HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-22 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting January 22, 2002
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................275
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................275
1. Transmittal of Library Advisory Commission Recommendations Regarding Alternatives to the New Library Plan and
Identification of Issues Surrounding Library Building Expansion Projects..........................................275
2. Resolution 8122 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10, Section 1002 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Causes for Discipline)
to include Violation of California Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990”....................................................291
3. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Community Housing, Inc. in the Amount of $65,000 for Funds Allocated During Fiscal Year 2000/01 under the Community Development Block Grant Program.........................................291
4. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the
Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Ellman Burke Hoffman & Johnson..............................291
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider if
an application by Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Oak Shadows LLC for review and rezoning of a 4,938 square-foot parcel
from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned Community) to construct a 4,347 square-foot, three-story building to contain two residential units (2,373 square feet) including a below market rate unit, retail area (511 square feet) and office area (1,235 square feet) for property located at
2051 El Camino Real should be denied or whether it should be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for review under Section 18.68.065 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act...................................292
01/22/02 93-273
7. Review of Preliminary Design and Cost Estimates of the Homer Tunnel Project and Request for Council Direction on
Project and Approval of Consultant Contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $433,649 for Design Services for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing, CIP Project 10121...............................................292
7A. (Old Item No. 5) Finance Committee Recommendation re
Approval of Closing the 2000-01.............................298
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................301
8. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation........302
9. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation........302
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m..................302
01/22/02 93-274
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ed Power, 2265 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding government ethics.
Carolyn Tucher, 4264 Manuela Way, spoke regarding Arneson
exhibit at the Palo Alto Art Center. Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, spoke regarding Library Bond Committee.
Karen Kang, 535 Patricia Lane, spoke regarding Library Bond Committee.
Daniel Garber, 2201 Byron Street, spoke regarding libraries.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding public participation.
Richard Alexander, 435 Santa Rita Avenue, spoke regarding library funding.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve the Minutes of December 3, 2001, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 1. Transmittal of Library Advisory Commission Recommendations Regarding Alternatives to the New Library Plan and
Identification of Issues Surrounding Library Building Expansion Projects
Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said based on the Council’s request made several months prior, the Library
Advisory Commission (LAC) had developed some alternatives to the new Library Plan. Mr. Thiltgen requested direction from the Council concerning several outstanding items, as well as the
01/22/02 93-275
alternatives, so that the LAC could prioritize the items. One of the issues that had not been resolved was whether the
Mitchell Community Center and the Mitchell Park Library should be combined as one project. Library Advisory Commission Chair Tina Kass said the LAC had responded to Council’s request several months prior. Library
planning began in 1996, and the staff Library Master Plan was submitted to Council in March 1998. The LAC was appointed in 1999, and a new Library Plan was submitted in May 2000. Council
approved the conceptual plan in October 2000 and began to implement the plan in summer 2001. At that time, Council asked
the LAC to develop alternatives to assist with making decisions regarding the scope of the implementation, funding, and timeframe. The LAC and the Council met for a study session on October 1, 2001, and confirmed the basic recommendations of the new Library Plan were appropriate, reasonable, and desirable.
The LAC recommended that the Main and Children’s Libraries be expanded for the north part of Palo Alto and Mitchell Park expanded for the south part of Palo Alto. The LAC wanted to upgrade the collections and improve the facilities of the three neighborhood libraries, improve and expand collections in the
resource libraries, and increase staffing in each of the libraries to support current program levels as well as an
expanded program levels. Only resource libraries would be expanded at an estimated cost of $500 per square foot. The LAC had worked with staff to identify two program reductions. One
affected the length of the alternative period and the other affected the square footage of the building. The LAC planned to
return to Council with plans for operating expenses. They would have the exact timeframe for those alternatives when they received the consultant’s report on staffing. It was important
to define the mission of the libraries before they discussed the alternatives. The mission stressed the library program and not
the physical building itself. The library program was the basis of all the recommendations. The LAC believed they had submitted reasonable recommendations that could be easily enacted. The LAC had worked with a subcommittee to identify recommended program reductions. The LAC recommended Alternative A, which was the
full implementation of the Library Plan. Library Advisory Commissioner John Kagel said Alternative A did
not reduce any of the square footage nor the conceptual program that the Council had adopted. The LAC sought to spread the cost
over a period of time. The notion was to take the two libraries that were the most in need of renovation and upgrading. The recommendation was to renovate the Children’s Library and the
01/22/02 93-276
Mitchell Park Library and then the Main Library. The idea was to offset the increased construction cost due to inflation by
whatever savings there would be in interest on the bond issue itself. The LAC recommended having one bond issue instead of two by November 2002. The timing would be appropriate for trying to obtain State matching funds under the Library Bond Act. Alternative A took into account that there would be no
reduction in the size of the existing library buildings with the recommended conceptual plan for the libraries. Community polls indicated that there was support for a single library measure.
Studies showed that those measures, which had been successful in getting the two-thirds vote, had been single item measures.
Library Advisory Commission Vice Chair Tony Angiletta said there was approximately $11 million in suggested savings based on the $500 per square foot described in Alternative B which was contained in City Manager’s Report 125:02. The basis for the
dollar amounts were based on a construction cost study for buildings at the Main Library and Art Center. Alternative B represented a reduction from 92,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet in additions. The specific areas include reductions in the three core libraries. The main public meeting room at Mitchell
Park would be eliminated and the technology laboratory and the homework center at the Main Library. The elimination of the
homework center would affect the services offered to teens. There would also be a reduction in the space for the Friends of the Library. That would reduce the ability of Friends to
produce the revenue that had always been generous in prior years to help support the library systems. There would be a 25
percent reduction in space for the Palo Alto Historical Association, the elimination of the café, and reduction in exhibit space, study space, storage space, and employee
workspace. This would be a reduction of approximately 22,100 square feet, which translated into the $11 million savings.
