HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-16 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting August 16, 2001
1. Drawing of the Ballot Order – General Municipal
Election – November 6, 2001 ................................ 370
2. Accelerated Library Master Plan Timeline and Related Consultant Contracts ....................................... 370
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 385
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. in memory
of William Whitson, founder of the Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra. ................................................. 385
08/16/01 92-369
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Drawing of the Ballot Order – General Municipal Election – November 6, 2001
Assistant City Clerk Jacqueline Kowtko introduced Elizabeth
Falcon, Youth Council Member, who drew the names for the ballot order. FULL-TERM
1. Edmund Power 8. Yoriko Kishimoto 2. Jim Burch 9. Jack Morton 3. Victor Ojakian 10. Hillary Freeman 4. Wei Wang 11. Mark Sabin 5. Paul Forbes 12. Pria Graves
6. Litsie Indergand 13. Chris Kelly 7. Sandy Eakins 14. Victor Frost
REPORT OF OFFICIALS
2. Accelerated Library Master Plan Timeline and Related Consultant Contracts
City Manager Frank Benest introduced the fast-track process for accelerating the library expansion for the possible
November 2002 tax-measure election. To accomplish that goal, the Council authorized additional funding for design
studies and project manager staffing. The initial fast-track proposal was refined to ensure involvement of all the boards and commissions, as well as the public. The Fast-Track Committee (FTC) would consist of two representatives from the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Historic
Resources Board (HRB), the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC), and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC). The FTC’s
responsibilities would include: 1) review of conceptual designs and making recommendations to the Council for the
Children’s Library Expansion; 2) review of the feasibility study for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center to resolve policy issues and making recommendations to the
08/16/01 92-370
Council for a site option; 3) review of the feasibility study for the Main Library and Arts Center to resolve
policy issues and making recommendations to the Council for a site option; and 4) report back to the full Board or Commission to gather further input from them. Public involvement included various community outreach meetings during the feasibility study and conceptual design phases
of all the facilities. Council Member Mossar asked how the City was planning to
involve the gardening community that used the site.
Mr. Benest said an outreach community meeting was to be held in September 2001 that would include the art community, the library community, and the gardener’s group. Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen explained that
the Community Services Department and Recreation and Open Spaces Division would contact the gardener’s directly. Council Member Mossar asked whether there would be at least one garden representative on the planning committee.
Mr. Thiltgen said they would contact the gardeners for
representation on the FTC. Council Member Lytle asked how the fast-track schedule
lined up with the State library Bond Act deadlines.
Mr. Benest said the applications for the first round of the Library Bond Act would be due in June 2002. The Library staff was involved in the process and hoped to be prepared.
Council Member Lytle said the Library Bond Act had a
specific set of requirements which would be difficult for staff to address sufficiently at the conceptual design phase. Mr. Benest said Library staff would be working with the
contract design team and Public Works staff to submit the application.
Council Member Lytle asked how much co-commitment of funding was needed by the Library Bond Act.
Mr. Benest said it was a 35 percent match.
08/16/01 92-371
Council Member Kleinberg asked at what point the City would involve youth in the library decisions and designs.
Mr. Benest said youth would become involved through the community outreach meetings for the feasibility studies. Staff had a particular interest to involve the young people in the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center process.
Council Member Kleinberg asked how feedback from the public regarding the funding issues would be reviewed.
Mr. Benest said responses from the community outreach
meetings and surveys would be presented to the Finance Committee and the Council to discuss the priorities and tax measure mechanisms. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether that included the
scope of how the funds would be used. Mr. Benest said it was assumed that the library bond funds would be applied to the expansion of the Mitchell Park Library.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether contingency planning
was in place. Mr. Benest said the Library Bond Act would not completely
fund the project, therefore some type of tax measure would be determined by the Council.
Council Member Kleinberg asked at what point that decision would be made.
Mr. Benest replied in August 2002.
Council Member Kleinberg said the decision of the Council to initiate a tax measure was not listed on the proposed fast-track schedule. Mr. Benest explained that the draft conceptual plans would
be done in April, 2002 and finalized by the Council in June. In August the Council would decide what would go on the November ballot in 2002.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what the scope of the funds
could be used for if the City was not approved for the Library bond funds.
08/16/01 92-372
Mr. Benest said the series of surveys focused on how much the community would be willing to pay given the costs of
the proposed facilities. Council Member Kleinberg asked how the surveys would affect the direction of staff.
