HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-10 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting December 10, 2001
1. Process for Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor...............147
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m...................147
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................148
1. Results of Community Survey on City Infrastructure Needs....148
2. Adoption the Resolution Ordering Further Cash Payments for Second Series of University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking
Assessment District Bonds; Confirm to Issue Taxable Certificates Of Participation To Construct Non-Parking Area on Lot S/L; Rent Space for Commercial Use and Utilize Net Revenue to Fund Teen Programs; Approval to Use Net Revenue From Non-Parking Rental Space to Subsidize Barker Hotel
Assessment; and Direct Staff to Refund and Refinance 1992 Certificates of Participation For Civic Center
Improvements................................................22
3. City of Palo Alto’s 2001-2002 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program....................................167
4. Resolution 8109 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto To Provide a Supplemental Military Leave
Benefit to Pay for the Differential Between Regular Salary and Military Pay and to Extend Employee Benefits (as applicable) to Employees called to Active Duty to serve in
Operation Enduring Freedom”.................................167
5. Renewal of Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bank
of America for Banking Services.............................167
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. in the Amount of $2,344,376 for
Gas Main Replacement Project 11, CIP Project 36801..........167
8. Amendment No. Four to Special Counsel Services Agreement
with Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C., No. C7081794....................................................167
9. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the California Supreme Court in Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority.....................................167
12/10/01 93-145
9A. (Old Item No. 6) Terman-Cubberley Property Exchange Agreement with Palo Alto Unified School District [Lease
Amendment and Land Exchange Agreement, Including Joint Use of Terman Site].............................................168
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Police Chief’s request for funding frontline law enforcement programs pursuant to Government Code Section
30061, Title 3, Division 3, relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund...............................171
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated....171
12. Request for Council Support of an Active City Advocacy Effort to Protect Vehicle License Fee Revenues from State
Budget Reductions...........................................172
13. Colleague Memo from Vice Mayor Ojakian and Council Members Fazzino and Lytle regarding Hoover Restrooms................172
14. Conference with Labor Negotiator............................174
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m............174
12/10/01 93-146
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Conference Room at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Fazzino, (arrived at 6:40 p.m.), Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler
Council Elect Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton ABSENT: Eakins
STUDY SESSION
1. Process for Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor Each of the Council Members participated in a discussion regarding their interpretation of the criteria necessary for
selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, #201, spoke regarding selection of the Mayor. No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
12/10/01 93-147
Regular Meeting December 10, 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, Ojakian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant, spoke regarding retail. Tony Spitaleri, spoke regarding Fire Captain Neil Holmdahl and
Agenda Item No. 4 about military leave.
Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke regarding the mayoral election.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding advertising sign. bus stations, Palo Alto High School, and Mac’s Smoke Shop.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, #701, spoke regarding the media center and the police.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the health
of the City financially in terms of the infrastructure.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
1. Results of Community Survey on City Infrastructure Needs City Manager Benest said they reviewed and discussed the results
of a citizen survey and proposed to do a follow up with community outreach on a potential November 2002 Bond Measure. A
short video from City Works Dialogue of December 1, 2001, was shown. Ruth Bernstein, Consultant, Evans McDonough, a survey and polling firm, gave a presentation on the survey results.
City Manager Frank Benest proposed to do a significant amount of
outreach to groups of citizens to discuss survey results. He asked the Council to let his office know which groups they would prefer to do an outreach to.
Ms. Bernstein said they looked for an assessment of the voters’ awareness; infrastructure needs in the community; understanding
voters’ attitudes and opinions; and the renovating of City facilities. After interviewing 600 people they found that the City’s top problems were traffic, housing, and education.
Eighty-five percent of the citizens rated the quality of
12/10/01 93-148
services in Palo Alto as good and 13 percent as fair to poor, but overall the community felt Palo Alto was doing a good job
and wanted the services continued. Council Member Burch asked whether the survey was affected in any way because it was conducted three days after the election.
Ms. Bernstein did not feel that the election had a major impact on the survey. She said 30 percent of the citizens felt infrastructure was a problem; 64 to 67 percent said the City had
a good variety of programs for children’s activities and the arts; 61 percent said the quality of the libraries was good, 32
percent said fair or poor, and 47 percent said there was a problem with library buildings. Citizens had little awareness of the conditions of other City buildings such as the police building. Forty percent could not rate the police building because they had not been in the building; 28 percent said the
Arts and Recreational Center buildings were not good, but 52 percent said they were fine and 20 percent said they did not know; 52 percent said that storm drains were not good and 34 percent said they were fine. In her opinion, that was an indication that the community was aware of the problems.
Council Member Kleinberg asked Ms. Bernstein what method was
used for the survey. In the beginning, the survey asked citizens what were the most important problems facing the City, which was an open-ended question where the citizen had to supply
the answer.
Ms. Bernstein said they had asked the questions both ways. The open-end question was to find out what the most important problem the community faced was. The survey demonstrated that
traffic and housing was a priority problem. but it did not mean that citizens were not concerned about the libraries.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the percentages were more reliable when asked what bothered them the most, rather than after being prompted about specific categories. The answers did not match, except for traffic.
Ms. Bernstein said if the citizens had been asked about housing and education in the beginning of the survey, they would have
matched. The survey team reviewed all the questions so that Council Members would understand the specifics of the City’s
issues in the context of the people’s concerns. To find out how the community felt if taxes were raised, citizens were asked if they would pay for needed improvements on old facilities. Thirty-four percent said they were not willing to pay for
12/10/01 93-149
renovation taxes, and 55 percent had put themselves in the category of “might be” willing to pay for taxes.