Ms. Kass said the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center could be housed in one building, and there was a site plan that was being reviewed for joining those facilities. The plan was to construct part of the building and finish it in later years.
She wanted to look at alternative types of funding before considering the two-phase building plan.
Mayor Ojakian announced he would take speaker cards until 8:15 p.m.
01/22/02 93-277
Council Member Lytle asked what the additional costs were for the Main Library Art Center and the Mitchell Park Community
Center portions. Mayor Ojakian said that evening’s meeting was to consider the alternatives recommended by the LAC.
Council Member Lytle said her question was in relation to the recommendation from the LAC that buildings be combined or not combined.
Mayor Ojakian did not think that was a question that the LAC
could address. Mr. Thiltgen said he could respond with estimates. The feasibility study for the Art Center was approximately $8 to $10 million for improvements. The Foundation was willing to spend
$5 million, so the estimate was for $4 to $5 million. However, figures for Mitchell Park were not yet available. City Manager Benest said it was too early to know what all the costs were.
Mayor Ojakian said those figures would probably be available
during the first quarter of 2002. Assistant City Manager Harrison said staff planned to return to
Council with the Main Art Center in early to mid-February.
Council Member Burch asked about the reference that was made to the studies that were done that showed how much support there would be based on dollar amounts. He said the estimated figures
did enter in to some of the items the Council had to consider.
Mr. Benest said there were two critical points to consider. One was when site plans came back, the Council would have to make certain decisions that would involve costs and based on Council’s decision, staff would do some conceptual planning. That would generate some numbers that could be tested. However,
that was premature at that point. Mr. Angiletta said the City gave the LAC the figure of $500 per
square foot, which was the build-out cost.
Council Member Burch said when the City did its own study; it came up with a smaller combined figure.
01/22/02 93-278
Mr. Angiletta said he was going by square footage on the buildings and they could be made smaller or larger.
Council Member Burch wanted to know about the statement made about the formation of a Library Bond Committee. He asked whether that committee would support the bond issue if it contained more than libraries and if it included the Art Center.
Mayor Ojakian said at that evening’s meeting the Council was to receive a report from the Commission based on the Council’s
request for the LAC to return with different alternatives. He did not believe questions relating to bonds and fundraising
should be addressed at that time. Council Member Morton was concerned about the fact that the three core libraries were multi-use sites. He thought it was important to consider the impact on other programs and uses at
the core sites while decisions were being made about the libraries. Mr. Thiltgen responded that feasibility studies were being conducted at Mitchell Park Community Center and the Main Library
Art Center and the findings were not yet available. In both cases, the multi-use issue was being considered as well as the
parking capacity. The consultant’s findings would be available in about a month. However, he said the multi-use programs could work on both the Mitchell Park site and the Main Library site.
A feasibility study was not conducted for the Children’s Library because a parking problem already existed in that neighborhood.
Council Member Morton said this was not a decision about one program because the expansion projects included multiple
programs.
Mayor Ojakian noted that there was a lack of space for staff training at the individual library sites and asked whether training would be conducted at other City sites. Ms. Kass said there were a number of City sites that could be
used for staff training without using library space for that function.
Mayor Ojakian asked about the space allotted to quiet study, what the space would be used for, and what factors determined
the size of the space.
01/22/02 93-279
Ms. Kass said patrons who needed an area for quiet and uninterrupted study would use the quiet study area. The size of
the space was determined by an architectural consultant who based the size on expected use. Staff made the recommendations on how much to reduce the space. Council Member Kishimoto wanted to know if the $500 per square
foot included furnishings. Mr. Kagel said the $500 per square foot included everything
except books, chairs, tables, and computers.
Council Member Kishimoto asked about the proposed size of the Children’s Library and whether the architectural historian had considered the overall structure of the Lucie Stern Community Center.
Ms. Kass said the Architectural Resources Group worked on the conceptual design, submitted a preliminary report to various boards and commissions, and had taken into account the entire complex. The size of the Children’s Library would be tripled, which was the maximum that could fit on the existing space.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the City was still on
target for the first round submittal for the Library Bond Act. Ms. Harrison answered that there had been a minor delay in terms
of what needed to be completed for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review submittal date.
Council Member Freeman asked the LAC how much time it would take to re-examine the impact of the reduction on the public and
administration.
Ms. Kass said the LAC would want to look first at the proportion of public space to staff space. She thought the ratio was 3:1. The public space was much larger than staff space. Council Member Freeman e was particularly concerned about the
teen programs and the space to do homework. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the reductions of the space
serving teens and children. She wanted to know whether the space would be re-examined.
Ms. Kass believed the distribution of space was reasonable.
01/22/02 93-280
Council Member Kleinberg asked about the meaning of higher-by-rate projected.
Manager of Main Library Diane Jennings said the higher-by-rate projected meant that the library wanted to increase the audiovisual collections by a much greater percentage than the book collections.
Ms. Kass said the majority of space allocations would be for public use rather than staff use.