Mr. Benest said staff was working with the LAC on the size of the proposed Mitchell Park and Main Library expansions with respect to good financial planning.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether the funds used for the
matching portion of the Library Bond Fund came from the infrastructure reserve, and would those funds be “on-loan” if the voters approved the proposed tax measure. Mr. Benest replied that would depend on how the loan was
structured, and there were several ways to do that. Council Member Wheeler said she would be more comfortable approving the proposal if there was some concept of the various ways in which the loan could be structured.
Mr. Benest said it was too soon to discuss matched funding
for the Loan Bond Fund. The State Bond Act was aimed at joint-library services, and the Mitchell Park expansion was ideal for the bond act because of its proximity to schools.
Staff was not at the point of submitting the grant application because several variables were unknown at the
present time. Council Member Wheeler said although it was too soon to
discuss matched funding, it was an important issue to consider because of the Council’s commitment to the
community that the infrastructure reserve be spent on certain items. Mr. Benest said there was a limit on how much would be provided from the State, as well as a limit to the size of
the grants. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the State bond monies
would be given to strong applicants from the library districts and cities in cooperative arrangements with the
school districts.
08/16/01 92-373
Mr. Benest said yes. He added that there would be a formal cooperative agreement with the Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD), which was essential to being competitive for bond funds. The PAUSD superintendent had confirmed the day before that the school’s library staff would be working with the City’s staff in the conceptual planning of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and reporting
back to the City/School Liaison Committee. Council Member Wheeler asked whether they were active
participants.
Mr. Benest explained they were working with staff to make sure that what was planned met the needs of the schools. Council Member Wheeler agreed it would be worthwhile to formalize the school’s participation in the process.
Mr. Benest concurred. Council Member Wheeler asked about the FTC being a consensus committee.
Mr. Benest believed many of the decisions made by the FTC
would be by consensus; however, the Council would make the final decision.
Council Member Wheeler clarified that the FTC was the formal recommending body.
Mr. Benest said yes. The process worked when the FTC was well informed by the public and their various commissions,
but they would make the recommendations to the Council to promote a fast process.
Council Member Fazzino agreed with Council Member Kleinberg that the youth needed to be formally incorporated into the library discussions and the community center aspect of the proposal. He was nervous about fast-tracking the proposed
Library expansion. He believed it was important to get information to the public and the voters in a deliberative, careful, and decision-making process.
Mr. Benest said if a tax measure were placed on the
November ballot by the Council, there would not be a campaign by the City.
08/16/01 92-374
Council Member Fazzino encouraged staff to include “non-City” advocates in the review process.
Mayor Eakins agreed with Council Member Fazzino’s statement concerning the expression of diverse opinions and advocacy. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Fazzino’s
comments. Vice Mayor Ojakian suggested to the City Manager that it
would be helpful to the Council if staff put together another Library Plan (LP) fast-track schedule to include
new timelines that had been discussed that evening. Mayor Eakins reinforced her earlier request that the guidelines and governance for the rapidly enlarging committee be worked out ahead of time.
Council Member Lytle asked about the Children’s Library scope and matching grant fund opportunities. She understood that staff was seeking federal money for the Children’s Library, in part, because of the historic status.
Mr. Benest said the Children’s Library was eligible for the
state and national registry but was not currently on it. Council Member Lytle asked if the Council requested to seek
those funds would they be required to have State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review.
Mr. Benest explained that staff would not seek any grants on the federal level for the Children’s Library because it
was determined to be unlikely. However, staff had looked into funds earmarked by Congressional members. Those funds
would not be depend upon the buildings being historical. Council Member Lytle acknowledged that the staff was not using the Library’s historical status as the criterion for seeking grants. However, it should be noted in the Request
for Proposals (RFP) that the Children’s Library was a state and national register-eligible building and the architects who responded should be familiar with the Secretary of
Interior’s standards.
Council Member Mossar thanked Herb Borock for including in the Council’s packet, minutes from 1994 that discussed the role of the Council in reviewing the scopes of services.
08/16/01 92-375
The scope of services for the Mitchell Park Library should minimize the use of cars as much as possible and
acknowledge the importance of alternative transportation options, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and shuttle. Mr. Benest said to the extent there was success in doing that, it would have a direct impact on costs and the
ability to be more creative with the buildings. Council Member Mossar referred to page 1 of 4 attached to
the Memorandum dated August 13, 2001, and asked whether the language implied that the consultant was to scope out a
full build-out of all needs at the site, or instead to determine a series of options. Mr. Benest replied that the consultant was to determine a series of options that were reasonable.
Council Member Mossar asked where was it stated that the consultant would consider a range of reasonable options. Mr. Thiltgen explained the consultants would bring forward
information to the site committee, which would see how it fits on the site. The site committee would then present the
consultants’ information to the FTC, who would present a single option to the Council.