Council Member Wheeler asked since 70 percent of the community felt the City was headed in the right direction, did the survey team ever consider 55 percent as an encouraging number.
Ms. Bernstein said they had tested two measures: Palo Alto incurring $78 million of debt for Libraries Art Center, Museum, and Zoo; and $35 million to modernize the police building and
the 9-1-1 dispatch center. There were mixed responses. Fifty percent heard police first, and the other 50 percent heard
Library and Art Center first; 67 percent said yes; and 33 percent said they didn’t want taxes raised. She summarized by saying that the residents were happy living in Palo Alto. Availability of services was rated very well and citizens were happy with the direction of the City. Voters were not aware that
many of the facilities needed improvements, since they had not used or been in any of the buildings. Storm drains needed attention. Safety and children’s needs were important issues. Facilities should be safe, but not necessarily in state-of-the-art condition. A majority of the voters were willing to raise
taxes for renovations. The survey recommended that citizens be given more information in order to raise their awareness and
needed to be focused on basic improvements such as infrastructure needs, structural, and safety.
Larry Tramutola, Consultant, Evans McDonough, said that the results of the poll gave Council the green light to move forward
in some direction, but did not indicate that Council should stop the efforts of planning. Voters were receptive to being taxed, but needed to know what they were supporting.
Council Member Mossar wanted to know what 33 to 34 percent of
the people not wanting their taxes raised had on the survey. Mr. Tramutola said most voters did not want to pay higher taxes unless they specifically knew what they were taxed for and how much.
Council Member Mossar said that survey focused on facilities, upgrades, and safety and not operating dollars. Therefore,
there was not any information to weigh bond measures versus parcel taxes.
Mr. Tramutola confirmed that the poll did not deal with that area and suggested a subsequent poll should be taken to look at hard numbers.
12/10/01 93-150
Council Member Mossar said she understood.
Council Member Fazzino asked how the poll compared with the poll done for the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) bond and parcel tax 12 months prior to the election. It was evident in the survey that the people voted for services instead of buildings. He asked whether they could created ballot language
to focus on services. Mr. Tramutola said the survey was comparable to the PAUSD, in
making their decisions to move forward.
Ms. Bernstein said the most important decisions made on any election were the 70 words that appear on the ballot when someone votes. The survey used basic language to find the starting point.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether figures on the poll gave Council the green light to proceed, even if they are low. Mr. Tramutola said the numbers were not bad since there were not anything on the ballot to measure. The numbers indicated that
the public would vote on a well-planned proposal. He suggested that a good proposal be developed.
Council Member Wheeler hoped to get higher numbers once the measure was established.
Ms. Bernstein said the 67 percent was a good indicator that the
survey was a good starting point. Council Member Wheeler asked if a random sample of likely voters
showed other parameters such as mixing age groups, geographical, or other criteria.
Ms. Bernstein said voter’s data was matched to voter’s file to making sure it matched demographically. Council Member Wheeler asked Mr. Tramutola, given the economic
situation in the country, what impact would there be if a tax measure were placed on the November 2002 ballot.
Mr. Tramutola said November 2002 was a long time off. When doing a tax measure, the decision on the tax should be close to
the actual time it went on the ballot. Council Member Wheeler asked when and how they got people to buy into the tax measure.
12/10/01 93-151
Mr. Tramutola said in order to bring people in, it was necessary to put it together in a collaborative and supportive manner and
to continue outreach. Council Member Beecham said there would be a trade-off point between adding more people versus refusing the product. He asked what the stop process was.
Mr. Tramutola said the cost needed to be looked at, along with all the information and an intelligent decision made.
Council Member Beecham asked whether there was an advantage to
getting other groups together who wanted funding, in order to have a successful bond measure, and would that get the community to say “yes”. Mr. Tramutola said one of the misused resources in politics was
time, and the Council still had the time to do the tax measure correctly, prior to putting it on the November ballot. Council Member Beecham asked what advantage would there be if a bond measure were on the November 2002 election as opposed to an
off-election year.
Ms. Bernstein recommended that a measure be put on an even-year election to capture liberal voters who tended to vote on a measure simply because they read it on the ballot.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the data from those surveys
could be used to identify certain demographic groups who needed to be persuaded.
Ms. Bernstein said they started looking at demographic groups and found that baby-boomers with children voted on the libraries
and community centers. They planned to talk to the younger voters. Council Member Burch said when the survey started, 90 percent of the people had intended to vote. When asked who voted in the
last election, it dropped off significantly. Ms. Bernstein said the 1995 to 1998 final figures were taken
directly from voter files. In 2000, 7 percent did not vote; 72 percent voted both in the primary and general election; and 91
percent in the general election only. Council Member Burch said when asked about the question of general election in 2002, 93 percent said they were certain to vote.
12/10/01 93-152
Ms. Bernstein said a majority of people did not reveal the
truth. Council Member Burch asked if the same perspective was in the other data.
Ms. Bernstein said they looked at voters’ past histories to weed out those who did not vote, and those who were “hard core” voters.
Council Member Burch said there was a big discrepancy between
those who said they were going to vote, and those that actually did voted. Ms. Bernstein said only 7 percent of the population did not vote in 2000.
Council Member Burch clarified that 93 percent said they were certain to vote in 2002. Ms. Bernstein said that 93 percent did vote in 2000. Ms.
Bernstein said 93 percent had voted in either the primary or general election or both, 72 percent in both the primary and
general election; 19 percent in the general election only; and 2 percent in the primary election only.