Mayor Ojakian stated that Item No. 6 would probably be continued
to a date uncertain. City Clerk Donna Rogers said Dave Manipel, 2721 Midtown Court, completed a speaker card for Item No. 6. Mr. Manipel left the meeting before he had an opportunity to speak and left a
document to go into the next Council packet. Mayor Ojakian thanked Library Advisory Commissioners Tom Wyman, Lenore Jones, Warren Kallenbach, and Mary Jean Place who were present but did not address the Council.
Architectural Review Board Member Judith Wasserman, 751
Southampton Drive, informed the Council that the concept plans for the resource libraries had been through a study session of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the general trend was
toward joint planning. She also addressed the Council as a resident and stated that she was a neighbor of the Art Center
and Main Library. She was in favor of the renovations and upgrades because the buildings had been neglected for a number of years. She felt that the literary and visual forms of art
needed to be preserved. She agreed that there should be one bond issue.
Carolyn Tucher, 4264 Manuela Way, complimented the LAC on the work they completed. She expressed a desire to work with the LAC and the Council to achieve the goals Council had set. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported funding to upgrade and
renovate the libraries. He said the argument should not be which alternative was least expensive, but what could be accomplished with the dollars that would be spent.
Public Art Commissioner Brigid Barton, 2081 Webster Street, said
she was recently named to the joint site design committee for the library and the Art Center. She was concerned about site
01/22/02 93-281
planning and the architectural design and asked the Council to keep that in mind as decisions were being made.
Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, favored the option that would change the timeline of the implementation and the hope of preserving as many of the library programs as possible, especially programs for youth and teen programs. The full title
of Proposition 14, which was referred to as the State Library Bond, was the California Education and Literacy Library Building Fund Act. She said that grant applicants had agreements with
local school districts, which was why she felt strongly that services to youth and teens should not be reduced. The grant
money was intended for education and literacy. MOTION: Council Member Morton, seconded by Burch, to refer the item to staff on an accelerated timetable, a request for and recommendations on the items to be included in a community
facilities upgrade bond to be presented to the voters on the November 2002 ballot, which might include library upgrades at Main, Mitchell Park, and Children’s libraries, plus upgrades to the site related facilities: Art Center, Mitchell Park Community Center, and Junior Museum.
Council Member Morton said a number of speakers had already
addressed the idea that “you get what you pay for.” He was convinced that the library, art, and recreation people could get the 66 percent of the financing. It would be a good idea for
the LAC to return to Council with clear figures and a comprehensive study to be presented to the community.
Council Member Burch said the library buildings were the cultural jewels of the community. The success of the project
depended on community involvement and support and he commended Ms. Tucher for her willingness to work with the community
groups. Vice Mayor Mossar agreed with the motion but wanted some clarification, and depending on the clarification, she would be inclined to make a substitute motion. With the information
presented by the LAC, and the information staff would present at a later date, Council would be in a better position to make a decision. She wanted to know whether the intent of the motion
was to specify what the bond package would be or was the intent to ask staff to examine all the components and bring it back for
Council consideration.
01/22/02 93-282
Council Member Morton said it was the latter. Staff supported the revision of the new library plan. He wanted more information
on the parallel programs at Mitchell Park Community Center, the Art Center, and the Junior Museum. The Council needed that information from staff in order to put the package together. Vice Mayor Mossar said based on that, she would support the
motion. There was a consultant and a work plan to get the needed advice and what was the best way to package the project.
Council Member Kleinberg was pleased that her idea regarding a children’s initiative was being discussed. She believed having
separate measures would be easier to achieve or perhaps combining the items Council Member Morton suggested. She also wanted Council to look at the issue in a way that delineated programs for children and youth.
Council Member Lytle needed clarification about the motion and where the motion placed the library bond support group. They felt certain they could get their portion of the project passed in November. They, too, were concerned about the April timeline to make a decision. She felt that Council was procrastinating
until they had all the information it needed but felt that would delay the process. The Council could let the library bond
supporters know that they had enough information to allow them to move forward with the bond effort.
Mayor Ojakian said a motion was on the floor, and he could not tell from her comments whether she was supporting the motion or
suggesting something different. Council Member Lytle said she was asking for an amended motion
so that groups ready to move forward with their campaigns could proceed while reassuring others that Council would look at
assisting other groups in financing their efforts. Council Member Kishimoto shared Council Member Lytle’s concern about the timing of the project. She asked whether the Council’s desire to integrate everything into one would endanger the
entire project. Council Member Morton said Council was asking staff for additional information, and he wanted an accelerated response
from staff so that deadlines would not be missed.
Council Member Kishimoto supported an accelerated schedule.
01/22/02 93-283
Council Member Freeman agreed with what had been stated. There appeared to be support and confidence that a library bond would
pass. However, there was a lack of confidence in what could be attached to the library measure. There was one from Libraries Now and a survey from the City, which ranked acceptability of various community services and buildings. What seemed to cause consternation was the ranking indicated that a measure with
libraries combined would pass, and it was uncertain how other items would affect the combined libraries measure. She agreed that Council should give their approval to the various groups to
proceed with their campaigns. She also agreed that Council should review the various options in a matrix form because it
would help Council become better informed. She added that Larry Tramutola should present his findings to Council as well as staff. Council Member Beecham said staff had presented to Council an
overall plan regarding what would be a successful bond measure. He asked staff how the information presented that night compared with that schedule. Mr. Benest agreed with the suggestion of the Library Bond
Committee moving forward. He was delighted with the community leadership that had been displayed. The present Council had
stated that they wanted a November 2002 bond to focus not only on libraries but approval of $1 million for library plans. Other items to be considered were police facilities and storm drains.
