HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-19 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting February 19, 2002
1. Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan (continued from 2/04/02) (Public testimony closed ..................... 358
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ................. 369
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 370
1. Presentation from League of California Cities,
Personnel and Employee Relations Department; Career Leadership Award ........................................... 371
2. Resolution 8127 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Jay Rounds Upon His Retirement ................................. 371
3. Results of the Site Feasibility Study for Palo Alto Main Library and Art Center Expansion, and
Recommendation to Proceed to Conceptual Design for Two Alternatives, Capital Improvement Program Project 10204 Library Master Plan .................................. 372
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 384
4. Ordinance 4736 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Authorize the Transfer of $46,238 from
CIP 19109, Police Information Systems Master Plan, to Provide Additional Appropriation for CIP 19312, Fire/ Communication Computer System” ............................. 385
5. Resolution 8128 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of Proposition 42,
the Transportation Congestion Improvement Act” ............. 385
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Larry Walker Associates in the Amount of $119,915 for
Consultant Services to Assist the Regional Water
02/19/02 93-356
Quality Control Plant in Fulfilling the Requirements of the Wastewater Discharge Permit ......................... 385
7. Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C0115210 Between the City of Palo Alto and Hastings Landscape Conservation Services in the Amount of $17,445 to Provide Additional Vegetation Management Services for Byxbee Park ................................................ 385
8. Special Conditions – Hanover Project (2475 Hanover Street) City Council Review and Adoption of Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Revised
Conditions for the Demolition of Two Buildings on a 4.7 acre site in the LM Zoning District and the
Construction of a two-story office Building Comprising 81,928 square feet with parking facilities to include 146 Underground Parking Spaces and 127 Surface Parking Spaces ..................................................... 385
9. Request of Property Owners of a Portion of Tract 796
for Consideration of Single Story Height Combining Zoning in the Greer Park Neighborhood ...................... 385
10. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with Davis, Wright & Tremaine, LLP ..................................... 385
11. Scheduling of Council Vacation ............................. 386
12. Colleagues Memo re Timely Staff Reports .................... 386
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 387
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. in memory of John W. Gardener, who played a major role in civil
rights enforcement, education reform and campaign finance reform. ............................................ 388
02/19/02 93-357
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle (arrived at 5:40 p.m.), Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan (continued
from 2/04/02) (Public testimony closed) Planning and Community Environment Director Steve Emslie said the staff recommendation was for the Council to forward the Draft Housing Element to the State of
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review and comment. Forwarding the draft document would not preclude substantial changes from being made to the draft in its current form. Comments from the State greatly enhanced the Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) and public’s review of the analysis of potential modifications to the Draft Housing Element. Modifications might include changes to policies, programs, and the list of housing potential sites. The benefit of the Council’s review at the early stage of the process enabled
the Council to provide the policy objectives that would assist staff, P&TC, and public in the preparation of a
document that best suited the community’s long-term best interest. Housing sites were often a lightning rod for discussion in housing elements. The housing lists were
required as a part of the Housing Element. The State took a heavy hand in implementation of local policy regarding
housing development. Each jurisdiction in the State received a housing allocation, and Palo Alto was presented with that information at prior meetings. The purpose of the
housing list was for the State that jurisdictions had the capacity to reasonably attempt to have the housing numbers
that were provided the jurisdiction constructed within the time period of the Housing Element. Staff prepared a brief summary of the various housing sites and listed
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) policies and a brief description of how the site conformed to Comp Plan
policies. The summary was intended to help focus Council discussion and concentrate on policy direction in order to work on changes with the P&TC and community.
02/19/02 93-358
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said at the February 4, 2002, meeting, she incorrectly stated only 200-300 units
could be accommodated on the Hyatt Rickey’s site. With the current zoning, a total of 475 units could potentially be proposed on the site. The Hyatt Corporation never requested that number, and it was difficult to accommodate that many units given open space, parking, setback and landscape
requirements. Additional policies in the Housing Element and Land Use Element protected the adjacent single-family neighborhoods.
City Manager Frank Benest said the 475 units was based upon
an assumption that the Hyatt Corporation did not want to build a hotel on the site and would put in all housing, but staff currently knew that was not the intent. Ms. Grote said that was correct. The new Policy H-20
discouraged or disallowed institutional uses in residential neighbors. Currently within the zoning for residential neighborhoods, a conditional use permit could be applied for to allow institutional uses that were typically considered supportive of residential areas, such as
religious and educational institutions and community centers. Staff hoped to hear comments from the Council as
to whether or not the concept of conditional use permits for institutional uses was something that was supportable or something the Council did not want to see continued.
Mayor Ojakian said the report referred to by Mr. Emslie was
dated February 15, 2002, “Housing Sites Inventory Matrix.” Council Member Kleinberg asked how sites for community
services were analyzed with respect to current or potential community services or oversubscription of what the City
already had. Mr. Emslie said the Housing Element was described as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and had to undergo CEQA analysis. The approach taken
by staff was to analyze sites. One criteria used for selecting sites was to balance the existing use with the proposed housing. A thorough analysis was not done in terms
of the community impact. All impacts had to be analyzed and presented back to the Council prior to a decision on the
Housing Element.