Council Member Burch said when the question “Shall the City of Palo Alto incur $78 million in bonded indebtedness for
renovation, expansion, and construction of certain improvements,” the libraries, Community Center, Art Center, Junior Museum, and Zoo were mentioned. Since Mr. Tramutola
indicated he would not want to put all of those facilities in one bond package, should the City put them together.
Mr. Tramutola said felt he would package buildings together, but package libraries and police services together, or Art/Community Centers and sewers together.
Council Member Burch ask how the $78 million price tag was determined.
Mr. Tramutola thought that number came from the City, but did not want to be tied to that number. That would be the number to
look at in the next poll. Council Member Burch asked about looking at safety improvements and if it was removed due to the September 11, 2001 incident.
12/10/01 93-153
Ms. Bernstein said safety was always set as high importance.
Council Member Burch asked whether the poll was affected because of the September 11, 2001 incident. Ms. Bernstein felt that safety improvements, especially when it involved children, was one of the most important things that
could be done for people. Council Member Burch asked the reason for the 13 percentage
shift change in the police building and hardly a percentage change for libraries.
Ms. Bernstein explained the change was due to the fact that people’s knowledge was increased about the police building and they were already aware of the library conditions.
Council Member Burch asked whether that was a significant change. Ms. Bernstein felt it was a significant change, and by increasing people’s awareness about the need was important.
Council Member Burch said the demographics showed that 66
percent of the respondents did not have children under the age of eighteen living at home. He asked if that was typical of Palo Alto voters.
Mr. Tramutola confirmed that it was typical of voters in Palo
Alto, in terms of other communities. Normally, 12 to 20 percent of voters had children. They were looking at voters and not the population as a whole. The average voter was older and more
conservative.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Ms. Bernstein did a comparison of bringing buildings up to modern and legal standards and preserving the look of older buildings. Ms. Bernstein said she tried to point out that the term “state-
of-the-art” did not seem to be a big selling point, but many people liked the look of the older buildings.
Council Member Kleinberg asked Ms. Bernstein whether she was in agreement with the fact that when the issue of bringing
buildings up to modern and legal standards made people more in favor of improvements. Ms. Bernstein said the questions were asked in two different ways. First, the questions were asked if it was important to
12/10/01 93-154
renovate certain facilities but no information given as to “why”. Then it was followed up with questions that focused on
the importance of why certain projects needed to be completed on certain buildings. Council Member Kleinberg asked how it was determined on what words were used in establishing the questions. For example, it
was pointed out that libraries needed to be renovated to preserve library books. She also asked whether the same language was used in preserving art.
Ms. Bernstein said the survey team worked with various community
groups and the language was taken directly from their project list. Mr. Tramutola said as they moved forward, they needed to work on finding the appropriate words in making up questions. They had
to make sure that all questions were asked in the same way. Using certain words, for instance, “state-of-the-art” was powerful and positive words for people who were passionate over a project and for others it was not.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether they needed to do another round of refinement of questions.
Mr. Tramutola said they anticipated doing just that; some questions needed improvement and others were sufficient.
Council Member Kleinberg asked how they focused, targeted, and
marketed the message so that it was clear. Mr. Tramutola said in order to get a positive response from
voters, the package needed to be presented in a well thought-out manner.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether voters would answer differently if they were asked to pay an extra $200 per year as opposed to paying off a $78 million debt.
Ms. Bernstein said when they did their poll in the spring, they would establish the dollar amount and what it would be for.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there would be some value in analyzing a children’s initiative that would capture the
improvements, services, and infrastructure improvements in terms of their benefit and value to children. Even though only 66 percent of the voters did not have children, they did love children.
12/10/01 93-155
Mr. Tramutola said there was merit in providing questions regarding children and youth services. There was also merit in
a poll that reached a broad range of citizens. For example, the libraries touched a large cross-section of citizens. Council Member Kleinberg commented that when a welfare reform needed to be approved in California, it did poorly until it was
renamed to help children. Council Member Lytle asked whether there was any private
leveraging in any of the projects in the $78 million package.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the $78 came from adding up project descriptions, and they assumed that the Art Center was 50 percent matched by the private sector. Council Member Lytle asked whether there was any public
leveraging for assuming private bond act. Ms. Harrison said they did not have any idea on what amount they would be getting.
Council Member Lytle asked whether a bond measure was ever done that relied on a private match where funds had not been raised.
Mr. Tramutola said they currently were doing one for Oakland that was a combination of a museum, science center, and zoo and
did not have the private match.
Council Member Lytle asked what they told people if the money was not raised privately.
Mr. Tramutola said they made sure that funds would be in place prior to placing it on the ballot.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the survey team had ever done a parallel measure that ran side by side and was complementary rather than packaging everything together.
Mr. Tramutola said no, but he had done a school measure where there was a Measure A for academic facilities, and Measure B for athletic facilities, so that the public would not perceive that
the athletic facilities were being included as a science lab. They were separated, run as one campaign, and passed.
Council Member Lytle asked whether there would be an advantage to moving sooner on the campaign since there was a green light and did not know what status they would be in one year later.
12/10/01 93-156
Mr. Tramutola said it could have been advantageous if they could move sooner, but since the March time limit had passed, they
would need to wait until November. Council Member Lytle asked what Council’s role was after placing something on the ballot in terms of running the campaign, hiring a consultant, and winning the election.