In March 2002, staff would return with a plan for a public safety building and storm drains. Staff agreed with an
accelerated plan, which should come together in April 2002. The two parts to accelerated planning would include site planning and conceptual planning. Cost estimates would not be available
at those stages, nor would a matrix be of much use at those stages unless there were cost estimates available, and that
would occur at the conceptual planning stage. The last piece of information would be presented in late March, and Council could make a decision in April. Larry Tramutola said he would come in February to do a study session with the Council. That session was scheduled for February 23, 2002, and Mr. Tramutola would
provide an overview of what it would take for a winning bond issue. Mayor Ojakian asked for the timeframe for the accelerated site
plans.
Ms. Harrison said Council would receive them for the Main Library and the Art Center at the second meeting in February and for Mitchell Park and Children’s towards the end of March.
01/22/02 93-284
Council Member Beecham asked whether the intent of the motion was for staff to return with the matrix and have staff do an
independent assessment with reduced costs for the Library Plan. He asked whether that was what was being requested for staff to bring back to Council. Council Member Morton asked whether he meant the new revised new
Library Plan presented that evening. Council Member Beecham said Council asked the LAC to look at
what might be done to reduce the cost, and they came back with their option.
Council Member Morton assumed staff supported that and it would be the starting point. If staff wanted to return to Council with a recommendation to increase the library cost he would go by the work the LAC had completed to reduce the square footage down to
the revised new Library Plan. Council Member Beecham supported the motion. His objective was to find the bond measure that gained the most for the City. A decision should not be based on the information the Council had
before them but Council needed a long term plan and he believed what staff would bring back to Council would allow them to make
an accurate decision. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF the MAKER AND SECONDER to direct staff to evaluate options and perform an independent assessment to reduce costs.
Council Member Freeman said she wanted to make a correction regarding the order of priorities from the survey mentioned by
Mr. Benest. The order was not storm drains and the public safety building but the priorities were storm drains and 9-1-1
Dispatch Emergency Services. Council Member Lytle said she wanted to see whether there was enough support to add to the motion regarding the fact that Council intended to proceed with the library bond measure.
Council Member Beecham recommended that Council do that as a separate motion.
Mayor Ojakian said there was already a motion on the floor and
Council Member Lytle’s did not appear to be accepted as a friendly amendment. When the discussion was completed on the
01/22/02 93-285
motion before them, it would be considered with an additional motion.
Council Member Morton said he thought what the Council would eventually present to the community was a matching item. He did not want to exclude the infrastructure funding. He thought the City would take care of the infrastructure needs and ask the
community to take care of the community facility needs. There would be a plan to handle the infrastructure and that plan would be in place before the library bond measure went to the
community asking them to fund community facilities.
Mayor Ojakian said based on the discussions he and staff had in prior weeks was the plan to look at various projects and how to address them. The library bond measure would not address all infrastructure items.
Mr. Benest added that the nomenclature was not clear regarding basic major renovations to public facilities. The effort that was before the Council was to address the need for renovating community facilities. In addition, there needed to be a plan in place for the public safety building and the renovation of storm
drain systems before November 2002. Staff would return to Council in March with a plan for those items and, in due course,
a cost estimate would be available for community facilities. Council Member Morton asked for a clarification on how to handle
the other infrastructure items.
Mayor Ojakian thanked the LAC for doing a thorough job. He reiterated the comments made by Council and said the items LAC would return to Council with were a re-evaluation of staffing
and collections areas.
Mayor Ojakian understood the motion to be a plan in place involving some of the details explained in terms of looking at the various site plans. Then doing more detailed surveying of the public when there was a better understanding of cost and the schedule for the final project. Those were the types of
information the public would need from the Council because his intention was to have a bond measure in November and he sensed community support for that. If there were groups interested in
going out raising funds, then he would give them his approval and support. He was undecided at one point about voting for the
measure because there was no specific timeframe, and he assumed comments made by staff was satisfactory to the maker of the motion and because of that he would support the motion. He
01/22/02 93-286
restated the motion made by Council Member Morton and seconded by Council Member Burch, which was to refer staff to an
accelerated time table and request for recommendations for items to be included in a community facilities upgrade bond to be presented to the voters on the November 2002 ballot that would include library and community facilities. Council Member Beecham had made an addition to the motion to have staff evaluate cost
estimates for the various library options. Council Member Lytle asked for a clarification whether it would
be a single or multiple bond measure.
Council Member Morton said his motion was to ask for information from staff. Mayor Ojakian clarified the motion, which was a request for recommendations on the items to be included in a community
facilities upgrade bond to be presented to voters in the November 2002 ballot which might include other City facilities. Mr. Benest said staff would make recommendations about conceptual plans and cost estimates by April with a
recommendation for a second community survey.
Council Member Lytle wanted to know if that would limit the way the bond would be structured.
Mayor Ojakian said it would not. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Freeman, that
the Council’s intent is to direct staff to deal with the issue of libraries in the November 2002 election and give leadership
to the Library Bond Committee with a commitment to go forward in November. Council Member Freeman reiterated that there was a large group of people already assembled that had the resources to go
forward. They would need to raise funds, educate the public about the bond, and they would need the assistance of the Friends of the Library but could only use their help until the
bond was submitted. If Council waited until the matrix was received in April, the community groups would be limited in
their abilities to go forward in raising funds and earning the support of the public.
01/22/02 93-287
Council Member Kleinberg asked for a clarification of Council Member Lytle’s motion.