Council Member Mossar believed the implied language would take pricing decisions and costs out of the Council’s hands
and give it to the consultant. Mr. Thiltgen explained staff had looked at the site and did
not believe the project would fit on the site.
Council Member Mossar clarified that since staff did not believe the project would fit, the consultant would be given program requirements and the best of what could fit. Mr. Benest said even if the project were to fit the site,
staff deemed it out-of-bounds. Council Member Mossar referred to page 2 of 4, the last
bullet above “Phases of Study” attached to the Memorandum dated August 13, 2001, and clarified that the criterion for
making the determination of cost estimates, summary of options reviewed, and final recommendations was the same as the previous conversation.
08/16/01 92-376
Council Member Kleinberg expressed concern that the
selection of consultants in designing sustainable community centers, libraries, and municipal projects should be an expressed criterion. Mr. Benest said that such language was stated in the
introduction of the Scope of Services for Mitchell Park Library.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified that it should be expressly stated as one of the criteria. Most architects
had experience incorporating historic facilities into newly expanded designs but would not have a demonstrated track record in sustainable designs. Mr. Benest stated Council Member Kleinberg’s comment was
well noted. If staff used a consulting firm that performed the site designs and conceptual planning, it would eliminate the need to look for an architect later. Council Member Beecham stated there was a needs-based
assessment and a space-based assessment that was in the scope of services. The overview of costs was without a
means-based assessment that was essential. Mr. Benest said the means-based assessment would be an
interactive process with staff, community groups, and the Council.
Council Member Beecham asked how the City identified what it could afford.
Mr. Benest said part of the process would involve a
community survey asking whether they supported projects with certain costs, and whether they would want to tax themselves for that amount. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Kleinberg’s
comment regarding adding the expressed criterion for consultants with experience in site design sustainability.
Council Member Mossar asked whether it were possible to arrive close to the end of the scheduled timeline and
determine that more funds were needed and staff would have to go through the process over again.
08/16/01 92-377
Mr. Benest believed staff would have already looked at the various options and alternatives prior to the end of the
scheduled timeline. Council Member Mossar asked why the language in the scope of services did not specifically state the consultant’s job was to scope out the project based on the programmatic
needs and also provide a range of work products that fulfilled various needs.
Mr. Benest replied that could be added in the form of a motion.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham,
that the scope of services for the Mitchell Park Community Center project include language that specifically stated that the consultant is to develop a range of options for
consideration by the community. Council Member Lytle requested included language in the motion “to develop alternatives that would span a range of total cost assumptions.”
Council Member Mossar said it was a cost range that implied
a range of programmatic benefits to go along with that. Council Member Lytle clarified to include “total cost and
programmatic assumptions.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the consultant is to develop alternatives
that span a range of total cost and programmatic
assumptions.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to the Description of the Site Planning Study on page 1 of 4 attached to the Memorandum dated August 13, 2001, and asked Council Member Mossar whether the language stating that the consultant would develop and analyze the broadest range of options by
which the Center and Library could feasibly be expanded, was different from the motion.
Council Member Wheeler said the Description of the Site Planning Study as she read it referred to a range of
decisions as to whether the existing building would be renovated, replaced, or linked with new construction.
08/16/01 92-378
Council Member Kleinberg believed Council Member Mossar’s motion was an expansion of the Site Planning Study that
asked the consultant not to make decisions up front without returning to the Council for decision-making on those options. Council Member Mossar replied that was correct. The
community should have the opportunity to see what the range of options for the libraries were. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Lytle agreed with the comments made by her colleagues that a member of the Youth Council should be involved in the working group sessions. Mr. Benest said staff would include a member of the Youth
Council. Karen White, Walter Hays Drive, Co-President of Libraries Now, supported the streamlined consideration of scope of service, fast-track committee responsibility, and community
outreach. It would ensure that Palo Alto stayed on the timetable for the November 2002 funding initiative. In
order to meet the needs of the K-12 student population as required by the State, she suggested inviting school representatives to joint site committees for both Mitchell
Park and Main. She urged the Council to approve the accelerated timeline for the LMP to provide quality
libraries for everyone. Shelby Valentine, Stelling Drive, spoke on behalf of the
Friends of the Palo Alto Library in support of staff’s role in furthering Palo Alto’s likelihood of receiving state
funds via Proposition 14. It was essential that the Council continue to exercise the fiduciary responsibility to support an accelerated Library Plan to optimize the City’s opportunity for State money. David Harris, 455 Margarita Avenue, felt it was a bad time
in history to build large structures dedicated only to libraries. He feared if the City went ahead with the Library Master Plan at the present time, what would Palo
Alto give up in the future. He was concerned that libraries did not function they way they had in the past because of
extensive use of the internet. He advocated to the Council a flexible structure that could be used for different purposes and service other community needs if book reading
08/16/01 92-379
and research became available through fiber-optic methods. He also urged the Council not to implement the parcel tax
for seniors. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, expressed concern that if the FTC members had to meet with their respective boards or commissions for discussion, and then bring any questions
and concerns back to the joint committee, how much time was being saved.
