. Benest said no. Staff was only able to do those projects that could be accomplished with the money available.
Council Member Beecham asked how was the effort to fund the library expansions with the parcel tax, to fit in with the
long-term plans for other new infrastructure requirements.
Mr. Benest said staff was looking into funding a large number of projects in several ways. The City’s long-range financial plans involved a possible increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), and instituting a business license permit program.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the business license permit program was intended to generate revenue. Mr. Benest said it could simply be kept as cost recovery or used as a revenue source. Other sources for long-range
financial plans included assessing development fees and a parcel tax.
Council Member Beecham asked whether staff was developing a master plan to present to the Council on ways to finance
the City’s infrastructure for future needs. The master plan would then be accessible to the voters next year.
Mr. Benest replied that was correct. In addition, the subject of storm drains would be included in the master
plan.
Council Member Beecham asked whether a complete financial master plan of the capital requirements for the City would be available to the Council. Mr. Benest said yes.
Council Member Burch asked whether one review group would be able to make hard decisions when the conceptual designs
come back.
Mr. Benest suggested getting the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) to review the SFS and decide what programs and functions were most important and how much square
07/23/01 92-316
footage was needed. In addition, the combined review group would be involved in policy issues.
Council Member Burch clarified that the recommended combined review group would make the process move faster, look at the issues, and return to the Council with the proposal and price.
Mr. Benest said yes. The price was to be further refined and evaluated through the conceptual design process.
Council Member Mossar asked what the projected amount of
money to be generated by increased TOT and business license permits fees. Mr. Benest said the money was not large amounts but could be a good revenue source. The City could consolidate
several different revenue streams and bond off of them for large amounts of money. Council Member Mossar asked whether operating expenses for the expanded libraries had been discussed.
Mr. Benest said yes. It was proposed that staff would look
at a tax measure to fund the library operating costs. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff had looked at the
State Library Bond program for funding the City’s proposed project.
Mr. Benest said staff was looking at opportunities at the State Library level as well as Parks and Recreation Bonds
as funding sources for the Children’s Library. Staff was also considering a partnership with the Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) to offer services in the southwest area of Palo Alto and at Mitchell Park. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked Council Member Mossar whether she was referring to Proposition 14 funds; the preference there
was joint City/School projects. Council Member Mossar clarified the State Bond Act gave
preference for joint City/School remodeled projects in areas near school sites, of which Palo Alto would qualify.
Mr. Benest said staff was considering asking the State for money and close the gap on the Children’s Library project.
07/23/01 92-317
Council Member Mossar said the Bond Act required the State to fund 65 percent of the proposed project and the local
match was 35 percent. Community Services Director Paul Thiltgen said the guidelines for bond application would not be completed until July 2002. Staff was looking at the expanded Mitchell
Park Library to benefit the most from the joint City/School Bond project.
Council Member Mossar said from the information she received, the rulemaking was available the previous Friday,
and the application was online and available to view. Mr. Thiltgen said the library staff was familiar with the rulemaking and application. Both of those documents were drafts and had not yet been finalized.
Mr. Benest said even if the City was successful in competing for bond funds, a tax measure was still needed. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff was coordinating
the bond application to the State, with the planning process for the libraries, and asking Palo Altans for
money. Mr. Benest said yes. When the item returned to the Council,
an update of the library funding sources would be presented.
Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, requested that the Council unanimously endorse the well-defined fast-track
proposal presented by the City Manager, agendize action to approve the suggested timetable, and approve an appropriate
Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to a date certain. Shelby Valentine, President of Friends of the Palo Alto Library (Friends), expressed continued support for the renovation and restoration of Palo Alto libraries. The
Friends commitment of $100,000 to participate and finance for development of plans for capital improvements represented the efforts of many Friends volunteers.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the proposed LMP did too
little because it was not noted which capital costs could be financed by a bond measure and which costs would require a different type of tax measure.
07/23/01 92-318
Lucy Berman, Vice President of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Board, 535 W. Crescent Drive, expressed thanks
to the Council for including the Art Center Foundation in the funding for the conceptual design phase at the site shared with the Main Library. She asked the Council to keep the Art Center involved in all stages of the development plans.