Council Member Lytle said her motion was to give library groups assurance that there would be a bond measure in November 2002 and for groups to move forward with their campaigns with library direction and to tell them that Council supported the three
libraries in 2002. Council Member Kleinberg asked Council Member Freeman to explain
the reason why she believed the Friends of the Library could not go forward after June.
Council Member Freeman said Friends of the Library has a non-profit status. Ms. Valentine said Friends of the Library had “501(3)c” status
and were limited to nonpolitical and apolitical education only. They could not support anything with political ramifications. Council Member Kleinberg said she was not clear on what Council was being asked to do.
Council Member Lytle clarified that Council was sure that they
wanted to proceed with the Library Plan and that library community groups could go forward with their plans. They felt confident that it ranked high enough in the last survey results
that voters also wanted to move forward with the Library Plan.
Mayor Ojakian asked Council to speak only to the motion on the floor and he would restate it after Council comments.
Council Member Kleinberg supported community groups moving forward with the Library Plan.
Vice Mayor Mossar would not support the motion because it was premature. She believed Council was not in a position to make a decision until staff returned to Council with more information.
Council Member Burch would not support the motion because he did not want to see a measure formulated that he believed would fail. The prospect of integrating the facilities was appealing,
but Council and the consultants needed to create a package that would assure the passage of the measure. It was premature to
narrow it down when they were trying to assess what the other components to the measure were. He was willing to say that whatever the Council agreed on, libraries would be the central
01/22/02 93-288
component of that and then see what could be added. To have it limited to libraries currently did not make sense.
Mayor Ojakian said the library bond measure was apparently a passionate issue and he noticed that comments were being repeated.
Council Member Beecham asked Council Member Lytle about the rush of the motion and was that to indicate to the Friends of the Library and Libraries Now that there would be a separate bond
measure for the libraries that did not include other facilities.
Council Member Lytle said not necessarily. She believed there was support in that group for the joint Mitchell Community concept, but they did not want to commit to what the survey indicated would not pass. They wanted to work on an effort that would pass and, as long as the Council’s effort was to formulate
something that would pass, she felt it was safe to give community groups the go ahead to proceed. Council Member Beecham said he would support a bond measure that included libraries and at that point, he had no idea of what
else might be included. He was committed to finding a bond measure that would be successful no matter what it included. He
did not support renovation in phases because there was nothing in the staff report that indicated what the savings were.
Mayor Ojakian said he would continue to try to move the discussion ahead and as he called on Council Members to speak,
he asked that they would limit their comments to new information only.
Council Member Morton said the Council had given clear indication that there would be a community facilities upgrade
bond in November. The argument that the Friends of the Library could not do anything after June was an auspicious argument that Library Now was their political arm, and they had founded a separate group to be a public advocacy group for them. Most of the Council supported a single bond measure and had asked staff
to return with a comprehensive package and Council would put that package together. Libraries would either have their own bond or would have all of what they wanted. He thought that was
not only premature, but also unfair to other elements of the community and based on that he would oppose the motion.
Council Member Freeman asked the City Attorney to give a legal interpretation of the “501(3)c” issue.
01/22/02 93-289
Mr. Calonne said not at that time.
Council Member Freeman said it should be eliminated from the discussion because of multiple issues. Mayor Ojakian said it was not part of the motion.
Council Member Freeman asked Council Member Lytle about exclusivity. She interpreted the motion to mean that the library bond group could go forward and collect money, campaign
and educate regarding the libraries not exclusive of anything else that might be incorporated into a bond at any other time.
Council Member Lytle said that was her intent. Council Member Freeman said she was asking for a clarification.
Mayor Ojakian said she had received the clarification. MOTION TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian to call for the question. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Freeman, that the Council give direction that we do intend in November 2002 to
deal with the issue of libraries and give leadership to the library bond committee and commitment that the City will go forward in November.
Mayor Ojakian said he would not take any more comments.
Council Member Freeman asked whether she would have opportunity to comment as the seconder of the motion.
Mayor Ojakian said no because there was a call for the question,
there was a motion, and he asked that it be reiterated, indicated who seconded it, and was now asking for the vote. Vice Mayor Mossar said there had been so many descriptions of the motion that she did not believe it was possible to say that
Council understood what the motion was. Mayor Ojakian said if Council felt that way it should help them
determine how they wanted to vote but in the meantime, there was a motion on the floor and he asked for the vote.
MOTION FAILED: 5-4, Beecham, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle “yes.”
01/22/02 93-290
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg,
that the Council’s intent is to have on the ballot for November
2002, a bond measure that would include substantial funding for libraries. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to encourage the newly formed library group to move
ahead with the campaign and funding activities. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Ojakian “no.”
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Morton, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-4.
Council Member Lytle requested that Consent Item No. 5 be
removed from agenda to become Item No. 7A. Council Member Kleinberg would not participate in Item No. 4 due to a potential conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford University in land use matters.
Council Member Mossar would not participate in Item No. 4 due to
a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University.
LEGISLATIVE
2. Resolution 8122 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10, Section 1002 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Causes for Discipline)
to include Violation of California Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990”
ADMINISTRATIVE 3. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Community Housing, Inc. in the Amount of $65,000 for Funds Allocated
During Fiscal Year 2000/01 under the Community Development Block Grant Program
4. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of
Ellman Burke Hoffman & Johnson MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 3.