Brian Kreischer, Art Center Foundation, 153 14th Avenue, San Mateo, said there were various advocates in the community
who would be willing to campaign for the bond or tax measure. The more groups that rallied together behind the potential bond or tax measure the better the success. Carolyn Tucher, President of the Art Center Foundation
Board of Directors, 4264 Manuela Way, was appreciative of the staff members who had actively met and worked with the community gardeners. She anticipated that the final site plan would be available for the Council’s consideration by January 2002.
Mayor Eakins asked Ms. Tucher what the topic and date was
for the upcoming meeting. Ms. Tucher said the Art Center Foundation was holding a
series of three community meetings to discuss the concepts of the design for the Art Center. The first meeting was
scheduled for September 22, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. in the Art Center Auditorium.
Mayor Eakins asked staff whether the community meeting Ms. Tucher spoke of was listed on the fast-track schedule.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison confirmed the meeting Ms. Tucher spoke about was noted on the schedule. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, thanked Council Member
Mossar for including the community gardeners. She suggested to the Council that a plan be put in place to substitute a FTC commissioner who ceased to be a board or commission
member. She would like to see representation from the senior community on the FTC.
Cornelia Pendleton, 267 Hamilton Avenue, supported moving forward with the planning and design of the facilities.
08/16/01 92-380
Gretchen Emmons, 169 Walter Hays, supported the fast-track
proposal for the Library Plan and urged the Council to move the process forward. Tina Kass, Chairman of the Library Advisory Commission, 1730 Cowper Street, expressed concern about previous
directives given to the LAC by the Council, that presently were directed toward the yet-to-be hired consultants. She asked the Council for clarity and consistency in explaining
the LAC’s involvement in the Library Plan. They were willing to help, but did not feel they had the Council’s
support to do so. Mayor Eakins asked the City Manager to assist with the dilemma Ms. Kass posed to the Council which was to look at alternatives within the new Library Plan and the question
was how that direction fit with the charge to the just-in- time committee and to the consultant arrangements in the RFP. Mr. Benest believed there was no conflict. He believed that
if the committee looked at alternatives, that would help when the commission moved into the site feasibility process
with the LAC. He believed that was the direction he gave at staff level. The alternatives would be needed when staff began work with the design consultants about the various
options. He thought it appropriate at this point to get the LAC involved at the initial stage.
Ms. Kass responded that the LAC had been involved but there was action that night to instruct.
Council Member Mossar said the scope of services
specifically stated that the consultant would be given a body of knowledge that had been developed before they began work. The project the commission was currently involved in was part of that body of knowledge that would be passed on to the consultant. Her motion that night was only intended
to make sure the consultant understood the City wanted more than one option to be considered at the end of their agreement. The LAC’s participation in developing those
options was critically important and consistent with the actions taken that evening.
Ms. Kass stated they had not discussed the extent of the commission’s participation with developing the options.
08/16/01 92-381
Mayor Eakins stated that was a good invitation to make sure
the meetings were coordinated between all those involved. Ms. Kass requested that the vote be read again. Mayor Eakins assured her that would be done later.
Karen Kang, 535 Patricia Lane, spoke regarding the Internet and Libraries Now.
Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke regarding the
guidelines for the Fast-Track committee. Council Member Mossar commented on the scope of services for the Mitchell Park library. She reiterated the comments made by Mr. Benest during his presentation that Mitchell
Park was a natural for the State Grant Program because of the proximity to the schools, and staff was working with schools on a joint use project. She elaborated that the scope of services did not mention the PAUSD or development of a joint use project. If that were the intention, it
would be important for that to be included in the scope of services. She asked how the Council comments for that
evening would be included in the consultant contract. Mr. Benest replied that an addendum would be sent out and
would include that evenings suggestions, and those suggestions would be discussed and emphasized at the
bidder’s conference. Council Member Mossar stated that the agreement should contain comments about Mitchell Park as the joint use
facility.