Mr. Tramutola said they had a role as a council body and a role as private citizens. The role as a public body stopped when
they put something on the ballot. It was the citizens that interviewed and hired the consultant, not the Council. The
Council placed the measure on the ballot, determined the tax rate, and wrote the 75-word summary. As a private citizen, Council Members were limited to raising funds and campaigning. It was the citizens committee that needed to takeover raising funds and campaigning.
Council Member Lytle said it was a partnership between the Council crafting the measure, and the citizens assuring the success of the measure.
Mr. Tramutola said although the Council Members were participants, they could no longer spend time promoting the
measure once it was on the ballot. Council Member Lytle asked what the Council could do to keep
citizens motivated to assure their success once the measure was established.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether getting matching funds was brought up in the survey. He asked if it was brought up, how
much more favorable would the results have been.
Ms. Bernstein said that question was not asked in the survey, but asked in other surveys, and it had a very strong appeal. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked if the request for matching funds would make the results more favorable.
Ms. Bernstein could not guarantee that results would be better. They would check the private money match in the next survey.
Mr. Tramutola said in reference to the library measure, state
library bond money was difficult to obtain, and they should pursue trying to get that money.
12/10/01 93-157
Vice Mayor Ojakian said in a recent school parcel tax measure, senior citizens were excluded. He asked whether seniors stood
out in the survey. Mr. Tramutola said that question was not asked in the survey. Schools could make exclusions but that could not be done on a bond measure.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked if there was reference in taking parcel tax over a bond measure.
Mr. Tramutola said there were benefits to both. A bond measure
was good if monies were going to be used to rebuild or renovate facilities because the tax on a parcel tax would be so high it would never pass. Parcel tax was the way to if one was looking for funds to provide for on going programs.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked when the Council would be given an opinion on how to proceed. Mr. Tramutola confirmed that he would let the Council know as soon as the priorities were defined.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the time schedule found in the
staff report was reasonable for planning a measure. Mr. Tramutola felt it was reasonable. There were not many
public institutions that started pursuing a year in advance of placing a potential measure on the ballot. This amount of time
allowed for making good decisions. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked Mr. Tramutola to define “broad base of
support.”
Mr. Tramutola said there are two levels: 1) the Council must raise the voters awareness of what the Council needed; and 2) identify people who were willing to devote their time, money, and support to make things happen.
Mr. Benest said the Council would need to take the lead in the proper direction. In February, the Council would receive the library site planning issues. Policy decisions at that time
would help shape the cost. The next round of polling would help the Council decide what measures would go on the ballot.
Council Member Burch asked when will Council get a positive response about state funding after it is submitted on June 30th, so it can be included in the November ballot.
12/10/01 93-158
Mr. Benest said the Council would not get a positive response, but the general message of looking at various ways of levering
funds such as Public Art Foundation, the proposal for Library Foundation, State bond funds was a positive message. Karen Kang, 535 Patricia Lane, said that Libraries Now hired Ruth Bernstein of Evans McDonough, the same opinion research
firm that the City used for its survey, to conduct a scientific poll of Palo Alto voters. She provided a visual presentation of the study. She said 89 percent agreed that the Palo Alto
libraries should be as modern and inviting as libraries in neighboring cities, which was an interesting statement because
unlike Palo Alto, neighboring cities were enjoying new or renovated libraries. The study showed that 97 percent of residents agreed that maintaining quality libraries in Palo Alto was important to them. Support for Palo Alto libraries was nearly universal, but the willingness to pay for improved
libraries was not clear. The study indicated that 65 percent said they would approve a $60 million bond measure to repair and renovate the Children’s Library, Main Library, and Mitchell Park Library. That number of supporters represented almost a two-thirds vote of support, which was needed to support the bond
measure. When polled about a combination $90 million bond measure to renovate and improve the three core libraries and the
Mitchell Park Community Center, the Art Center, and the Junior Art Museum and Zoo, the approval percentage for the measure was 47 percent. If residents were given a choice, they would prefer
a library bond measure. She believed that if all City facilities were combined in one bond measure it would confuse the message
and increase the risk of a failed bond measure. Council Member Burch asked why the figure $78 million was used
in the study conducted by the City, but the figure was $90 million for the study conducted by Libraries Now.
Ms. Harrison replied that she was unfamiliar with the figures used by Libraries Now. Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, said the numbers used by
Libraries Now was the $60 million dollars estimated for the cost of renovating the three core libraries, as well as the estimates given by the other facilities. Based on voter polling, Palo
Altans was optimistic that a library bond measure would pass. Libraries Now asked for the Council’s commitment to place a
library bond measure, including all three core libraries, on the November 2002 ballot. Success would mean that Libraries Now would be eligible for matching State library grant funds. Libraries Now needed the Council to confirm the scope of services to be included in the bond measure by the end of
12/10/01 93-159
January 2002. The actual dollar amount of the bond would be decided later. Libraries Now fundraising campaign would consume
all of February and March 2002. During April 2002, Libraries Now would need to structure all campaign messages. A consultant would possibly be hired to assist in that event. A June kickoff event would be planned and communications organized for the duration of the campaign. Members of Libraries Now had run
successful campaigns in prior years and were aware of the time and effort involved in the project. The members of Libraries Now looked forward to working with the City to achieve the goal.
Lucy Berman, 535 W. Crescent Drive, spoke on behalf of the Board
of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation. The Foundation had worked for several years on planning the expansion of the Art Center. They started with a programming study that the Foundation and the City jointly funded. The result of that study identified 27,000 square feet of additional needs for the Art
Center. The Foundation wanted to add classrooms for children and repair the mechanical system, lighting, and ventilation. There was a need to preserve the health of Art Center volunteers who found it difficult to work in the galleries especially in the summer months. Ms. Berman asked the Council to keep the Art
Center on the bond measure.