01/22/02 93-291
MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 4, Kleinberg, Mossar
“abstaining.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider if an application by Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Oak Shadows
LLC for review and rezoning of a 4,938 square-foot parcel from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned Community) to construct a 4,347 square-foot, three-story building to
contain two residential units (2,373 square feet) including a below market rate unit, retail area (511 square feet) and
office area (1,235 square feet) for property located at 2051 El Camino Real should be denied or whether it should be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for review under Section 18.68.065 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Morton, to continue the item to the Regular February 4, 2002, City Council meeting.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Mayor Ojakian noted a request from the City Attorney to remove Closed Sessions Item Nos. 8 and 9 from the agenda.
RECESS: 9:45 p.m. to 9:50 p.m.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
7. Review of Preliminary Design and Cost Estimates of the Homer Tunnel Project and Request for Council Direction on
Project and Approval of Consultant Contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $433,649 for Design Services for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing, CIP Project 10121
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts requested Council direction on how to proceed on the implementation for the Homer Avenue CalTrain Railroad Tracks Pedestrian and Bicycle
Undercrossing Project. In July 2001, Council approved the contract with Nolte Associates to proceed with a 15 percent
design level study on the project in order to refine the project design issues, cost estimates, and project feasibilities. Staff was back to report on those results and to seek direction on how
01/22/02 93-292
to proceed. The three specific actions staff wanted Council to consider were to approve the amendment to the consultant
contract, proceed to final design, and approve the preferred design alternative and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute right of way, utilities use and agreements. Those actions would infer proceeding with the project. Staff recommended approval of the project but noted what was important
was that the recommendation incurred certain risks and liabilities for the City.
Public Works Senior Engineer Elizabeth Ames said the projects purpose was to provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection
between the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, the CalTrain Station, and the south of Forest neighborhood. In 1998, a feasibility study evaluated three alternatives. The alternatives were, an at-grade crossing, a bridge, and an undercrossing. The preferred alternative was an undercrossing because it provided access for
bicyclists and it was an unobstructed crossing. Assistant Director of Public Works Kent Steffens discussed the timeline, cost issues, and pros and cons for moving forward or not moving forward with the project. If the City agreed to
proceed, staff would have 30 percent of the plans completed in April 2002 and would seek board and commission reviews. In May
2002, staff would complete the environmental review process. By June 2002, 80 percent of the plans would be completed and would go back to board and commissions for review and comment. By July
2002, staff would finalize the 80 percent review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and City Council and hoped
to obtain right-of-way certification by CalTrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to be prepared to submit those documents. By August 2002, staff would need to submit 100
percent plans, the right-of-way certification, and the funding package to CalTrans for final approval of the project. In
September 2002, CalTrans must make the final approval or certification of the project plans or grant funding would expire. There was $2.8 million available for the project with a shortfall of $1.2 million based on estimates in the design report. The recommendations were to approve a contract amendment
and proceed, to pursue additional grant funds while staff finished the design, as well as look for ways to reduce cost. Council Member Beecham asked about the timeline and whether the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), Public Art Commission (PAC), and Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) review could be
completed before the CEQA process.
01/22/02 93-293
Mr. Steffens said the timeline was based on when the 80 percent plan would be completed.
Council Member Beecham asked whether taking it to those three groups would delay it going to the P&TC. Mr. Steffens said it would normally go to other commissions
before going to the P&TC, and he would find out if that was dictated by the CEQA review or whether there was an opportunity to move that ahead.
Council Member Beecham asked, given the risk of the City losing
several million dollars, was the City obligated to those three agencies or groups. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said some were by code and it would be helpful as well to express to those bodies Council’s
concern that the cost of $1.2 million not be substantially added to by their reviews. Council Member Morton wanted to make a motion to accept the staff recommendations. He also commented that when such matters
were presented to Council, it would be helpful if there were a concise report from staff. Otherwise, it made it appear that
Council was not doing their homework. Council Member Lytle said Planning and Transportation
Commissioners had contacted her because they had not been given an opportunity to have input into that matter. She questioned
why it was not presented to the P&TC before it was presented to Council.
Mr. Roberts replied that the issue of the project itself had been before the P&TC, and the issue before the Council was one
that would normally go to Council and not to the P&TC. He believed the Council was the appropriate body to approve the awarding of the consultant contract to make the decision regarding the financial risks.
Mayor Ojakian wanted to know about the likelihood of obtaining all the approvals.
Mr. Roberts said it was a difficult question to answer in technical or quantifiable terms. Staff was confident of their
ability to produce those things that were under their direct control. The design work, applications, description of the necessary right-of-way, and submittals to the various agencies
01/22/02 93-294
would be completed. The review process would receive a lot of support and staff was grateful and optimistic about the support
they had received from other governmental agencies that also wanted to see the project succeed. The uncertainties were the approval and process by private sector businesses that used that right-of-way and had easements there for telecommunications purposes and who had no incentive or motivation to deal with the
project in an expeditious fashion. Mayor Ojakian stated that the contract involved a significant
amount of money, and he wanted to know what would happen when the contract went through various steps and got to P&TC and they
wanted to make significant changes. He asked what type of advice or direction would be given to the P&TC if they wanted to make changes. Mr. Roberts agreed there were potential risks. He said the
process had been worked on cooperatively so far and he did not foresee any problems. However, if a problem arose from any board and commission during the process, staff would raise those issues with Council and seek a prompt resolution to them. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1) Approve and
authorize the Mayor to execute the contract amendment (Attachment A of CMR:107:02) with Nolte Associates, Inc. in the amount of $433,649 for design services for the Homer Avenue
Caltrain Undercrossing, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project 10121; 2) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to
negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total
value of which shall not exceed $43,365; 3) Approve the preferred skewed alignment, Alternative C, as identified in the
Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing 15 percent Design Report (Attachment B); and 4) Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute right-of-way and utility easements and agreements. Where possible, Council would like to see this matter handled expeditiously with parallel filings with agencies and
commissions to accelerate the project with progress reports given to Council.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the project has been discussed for a long time and for many residents and businesses. When the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation (PAMF) moved to the other side of the tracks, that was one of the sweeteners was discussed and that was why the City asked PAMF for mitigation fees to help build the
01/22/02 93-295
tunnel. The fact that CalTrain had added to the requirements by increasing the amount of tracks and making it a larger project
for the City was the perfect entree into being able to ask for federal and state funds to help build the tunnel. Council Member Kleinberg read comments forwarded to her by former Council Member Ellen Fletcher who was one of the
luminaries and role models for bicycling around town. She urged Council to approve the staff recommendation rather than to abort the project.