Mr. Benest interjected and clarified that the discussion was about joint services and not joint use. Council Member Mossar commented on the children’s bicycle and pedestrian access. She further commented that the
consultant needed to be conversant with the national historic issues. She noted that the proposals were due on July 9, 2001.
Mr. Benest answered that the consultant who would do the
follow up design was the same consultant used for the feasibility study. The consultant had already received all
08/16/01 92-382
the historic design information. The suggestions made that evening would be included in the agreement.
Council Member Mossar asked how the City would deal with reviewing the scope of services for consultant contracts for amounts over $65,000. She was concerned that those contracts were brought before the Policy and Services
Committee in August 2001 and had already been sent out, and the committee was encouraged not to participate but had been previously asked to participate.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne answered that the City could
send out a supplemental RFP. The consultant contract scope of services review process was set up at the Council’s request. If the Council was concerned that the current process would not attract qualified consultants. He suggested that a supplemental set of criteria be sent out
so the City could evaluate the qualifications of those who did respond and invite others who might not have responded for lack of information that was not included in the initial proposal.
Council Member Mossar agreed with Mr. Calonne that sending out the supplemental set of criteria would be an important
step to take. She directed a statement to Mr. Benest that it was important to follow the process of allowing the Council to review the scope of services on contracts over
$65,000 in hopes that similar situations would not occur in the future.
Mr. Benest said there was a difference of understanding in that situation. The policy of the Council was to send
scopes of work to the committees for contracts over $65,000. This contract had been sent to the Finance and P&S
Committees. In that specific case, he understood from the Council by a 9-0 vote on July 23, 2001, to fast-track the process. He understood that to mean that the Council wanted him to hasten the process. He assured the Council that staff would adhere to the policy of sending scopes of work
to Standing Committees. Council Member Mossar stated that if the contracts had been
brought to P&S Committee with the information they had already submitted, Council probably would have expressed
displeasure at that time and requested how Council could have had input before the contracts were submitted. Council
08/16/01 92-383
did not have that information until that evening when Herb Borock brought it to the Council’s attention.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle,
that the following comments made on both consultant contracts during the current meeting be incorporated into an addendum to the Scope of Services that was previously
submitted, that applicants be advised of these changes, and that applicants who have not heretofore applied and who might now qualify be given the opportunity to do so:
1. The buildings are state and national register
eligible, and architects who respond to this Request for Proposals (RFP) should be familiar with the Secretary of the Interior standards. 2. For the Children’s Library, bicycle and
pedestrian access is important. 3. Criteria for selecting the consultant for Mitchell Park Community Center should include the understanding and track record of the consultant
in designing sustainable centers, libraries, and municipal projects.
4. The scope of services should mention the development of a joint use project (joint
services) between the City and the school district.
Council Member Lytle stated that the P&S Committee would be willing to meet more frequently in order to accommodate the
stringent timelines required by most contracts. She stated it was customary practice to include an addendum to
contracts, and consultants were accustomed to the process. She agreed with the sentiment expressed by Council Member Mossar that the Council should be allowed to have input into those items that Council had specifically requested before proposals were presented to consultants. She asked
that the policy be reinstated as soon as possible to avoid future misunderstandings between staff and the Council.
Council Member Burch supported the motion, but did not want his support to suggest that he felt as strongly about the
issue as Council Member Mossar did. He agreed with the city Manager in his belief that the July 23, 2001, unanimous vote was Council’s approval to proceed with the project.
08/16/01 92-384
Council Member Beecham supported the motion and agreed with the comments made by Council Member Burch. He believed that
it would have been advisable to have informed the Council at the earliest possible time that there was an issue regarding the timeline. Council Member Fazzino understood Council Member Mossar’s
concerns, but he also understood the direction the City Manager took in proceeding with the project. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Kleinberg commented that the issue was about enrichment and community gathering places, not simply books on shelves. Vice Mayor Ojakian offered an article to Mr. Harris
outlining the projection of 75 years before library buildings were rendered obsolete by automation. COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Eakins announced that a Policy and Services Committee meeting was scheduled for September 6, 2001.
Mayor Eakins referred to her letter to San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown dated June 21, 2001, placed before the Council
that evening, with respect to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Hetch Hetchy Water
System. City Attorney Ariel Calonne advised that a brief report was
lawful, and that Council Members could not ask questions.
Director of Utilities John Ulrich gave a brief report regarding Hetch Hetchy Water: Governing a Vital Regional Resource. Mr. Calonne advised against comments and discussion.
Mayor Eakins requested that a study session be held on the topic in early September.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. in memory
of William Whitson, founder of the Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra.
08/16/01 92-385
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Vice 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.
08/16/01 92-386