Gwen Weisner, 722 San Jude Avenue, supported the children’s program at the Art Center. Ms. Weisner had volunteered at the Art Center for 12 years and led the tours for children. She said
the enthusiasm, responsiveness, and energy of the children made her want to expand the children’s programs to serve more
children. She strongly supported maintaining the Art Center on the bond measure.
Carolyn Tucher, 4264 Manuela Way, spoke on behalf of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation. She complimented the City Manager
and Assistant City Manager for the objectivity they demonstrated in dealing with representatives of various interest groups. She believed that the City’s effort to bring various interest groups into the bond measure discussion, instead of excluding them, had proven to be beneficial. The Art Center wanted to contribute to
children’s services and have their facility renovated, and they intended to match City tax monies with private donations. She encouraged the Council to help develop literature to distribute
as soon as possible as part of the education efforts to all the various groups that rented City facilities, including the Art
Center. She believed it was important to enter the election with a sense of unity because she had observed that there was some competition among the groups who wanted to be on the bond measure. She said a measure could have a high percentage of community approval but still fail at the polls. She thought
12/10/01 93-160
there needed to be a greater understanding among the various groups about the negative effect that infighting had on the
success of the measure. Those problems needed to be solved among the various interest groups. She offered the assistance of the Art Center Foundation to work with each group towards a general goal.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, #701, agreed that City facilities needed to be repaired and renovated.
Council Member Beecham followed up on a comment made regarding the dollar amount of the bond measure. He noted that support
dropped when the amount was a $60 million bond for libraries as opposed to the $90 million bond for broader interests. He wanted to know whether there was a different way that information should be interpreted other than what had been presented.
Ms. Bernstein responded that she needed to explain the order in which the questions were answered. In the Libraries Now survey a series of questions were asked about the qualities of the libraries and a list of improvements that were needed in the libraries. The public was asked to rate those qualities on a
scale, 70 percent of the poll was about libraries. That poll was followed with a question about the $90 million bond measure for
renovating the three core libraries and other City facilities, or support dropped. The questions on both surveys were worded the same but asked in different places on the survey, so the two
surveys could not be compared. The decision to do two different surveys in the same place made it possible to compare public
response regarding the two costs. Mr. Tramutola added that he thought it was premature to say the
measure with the least dollar amount would receive more support. He was not involved in the first survey but did see it after it
was completed. He encouraged the Council to look at the results of both surveys. He said that he would not have asked some of the questions early in the process. That was not to say that the survey was erroneous but he felt it was too early in the process to disclose dollar amounts.
Council Member Burch asked whether it was fair to ask a question without a dollar amount attached to it, and whether the public
would have liked to see a bond issue with libraries only or a bond issue with all City facilities. He referred to Council
Member Kleinberg’s comment about the public’s preference to have as much information as possible.
12/10/01 93-161
Mr. Tramutola said there was definitely a way to word survey questions. The most important issue was not the dollar amount of
the total bond, to have the public’s support. Mayor Eakins said that she wanted to entertain questions from the Council for City staff and after questions were exhausted, she wanted to hear comments. She reminded everyone that the item
was under Reports of Officials and was not an action item. Council Member Fazzino asked at what point the public would step
forward and take the leadership role for that particular measure. He said Mr. Tramutola and his group had done an
outstanding job in their presentation, which allowed the Council to move forward. He asked Mr. Benest whether he was concerned if the City moved forward by having the City pay for the cost of consultants. He thought it would be more practical to move forward and place the entire effort in the hands of a broad-
based citizen’s group. The group should be composed of representatives from various interest groups, persons from the State, and community leaders. That group would work with Council to address the legal elements of the issue and have that committee raise money on their own to support the work that Mr.
Tramutola needed to do to get the measure approved by the voters. That method was successfully used in 1987 for the
utility tax campaign, which was a unique City and PAUSD partnership.
Mr. Benest replied that after the first year, the plan was to return to the Council and discuss some ideas for forming a
citizen’s committee with Council involvement. He thought it was appropriate because they were City facilities and it should be a citizen-based campaign. The citizen’s groups would be
responsible for raising money because it was a citizen campaign. It was a good investment of time for the City to finance the
polling and other activities in preparation of the campaign. He also thought it was important for the Council to go into the community to speak with the various groups and get comments. Council Member Fazzino wanted to know when would the citizen’s
committee be formed. Mr. Benest said there was a specific role for the citizen’s
committee to work with the City in the pre-campaign phase and the City hands it off to the committee after the measure was put
on the ballot. Mr. Tramatola said there were a number of difficult decisions to be made by the Council, and it was important to have as much information before making those decisions. He thought it was
12/10/01 93-162
likely that the measure would go on the November ballot and said it would be a good idea to proceed with the formation of a
citizen’s committee. The decision to put the measure on the ballot did not have to be made until after the July 2002 meeting, so there was ample time to form a citizen’s committee. Council Member Beecham queried Mr. Tramatola about the Council
taking an advocacy role. He presumed that was because of Proposition 218 and not because it would hurt the passage of the measure.
Mr. Tramatola said there was always a possibility that someone
would make a claim that the City was acting inappropriately. He believed the Council was proceeding in an appropriate manner. Council Member Lytle wanted to know what was being done to bring various groups together. She supported of the Art Center
upgrade. She did not hear a clear consensus on how to make the project successful. A strategy was needed to bridge the concerns of various parties, whether it was through mandatory mediation or some other method of developing a plan that everyone could support.