Tina Kass, 1730 Cowper Street, on behalf of the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) supported the proposed
accelerated LMP and looked forward to working with staff to ensure the library’s success. She invited the Council to
the upcoming meeting of the LAC in which alternatives and priorities for the LMP would be discussed. Brian Kreischer, Member of the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation (Foundation), believed it
was important that the Art Center remain “in step” in the conceptual design process of the Main Library. The Foundation was committed to raising private funds to leverage the taxpayer’s monies in Palo Alto to improve the facilities. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported the fast-track
proposal. By accelerating the completion of the libraries by approximately two years, the City would save a significant amount of money in construction. He expressed
to the Council frustration that the library project could not be completed sooner.
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, expressed concern about the idea and the concept of the proposed library project. If
the joint review board was selected to review projects, criteria should be made clear as to what the eligibility
was. Following normal procedure had worked in the past, and deviating from those procedures was cause for risks. Robert Otnes, 2160 Middlefield Road, supported the library project.
Council Member Fazzino asked Mayor Eakins whether the Committee of the Whole could take formal action on the issue that evening.
Mayor Eakins said the Committee of the Whole could take
action to give direction to the staff.
07/23/01 92-319
Council Member Fazzino clarified that the action taken by the Committee of the Whole was to return to the Council as
an agenda item. Mr. Benest said that was correct. In addition, based on the Committee of the Whole’s recommendation, staff would return to the Council with a BAO and other related items.
Mayor Eakins said no final action would be taken, but directive actions would be made.
Council Member Fazzino supported the proposal that was
presented by the City Manager, and favored moving forward on the project. It was essential to involve the citizens of Palo Alto from the start to ensure strong support from the voters.
Council Member Wheeler supported the proposed LMP; however she expressed concern about creating one review group. She believed staff should consider the process of simultaneously going to the existing board and commission meetings and return to the Council with the issues raised.
Council Member Mossar expressed caution about asking the voters for money. In essence that would involve levying
taxes against residential property, and making housing affordability a bigger issue. Ultimately, the City would need to balance how much money the citizens would pay for
new projects versus the City’s responsibility and commitment to the community for an ample supply of
affordable housing. She supported the expansion of the Community Center and the Art Center but was uncomfortable with paving over and moving the Community Gardens. It
involved years of husbandry and the people who worked the garden had the right to continue doing so. She concurred
with comments made by Karen Holman and Council Member Wheeler regarding the combined review board. It was hard to believe the group would be able to make consensus recommendations to the Council. She had concerns about fast tracking the project when the City could not apply for
State Bond funds until June of 2002 in the first round, and March of 2003 in the second round. Palo Alto was a successful community, in part because the City had been
conservative in spending and limiting its debt. The City should take advantage of the State’s grant program before
asking the public for debt financing.
07/23/01 92-320
Council Member Beecham was concerned that a complete plan for implementation of the proposed library expansion was
not before the Council that evening. He agreed with the concept of repaying the funds that would be presently spent from the parcel tax proceeds. If funds came from the BSR, he hoped they would not drop below 18 percent. Those reserves had already been reduced from the previous
budgetary process by millions of dollars. He questioned why the fast-track proposal was better than standard track. The selection of a Program Manager and Contract Planner for six
months was not going to shorten the schedule.
Council Member Kleinberg supported fast tracking the design and process of the library expansion, but was not in favor of placing the item on the June 2002 ballot. She suggested joint planning with the PAUSD with respect to the incorporation of the Community Center and the Art Center
into the libraries. She expressed concern about using funds from the BSR with the present economic slowdown. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Fazzino that the tax measure should not be on the June ballot. He
also agreed with Council Member Mossar that the Community Gardens were important to the people who spent time there
and a good resource for the City. Overall, he complimented the staff for the prompt work they did, and he appreciated the cautions raised by his colleagues. To the extent the
City could put all the funding issues in one package would make the most sense to the community.
Council Member Lytle thanked the staff for laying out a clear process for achieving the objectives for the new
library plan. She agreed that a November election would allow for a broader community education process. She
expressed concern that the process was too long, and wondered if it could be broken into pieces in order to accomplish incremental progress. Council Member Beecham asked the City Manager when the
funds would need to be budgeted before the project fell behind.
Mr. Benest said funding was already available for the SFS, but would be needed for the conceptual design plans. The
recruiting process for the Contract Planner and the Project Manager could begin right away with approval from the Council. Extra money for additional staffing would be
07/23/01 92-321
needed at the end of the SFS in December 2001. Staff could gear up for staffing resources at the present time even
though a BAO would not be approved until September 2001. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what direction should the Council give.