Council Member Beecham asked whether staff had indicated that
there was a 50/50 chance of completing the project. Mr. Roberts said there was better than a 50/50 chance of completing the project. City Attorney Ariel Calonne had indicated another course of action was to condemn the easements
if they were not forthcoming in a suitable timeframe. There were uncertainties and risks involved. Council Member Beecham said the chances were too risky because if the project failed the City would lose $3 million, so he
would not support the motion.
Council Member Freeman wanted to know if gaining agency approval was part of the major risks the City would face.
Mr. Roberts said in order to gain the final agency approval from CalTrans, the plans and specifications would have to be
completed and funding secured. In order to do that the other agencies and private sector parties would have to fall in line first. The project was a sequential process through the various
agencies.
Council Member Freeman asked whether it was possible for the City to tie part of the consultant’s compensation to a timely submission to reduce the $2.5 million risk. Mr. Calonne said the City had tried that before but the
consultant was not willing to accept that proposition. Council Member Freeman asked why the City had to use that
particular consultant.
Mr. Roberts said aside from the legal aspects there was a pragmatic reality that the City was faced with at that time. The City had a contract with Nolte and Associates to do the next
01/22/02 93-296
phase of the design. If the City had any chance of meeting the timelines involved, the City needed to proceed immediately.
Time did not allow for renegotiations of the contract. Council Member Freeman did not intend renegotiating the entire compensation but wanted to know whether the City could offer a monetary incentive for the consultant to adhere to strict
timelines. Mr. Calonne was convinced that would be applying pressure to the
wrong party because he did not think Nolte and Associates would be where the process would be delayed.
Mr. Roberts was confident the technical tasks would be done in a timely manner. Council Member Kishimoto supported moving ahead with the
project, but she thought it was irresponsible to give up the ground the City has already gained. It was not just a connection between Palo Alto and PAMF but a connection between Palo Alto and Stanford. She hoped to see a similar bike and pedestrian connection in the Meadow and East Charleston area.
She also hoped that the City could come in well under $4 million because she understood that $400,000 was built into the budget
as a contingency and through some competitive bidding. Council Member Burch supported the motion and did not think the
City should back off from the commitment.
Council Member Lytle supported the motion, and she appreciated and understood Council Member Beecham’s frustration. Reporting deadlines needed to be highlighted with the consultant.
Council Member Freeman supported the motion but commented that
on the Alma Street side, Homer Avenue was a one-way street and she was concerned about bikes exiting the tunnel. Chief Transportation Officer Joe Kott said the minimum possibility for cyclists who wanted to proceed eastbound would
dismount until they reached High Street and proceed along High Street to Channing Avenue. Another possibility through further study and community consultation was to create a two-way section
of Homer Avenue to High Street to accommodate cyclists and change the circulation pattern.
Council Member Burch asked whether it was the consultant’s responsibility to obtain all the approvals.
01/22/02 93-297
Mr. Roberts said it was the responsibility of City staff working through Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) and CalTrain to
submit and receive the approvals. The consultant’s expertise was in support and preparing the documents. Council Member Burch asked whether staff prepared parties in advance of the forthcoming documents so they would be
preparation when the documents arrived. Mr. Roberts said yes.
Mayor Ojakian said it was a project that had been discussed for
a long time and had a significant amount of the money involved, but he would support the motion. The motion before Council was to accept staff recommendations as outlined in the staff report with an additional request to expedite the matter and not delay the process by going through review that were not legally
required. Council Member Beecham said he was not sure that needed to be in the motion because staff would pursue that. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Beecham “no.”
COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 7A. (Old Item No. 5) Finance Committee Recommendation re
Approval of Closing the 2000-01.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the City was changing any commitments made to certain aspects of the budget, specifically, she had received concerns from the PAC that their public art
money was being reduced by 25%. She wanted to make sure that was not part of that night’s action.
Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said he spoke to a member of the PAC and answered that question. That issue was brought forward in “Strengthening the Bottom Line” for fiscal year 2001-02. Those transactions, which occurred as of June 30,
2001, appeared in the closing of the 2000-01 budget. Council Member Lytle asked whether that would come to Council at another time. She wanted to clarify if what was before the
Council was the closing of the budget or reappropriation requests.
01/22/02 93-298
Mr. Yeats said reappropriation was an amount owed on an existing contract or an existing encumbrance and that was carried forward
into the next budget year to be paid. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve closing the 2000-01 Budget, including Reappropriation of 2000-01 funds into the 2001-02 Budget; completed Capital
Improvement Projects; and transfer of remaining balances to the appropriate reserves.