Mr. Tramatola thought the City was not at that point yet. A
number of things had been done to make sure the City and various groups were working together cooperatively. The polling performed by Evans McDonough was a positive step that included
input from the public.
Council Member Lytle inquired whether the tension that was being experienced between various groups could be worked out.
Mr. Tramatola said it was good to have the active participation of various groups and candidly discussing the issue. That gave
everyone an opportunity to verbalize differences and hear the opinions of others. Mr. Benest said a good start had begun by having everyone come together for the discussion.
Council Member Lytle felt uncomfortable with the present level of tension.
Mr. Tramatola said the tension did not mean that the problems
would be avoided, but it gave an opportunity to come up with the best plan for solving the problem.
12/10/01 93-163
Mr. Benest said the essential issue was to figure out what was the vision of the library and to make decisions on policy issues
which would have an impact on the cost. Council Member Lytle asked when the Council would receive all the information. She believed the measure would be successful, but she wanted to know how all the buildings would be built at
one time. Mr. Benest responded that it would not happen all at once.
Council Member Lytle asked what the response of taxpayers would
be when the Council went out into the community to discuss the matter with various groups and if phasing would be part of the discussions. Mr. Benest responded that phasing would be part of the
discussions because it would have an impact on when the City would issue bonds. That information would be available as the building phase unfolded. Council Member Mossar wanted to know what the most critical
issue was about the entire process. She noted that the Council needed to perform the more mundane tasks associated with the
process, whereas various interest groups generated a lot of passion concerning their individual concerns.
Mr. Benest said a measure needed one outstanding item to get it passed by voters. It was essential to have a plan concerning
other City upgrades, such as the public safety building and storm drains, when the measure was presented to the voters in order to assure passage of the measure.
Council Member Burch said he thought the Council had decided
that Mitchell Park Library would not be renovated without also considering the Community Center; and the Main Library renovation would include the Art Center. Mr. Benest said that was true about the Main Library and the Art
Center because they were on the same site. The same was true with Mitchell Park Library and the Community Center. The Council would need to make those decisions in February.
Council Member Burch said in some cases they were linked
together. Mr. Benest said that was particularly true when two agencies shared the same building. The future of the Art Center had to be considered along with the Main Library.
12/10/01 93-164
Council Member Fazzino said the information provided by staff
was helpful. The opportunity to put together a successful campaign was easier with the support and help of staff and the community. He was concerned that unless there was a citizen- based parallel process, the City would have challenges during the campaign. One of the reasons the storm drain measure lost
was because the public as viewed as an initiative that was created by staff, devised by staff, and imposed on the Council and the community by staff. He was disturbed that unless a
citizen’s committee was established, the City would experience the same problems as with the storm drain initiative. He was in
agreement with the timeline that had been set and asked Mr. Benest to work with the Mayor, the Council, and the community to put together a strong citizen’s committee to support that effort.
Mr. Benest clarified that process had started and he asked the Council to begin to form a citizen’s committee. Council Member Fazzino concurred and said it would be advisable to find citizens who were recognized community leaders and were
not identified with a particular interest group.
Council Member Lytle agreed with Council Member Fazzino regarding a citizen led committee, but she was not sure whose responsibility that was. She was apprehensive that the group
would be critical about some of the rationale and projects and whatever the Council would structure in terms of the groups
formation. Council Member Burch said it was a clear choice that the
committee had to include representatives of the various entities that were involved.
Council Member Kleinberg thanked Mr. Tramutola and Ms. Bernstein and their staff, as well as the Libraries Now group. She thought it was important to build a collaborative team spirit about improving the Palo Alto community, and to not try to pit one
special interest against another. Council Member Beecham said the Council would have to make some
difficult decisions in January and February 2002 concerning the conceptual plan and the cost. He agreed with Council Member
Lytle that there was tension among the various groups, but he felt comfortable that the cooperation would solidify over the next months if groups would compromise on some issues.
12/10/01 93-165
Vice Mayor Ojakian said there was a lot of work to be done to see what needed to be included in the final proposal, and it
appeared that groups were in agreement on the timeline. He thought it was important that Council Members be visible in the community during that project. Many City buildings were dated and needed renovation.
Mayor Eakins recapitulated what Mr. Tramutola said with regard to working from the general to the specific, and said an important thing to remember was that everyone needed to work
cooperatively in order to have a successful campaign. No action required. RECESS: 10:35 p.m. – 10:40 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Eakins announced that Item No. 6 would be moved to the end
of the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 9A.
City Attorney Calonne stated with regard to Item No. 2 that the fourth recommendation “To direct staff to refund and refinance 1992 Certificates of Participation for Civic Center
Improvements,” be removed and return on the December 17, 2001, City Council Agenda. The title “Confirmation to issue taxable
Certificates of Participation to construct non-parking area on Lot S/L; rent space for commercial use and utilize net revenue to fund teen programs” was correct, but the recommendation on page 3 of 9 on CMR:444:01 should be corrected to reflect the same language with confirmation of previous direction to staff,
rather than new directions. Council Member Beecham said he could not participate in Item No.
2 due to a conflict of interest because he lived too close to the property and on Item No. 6 because his client lived too
close to the Terman property.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-5 and 7-9.