Mr. Benest said he would need an indication from the Council whether they supported spending the additional funds on the conceptual plans and staffing needs.
Mayor Eakins agreed with Council Member Fazzino’s comments
that the Art Center staff and a representative from the Foundation Board would need to be involved in all stages of the planning process. She supported the idea of a combined review group that would make public participation easier. She was pleased to hear that the Friends of the Library had
considered setting up a foundation. She asked the City Manager whether the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would provide architectural site and design review separate from the combined review group.
Mr. Benest said at the end of conceptual planning was when the ARB would take over their traditional role.
Mayor Eakins agreed with the recommendations and the extra comments.
Vice Mayor Ojakian supported the proposed expansion, and
his only comment related to how much the City would spend and what improvements would be made. The community survey should help the Council determine whether a combined review
group or parallel groups would be most beneficial.
Council Member Mossar asked if the Council approved spending the additional $200,000 to incorporate the Mitchell Community Center and Art Center into conceptual planning, when it would be presented to the Council.
Mr. Benest said staff would first present a BAO to the Council for $200,000, then as the fast tracking of policy issues came from the SFS, the libraries would be included
in the conceptual planning which was to begin March or April 2002.
07/23/01 92-322
Council Member Mossar asked whether the process for the bond measures would begin if the Council was to approve the
additional $200,000. Mr. Benest said no. Council Member Mossar clarified it was a planning process,
and the Council could approve certain aspects of it and decline others.
Mr. Benest said the process would be clearer after the feasibility study was completed. It was more likely the
City would get a consolidated facility at the Mitchell Park Library, whereas the Main Library and Art Center expansion would involve a tax measure. Council Member Mossar clarified that there was no implicit
approval of concepts; however, the Council would need to ask questions about the functions and buildings at the two sites. Mr. Benest replied that was correct.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Council
Member Lytle to approve the following: 1. Spend an additional $200K to incorporate Mitchell
Community Center and Art Center into conceptual planning for Mitchell and Main Libraries;
2. Fast track the process by creating one review group to make recommendations to Council regarding major
policy/cost issues;
3. Spend additional monies for staff fast track process and project management; 4. Allocate additional monies in Fiscal Year 2002-03 to complete preliminary and final engineering/construction
drawings for Children’s Library; and 5. Assign Library Advisory Commission to work with staff
during feasibility studies to identify priorities and alternatives as they relate to costs.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said comments under Recommendation No. 1 dealt with whether the Council would look at the other
07/23/01 92-323
functions as they related to the libraries separately or together. There was strong sentiment that the Community
Gardens should remain, and joint planning was essential with the Art Center. Under Recommendation No. 2, the Council had a strong preference for the combined review group and public input. Under Recommendation No. 3, the Council wanted a clear understanding from staff what the
finances were and what options would be available. Mr. Benest said staff would have a better feel as to how
the revenues were coming in by the end of the current calendar year.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the consensus of the Council was to hold the election in November of 2002. Under Recommendation No. 4, the Council was in agreement with going forward with the Children’s Library. Under Recommendation No. 5, the
message was clear that the LAC was looking to find alternatives and priorities related to costs. Council Member Beecham clarified that Council’s approval of the motion that evening would prompt the staff to begin the
recruit process for new staff members, and the other budget items would be presented in detail to the Council that
September. Vice Mayor Ojakian said he believed that was correct.
Council Member Mossar asked for clarification on the
process that was to transpire that September. Mr. Benest said the staff was returning in September to
present an overview to the Council of the City Works 2 process.
Council Member Mossar expressed concern about the lack of information given to the Council on the proposed expansion, and did not feel the Council was fully aware of what their actions that evening would truly mean.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said some of the concerns expressed by Council Member Mossar would be addressed by direction given
to staff and the LAC in looking at alternatives and priorities.
Council Member Lytle said the information the Council had received thus far was the stepping stone to getting the
07/23/01 92-324
libraries improved. It would not be done without making some mistakes, but with the help of the community, the
Council, and the staff, it would all fall into place. Council Member Fazzino said the City had spent millions of dollars more on Utilities and Public Works infrastructure than on community service projects. He believed it was up
to the community and the Council to make those projects happen.