Ordinance 4734 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Closing the 2000-01 Fiscal Year Including
Reappropriation Requests, Completed Capital Improvement Projects, and Year-End Financial Summary Status Report.” Council Member Morton said in the history of the City that was its greatest year.
Council Member Kishimoto would support the motion. The City needed to establish trust from the residents as the City looked forward to raising $60 - $90 million over the next year. She wanted to know whether the City was doing the right thing on the
Consent Calendar and not using that as an educational opportunity to review the last year and look ahead to the next
year, although she knew the Council would be doing a mid-year review soon and in the Finance Committee. She did not know what was planned for the full Council. In general, she would like to
see the tremendous work that had been done be presented to the full Council as a principle and that was something that could be
discussed as a Council. Council Member Morton said if that was an amendment, he would
accept it.
Council Member Kishimoto said in terms of overall accountability to the community, it would be more beneficial to have reports summarized into financial reporting and management analysis. She would look to the City Auditor for help in those areas. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to have the financial items including year-end closing,
reappropriation requests, CAFR, and annual audit presented
annually by the Finance Committee to the full Council, not on the Consent Calendar, with any summary of policy implications.
Council Member Kleinberg accepted the amendment with the clarification that audits went to the full Council and Council
01/22/02 93-299
Members had an opportunity to comment on them. The Finance Committee had a thorough public review of the budget at the end
of the year and of the recommendations, which were included in the report. It was always a question of balance in doing everything at the full Council. Council Member Freeman agreed with Council Member Kishimoto and
disagreed with Council Member Kleinberg. She believed that Council needed to see presentations on anything that involved City finances in order to have a grasp of what was happening
with the City’s budget. She said Mr. Yeats had mentioned that he too would like to have a study session for any Council
Members who were interested in financial reports so that the financial reports would be clearer and take less time to discuss. Council Member Lytle said she liked the amendment from Council
Member Kishimoto regarding the reappropriation issue. Council Member Beecham disagreed with a couple of things. He said it was not necessary for certain financial items to be brought to full Council because the Finance Committee was
specifically designed to do that. Council Member Freeman had stated that the policy was, if anything was voted on unanimously
by committee, it went on the Consent Calendar, the policy was that if an item was unanimous it may go on the Consent Calendar if that was the decision of the committee. Regarding the study
session, there might be a need to have a study session for only the Finance Committee, and if other Council Members wanted to,
they could tune in by television. Finally, the Auditor did not have a role in that issue.
Council Member Kleinberg wanted to be sure there was not a misunderstanding among those who worked on the Finance Committee
that there was some concern that they did not do their due diligence and mishandled the task. Council Member Morton said he understood the intent of the amendment to the motion was for Council to endorse the work that
had been done. Council Member Burch said he appreciated the comments of Council
Member Beecham and understood the comments of Council Member Kishimoto to make full disclosure and help build trust with the
public. He noticed in the Finance Committee minutes that Council Member Freeman referred to, there was a lot of discussion about making the documents available electronically.
01/22/02 93-300
However, the documents needed to be distributed in a format that was easily understood by the public. He hoped that when the
Finance Committee had gone through what it had completed and unanimously agreed on an item, it did not need to come to the full Council for further discussion. If the goal was to make the public aware, then there were other ways to accomplish that. He believed the Council took too much time discussing items when
they had already been discussed in the Finance and Policy and Services Committees.
Council Member Freeman said some colleagues assumed there was an insinuation of a lack of trust in the Finance and the Policy and
Services Committees. That was clearly not the message she sent and not the message that she wanted Council to hear. When financial matters came to Council for approval or comment, at that point she believed there should be some review. There should be a short introduction of the matter and continued
without a lot of discussion. She had trust in the Finance Committee. Council Member Kishimoto clarified that her amendment was the CAFR and the annual audit should be briefly reported out from
the Finance Committee to the full Council. The Council was not yet doing the financial analysis.
Council Member Lytle said all decisions did not need to come before the full Council.
Mayor Ojakian said there were two different items being
discussed. One was the actual action that Council needed to take which was to close out the budget, and the other was the discussion on Council procedures. He suggested that Council
procedures be discussed at the Council retreats. As to the discussion regarding the Finance Committee, including who would
receive the Mid-Year review in February, it would be a good idea to keep in mind some of the comments made that evening and how those items needed to be handled at the full Council level. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Morton mentioned that the City Manager and Fire Chief had an article, “Enhancing the Manager/Fire Chief
relationship” in the January/February issue of Public Management
Magazine.
01/22/02 93-301
Council Member Kleinberg complimented the City Manager and Director of Administrative Services for the recent credit
rating. Mayor Ojakian gave the City Clerk a letter from Santa Clara County Cities Association, which appointed Vice Mayor Mossar to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Board for
another term of two years. Council Member Kleinberg requested that the meeting be adjourned
in honor of Vice Mayor Mossar for her reappointment to the BAAQMD Board and James “Ted” Franco who received the Golden
Globe Award for best actor in a James Dean, Made for TV Movie. CLOSED SESSION 8. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
Subject: Christine Lasich v. City of Palo Alto; SCC
#CV783615 Authority: Government Code 54956.9(a)
9. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
Subject: Hanna, et al. v. City of Palo Alto, et al.; SCC #CV782487
Authority: Government Code 54956.9(a)
Item Nos. 8 and 9 removed from the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for
the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of
01/22/02 93-302
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.
01/22/02 93-303