LEGISLATIVE 2. Adoption the Resolution Ordering Further Cash Payments for
Second Series of University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District Bonds; Confirm to Issue Taxable Certificates Of Participation To Construct Non-Parking Area
on Lot S/L; Rent Space for Commercial Use and Utilize Net Revenue to Fund Teen Programs; Approval to Use Net Revenue
12/10/01 93-166
From Non-Parking Rental Space to Subsidize Barker Hotel Assessment; and Direct Staff to Refund and Refinance 1992
Certificates of Participation For Civic Center Improvements. Resolution 8107 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Further Cash Payments and
Directing Actions with Respect Thereto” [University Avenue Assessment District Bonds Second Series]
3. City of Palo Alto’s 2001-2002 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program
Resolution 8108 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program5 for Federally Funded City Transportation Projects”
4. Resolution 8109 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto To Provide a Supplemental Military Leave Benefit to Pay for the Differential Between Regular Salary and Military Pay and to Extend Employee Benefits (as
applicable) to Employees called to Active Duty to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom”
ADMINISTRATIVE 5. Renewal of Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bank of America for Banking Services Renewal of Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Union
Bank of California for Investment Security Services 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley
Construction Company, Inc. in the Amount of $2,344,376 for Gas Main Replacement Project 11, CIP Project 36801
8. Amendment No. Four to Special Counsel Services Agreement with Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C., No. C7081794
9. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the California Supreme Court in Bonanno v. Central Contra
Costa Transit Authority MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 2, Beecham “not participating.”
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3-5 and 7-9.
12/10/01 93-167
9A. (Old Item No. 6) Terman-Cubberley Property Exchange Agreement with Palo Alto Unified School District [Lease
Amendment and Land Exchange Agreement, Including Joint Use of Terman Site] City Manager Benest said the item dealt with the Terman property exchange between the City and the Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD). The agreement was approved by the City and PAUSD in a joint meeting in January 2001. It was subsequently incorporated and improved as part of a Memorandum of
Understanding in September 2001. The issue was where the line was drawn for the City’s eight-acres at Cubberley Community
Center. Initially, the line went through a building because the City wanted to square it off. The City Attorney said that could not be done so the City and PAUSD discussed the matter further. The PAUSD was interested in having some classrooms in their portion of the building. Under the property exchange agreement
there was a possibility the PAUSD would reclaim the City’s lease portion of Cubberley Community Center for a small compact high school. The City accommodated their request by giving PAUSD more classrooms on its side and the City received more parking space on its side. There were extensive conversations with the
City’s Community Service Department, and they indicated there was no problem with that plan, which would go to the PAUSD the
following evening. Mayor Eakins asked what was going to the PAUSD.
Mr. Benest said the same information before the Council that
evening would be presented to the PAUSD on the following evening.
Mayor Eakins wanted to know whether the map and Attachment B reflected the agreement.
Mr. Calonne called the Council’s attention to Attachment 2, PAUSD Use of Terman Park. The Terman athletic field of that document was described in CMR:448:01. He wanted to pointed out that exclusive use would not be permitted.
Anne C. Fletcher, 2020 Waverley Street, said she was concerned about the Terman-Cubberley Property Exchange Agreement because
she thought it was not a good idea to act on the item until the new PAUSD superintendent took office. She asked the Council to
delay action until the superintendent was in place. Council Member Lytle said the map brought a question to her attention because she received a call from Barb Mitchell who had emailed the Council and wanted to be notified when items on
12/10/01 93-168
Cubberley would be presented to Council. She found the map exhibit to be different from what she had last seen as part of
the committee that reviewed the agreement. The map had not been made public when the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was done. She thought it was important to leave the property in one piece in order to maximize use of the property. The ideal way to transfer the property to someone who wanted to develop it was to
leave it intact, in either a rectangle or a square shape.
Council Member Mossar said that was the first time she saw the materials. She wanted to know if the dividing line went through a building, functionally what would happen between then and potential future redevelopment.
Council Member Lytle said it would require joint facility planning with PAUSD for those areas of the property. That would
also improve redevelopment opportunities for both tenants. Council Member Mossar remarked that Mr. Calonne had already
reminded Council that the straight line approach could not be used.
Mr. Calonne said the line could not go through a building without a commitment to take the building down.
Mr. Benest said the City had to be sensitive to the needs of
PAUSD, and they had to be considerate of the needs of the City. The division was not a perfect square, but it was the agreed upon conceptual plan. PAUSD was willing to accept the agreement and he felt comfortable recommending the plan.
Council Member Wheeler said she served on the subcommittee so she saw the original line. She saw the line before them that night as a little strange, although it was generally in
conformance with the MOU. It was also legally necessary at that time and it would take the City a while to realize the vision of
scrapping that facility and rebuilding a new facility. At that time the City and PAUSD would have greater clarity on what their mutual needs and plans were. It would then be more feasible to straighten that line.
Council Member Kleinberg had a question regarding the timing. She also wanted to know where the original line was.
Mr. Benest said the original line went through a pavilion.
Council Member Kleinberg wanted to know if the City had to go back and renegotiate with PAUSD.
12/10/01 93-169
Mr. Benest responded that PAUSD would not agree to that, if the City did not take action that night, then neither would PAUSD
take action the following night. That meant the City would have a discussion on December 17 and say either it was not in the best interest of the City, or tell him to renegotiate with PAUSD.
Council Member Kleinberg said in order to draw a straight line, the City would have to renegotiate with PAUSD and that was not in the agreement.
Council Member Lytle said the PAUSD had not agreed to that and
the public had not seen the map. Mr. Benest said the public was being made aware of the map at that meeting as the information was being presented to the Council.
Council Member Burch said as one looked at the map, there was no way to draw a straight line unless it was drawn through a building. If a line were drawn through a building, then the building would have to be torn down. He said either the City or
PAUSD would have to approve the agreement first or it appeared that both parties were reluctant to do so.