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would like to add a direction to staff to consider framing a contingency plan
to present to the community. If the revenues did not happen, as staff had expected and hoped, the public would be aware of the downside. Vice Mayor Ojakian said staff had already been asked to
look at different ways of financing the project and then present those alternatives to the Council. Council Member Kleinberg said the alternatives should include library services, as well as other programs or
services that could be imperiled.
City Attorney Calonne said the BAO being presented to the Council in September would clarify the Council’s comments and requests.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
RECONVENED TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:25 P.M.
Council Member Beecham left the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding streamlining
Council procedures. Rachel Vasiliev, 4061 Manzana Lane, spoke regarding Urban
Ministry emergency funding request. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, spoke regarding the Winter Lodge.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding Winter Lodge.
07/23/01 92-325
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of June 25, 2001, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Lytle “not participating,” Beecham
absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-4 with Item No.5 removed at the request of staff.
. LEGISLATIVE
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Need
for a Redevelopment Agency to Function in the City of Palo Alto and Declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Palo Alto” ADMINISTRATIVE
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Utility Constructors in the Amount of $1,898,747 for Providing Overhead and Underground Construction Services with Options for $3,891,490
5. Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and
Nolte Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $157,102 for Design Services for the Homer Avenue Caltrain
Undercrossing, Capital Improvement Project 10121 MOTION PASSED 6-1, Fazzino “no,” Lytle “not participating,”
Beecham absent.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke against the Council’s action on June 11, 2001, in which they deferred the rebate portion of the Utility Users Tax (UUT), but the
implementation of that action was not reflected in the budget approved by the Council.
Mayor Eakins stated that Council wanted to revisit Item No. 3 due to an incorrect vote by a Council Member. City Attorney Calonne clarified it was a vote in error.
07/23/01 92-326
MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by
Lytle, to reconsider Item No. 3.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Lytle, to
introduce the ordinance.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Need
for a Redevelopment Agency to Function in the City of Palo Alto and Declaring the City Council to be the
Redevelopment Agency for the City of Palo Alto” MOTION PASSED 6-2, Fazzino, Ojakian “no,” Beecham absent. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
6. Ordinance Clarifying and Restating Certain Budgetary
Actions Relating to the Intended Rebate of a Portion of the Utility Users Taxes MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino,
to adopt the ordinance, which implements Council action of
July 16, 2001, approving the UUT rebate, states the intent that the rebate would be limited for high volume users, and formalizes approval of the rebate in the General Fund 2001-02 budget.
Ordinance 4710 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Clarifying and Restating Certain Budgetary Actions Relating to the Intended Rebate of a
Portion of the Utility Users Taxes”
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Kleinberg stated that on the Consent Calendar the Council voted for a contract dealing with underground construction. Palo Alto’s streets were in bad
condition from construction on streets, which presented liability issues.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison replied that completion of telecommunications ordinance had been delayed
which addressed street construction.
07/23/01 92-327
Council Member Kleinberg said she had received a letter from an attorney, William Ross, in Los Angeles, criticizing
Palo Alto’s redevelopment agency proposal. She requested that staff respond to his concerns. City Attorney Ariel Calonne stated that the letter was based on wrong facts.
Council Member Kleinberg encouraged staff to provide a written response to the Council.
Council Member Mossar reported to the Council on the Joint
Powers Agency (JPA) meeting that evening, which agreed to move forward on the San Francisquito Creek levee restoration. The JPA’s recommendation included agreements from both Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties for a $1.5 million long-term feasibility study, with the designation
of lead agency to be either East Palo Alto (EPA) or San Mateo County. She requested that the item go before the Council for authorization by September 27, 2001. Mayor Eakins noted a Memo to Colleagues regarding a
possible Special Meeting at 7 p.m. the week of August 13, 2001, during the Council vacation.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said he had witnessed the YMCA program for portable skateboard structures at the Ventura site. He
also requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Robert Joseph Debs.
Mayor Eakins and Council member Fazzino remembered Mr. Debs.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to a
Closed Session. CLOSED SESSION 7. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation
Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Case No.: 01-30923DM
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 8. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation
07/23/01 92-328
Subject: Juana Briones House: Jaim Nulman and Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV779831
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item
Nos. 7 and 8.
Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 7 and 8.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in memory of Robert Joseph Debs, former Palo Alto City Council Member (1961-1967), whose passion was civic life, and he was considered one of the original residentialist.
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.
07/23/01 92-329