Mr. Benest said the proposal before the Council was agreed upon at the chief negotiating level.
Council Member Burch said he did not believe that the public needed to become involved in every line that went through the property.
Council Member Lytle said the Council should explain their
rationale. She felt it would be divisive not to have the public participate and hear the Council’s rationale. The information had not been in public circulation long enough. The property value of both parties would be decreased by the way the negotiating committee wanted to divide the property. Members of
the public had not been given an opportunity to comment, and since the PAUSD would have their first hearing the following night, Council did not know what concerns they would have. She
suggested the Council vote separately on the exhibits so that she could vote against the exhibits but in favor of the
remainder of the item. Mr. Calonne said the items were not separable. It was a contract and could not be broken into two pieces.
12/10/01 93-170
Vice Mayor Ojakian said it was because of Council Member Wheeler’s remarks that he made the motion to approve the staff
recommendation. If he were to take part in a long public discussion about how the lines were drawn, he would say PAUSD received both gymnasiums, the theater, and the auditorium which are all the things that he valued as Palo Alto community assets. The City would continue its lease agreement until PAUSD needed
the property back. Council Member Kleinberg said PAUSD had to make the decision
whether to wait on the appointment of their new superintendent. She believed the Council had acted responsibly on their portion
of a complicated agreement by moving forward on the agreement. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian, seconded by Wheeler to accept the staff recommendation to approve the property exchange agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the PAUSD. The property
exchange agreement allowed the City to swap eight-acres of City-owned property at Terman Community Center to PAUSD for eight- acres of PAUSD-owned property at the Cubberley Community Center. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham “not participating.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Police Chief’s request for funding frontline law
enforcement programs pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3, relating to the Supplemental
Law Enforcement Services Fund MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt
the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $121,598 amending the fiscal year 2001-02 budget to appropriate funds
received by the City from the State of California and allocated by Santa Clara County for the continuation of the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) program and a transfer of $67,577 to the Budget Stabilization Reserve.
Ordinance 4729 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 Accepting Citizens Options For Public Safety (COPS)
Funds in the Amount of $121,598 and Approval of a $67,577 Transfer to the Budget Stabilization Reserve to Cover
Salary Expenses in the Police Department” MOTION PASSED 9-0. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated
12/10/01 93-171
Mayor Eakins declared the Public hearing open and receiving no
requests from the public to speak, declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to
adopt the Resolution ordering the abatement of weeds.
Resolution 8110 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated”
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 12. Request for Council Support of an Active City Advocacy
Effort to Protect Vehicle License Fee Revenues from State Budget Reductions MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve the Mayor’s signature on the legislative letter
declaring the City’s opposition to any consideration of reducing or eliminating the State backfill of vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to local jurisdictions.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Colleague Memo from Vice Mayor Ojakian and Council Members
Fazzino and Lytle regarding Hoover Restrooms. Mayor Eakins noted the item was scheduled for January 22, 2002.
Council Member Lytle said the letter was self evident that there
was an offer from John Arrillaga and Dick Perry to construct the restrooms. She suggested that Council consider their offer in conjunction with the policy recommendation from Parks and
Recreation Commission, as well as direction to the City Attorney and City Manager to expedite the process. She wanted the matter
agendized for the next meeting before Council Member Fazzino left the Council.
Council Member Fazzino said he would like to see the matter resolved before he left the Council.
Council Member Mossar wanted to make sure that all the Council was acting on was to put the item on the next agenda, because
12/10/01 93-172
Council had not reviewed all the items mentioned in the Colleague’s memo.
City Manager Benest said the full minutes were not available yet but he would provide as much as possible in terms of what the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) said.
Council Member Mossar wanted to make sure there was a document present that stated the recommended policy of the PARC.
Vice Mayor Ojakian confirmed there was a written statement, because he was the PARC liaison and was present at the meeting
when the statement was discussed and passed unanimously by PARC. Council Member Mossar said the colleague memo referred to a number of items, but there was no documentation attached. She did not want to consider the item the following week unless the
documentation was attached. Mr. Benest said staff would provide the policy statement and any other information available.
Council Member Burch said the restrooms at the University Avenue Caltrain Station were closed at 12:30 p.m. each day and Caltrain
passengers were going to MacArthur Park Restaurant and other nearby businesses to use their restrooms. He urged the City to act on that.
Mr. Benest said Valley Transit Authority was handling the
matter. Mayor Eakins said that matter was part of Measure A/B funding.
Council Member Mossar said that matter had been under discussion
for a number of years. The problem was the station was not staffed after the ticket agent’s work shift ended at 11:00 a.m. Bus drivers had keys because they needed opportunities to use restrooms when they reached that point in their route. The restrooms needed upgrading and Caltrain would pay for them.
Council Member Burch said it was a health issue and perhaps the City needed to install a public restroom or a portable restroom
at the station. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Fazzino, to place the Hoover Restroom item and Citywide policy recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission on the December 17, 2001 meeting agenda for action.
12/10/01 93-173
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Mossar announced that there was a brand new woodburning handbook from the Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQD). She also shared a plaque from the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County. Vice Mayor Ojakian announced that Thursday night from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. there was a forum on the housing update at the
Terman Community Center. CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 11:25 p.m. 14. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee
(Vic Ojakian, Bern Beecham, Jim Burch, Sandy Eakins)
Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City Clerk Donna Rogers, City Manager Frank Benest Authority: Government Code section 54957.6
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters
involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation and Pending Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 14. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 14. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
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.
12/10/01 93-174