02/19/02 93-359
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said consistency was a “watch word” of a good Comp Plan. The type of consistency that was
relevant to Council Member Kleinberg’s question was internal consistency. After the Housing Element moved along to a relatively advanced state, staff needed to ensure the Housing Element was consistent with the other elements, including the Community Facilities, Land Use, and
Transportation Elements of the Comp Plan. State law required correlation of elements in the Comp Plan.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified studies such as traffic congestion did not have to be done at the current time.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. A finer grain of analysis would be done on the sites that consensus was developed upon.
Council Member Kleinberg understood the Draft Housing Element was sent to the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and a response had not been received but was expected.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Kleinberg asked how the Housing Element list was developed.
Mr. Emslie said staff applied internal criteria in coming up with the list. State law required that the City needed
to demonstrate to HCD that the housing sites that were included for potential redevelopment or development were reasonably expected to be developed during the period of
the Housing Element. Sites were looked at for the ability of the owner to convert under existing land use
regulations, for appropriate zoning, and for those that would not require rezonings. Sites were looked at that had developer or property owner interest in selling the site to reuse for housing.
Mr. Benest said sites were looked at that were already in the Housing Element. Many of the sites were long identified as sites for residential development. Staff focused on a
refined Tier I list rather than a Tier I and Tier II list. The City hoped to have some mixed uses at locations such as
Edgewood or Alma Plaza.
02/19/02 93-360
Council Member Kleinberg asked about areas where there was shuttle service such as Embarcadero Road and Highway 101
where there might be redevelopment of a small shopping center. Mr. Emslie said State law allowed the City to look at rezoning.
Council Member Kleinberg said trying to find ways to convert areas where the impacts were more dispersed or less
difficult was something the City could explore and had time to explore following the submission of the Draft Housing
Element to Sacramento. Mr. Emslie said that was correct. Staff would take direction from the Council and look at sites that were not currently zoned.
Mr. Benest said the Council needed to be careful with community expectations regarding uses of property. Mr. Calonne said the current City zoning law required a 15-
year time period to amortize uses that could be changed.
Council Member Kleinberg asked for an explanation of the Request for Qualifications (RFQs).
Mr. Benest said the City was interested in acquiring property, and the Council gave staff direction to look at
appropriate property that could be acquired to develop into affordable housing. The affordable housing commitment could not be met unless the City obtained real estate. Staff sent
out a RFQ to identify one or several nonprofit housing developers who were willing to work in the future with the
City to develop land that the City could acquire on its own or in partnership. Advance Planning Manager Julie Caporgno said the RFQ went out in late December 2001, and submittals were due in late
January. Staff was interviewing seven developer groups the following week. The draft list was sent to the developers.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the RFQ process lent a slight bit more aura of permanence to the supposed list,
which the Council was reassured was a draft list that could be modified.
02/19/02 93-361
Mr. Benest said staff did not believe there was a problem. Staff tried to give a sense to nonprofit housing developers
that the City was interested in acquiring one or several sites for affordable housing. Council Member Kleinberg said information on the process was helpful because there was a certain level of concern
when documents went to Sacramento, and there was already an official status, permanency, and credibility that was in advance of a more thorough analysis and community input.
Mr. Benest said staff held three community forums and three
public hearings. Official public hearings would be held with the P&TC and Council. Council Member Kleinberg hoped there would be a well-publicized, robust conversation with all the stakeholders,
including PAUSD and neighborhoods. Mayor Ojakian mentioned receipt of a memo dated February 18, 2002, from Council Members Beecham, Freeman, Kishimoto and Lytle regarding Housing Element Review.
Council Member Freeman said the premise for her questions
were based on a delicate balance between the conservation of the residential look and feel of the neighborhoods in Palo Alto with the clear need for affordable and more dense
housing. She asked whether there were any sites that required the Element to obtain funding that were currently
under way. Mr. Benest said yes. The Community Working Group was active
in fundraising and grants development as they looked to acquire needed property. He was not specifically aware
which federal or state grants were targeted. The other area that would soon occur was that the Council authorized staff to pursue acquiring appropriate vacant land and work to develop affordable housing.
Council Member Freeman clarified that Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) looked for funding and grants.
Mr. Benest said PAHC looked at the low-income tax credit application and funding for the South of Forest Avenue
(SOFA) project.
02/19/02 93-362
Council Member Freeman said she had a conversation with Marlene Prendergast of PAHC who indicated the Housing
Element was not required for PAHC’s project. The Housing Element was extremely important but vague in areas that concerned locations that abutted areas where people currently lived. MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Beecham, that the Draft Housing Element be submitted to the State as a progress report. Further, that the Draft Housing Element
be referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) for discussion and recommendation. As part of the
referral, the Council would set policy-level guidelines for P&TC and staff to use in their review. Council Member Freeman said the Draft Housing Element could be sent to the State as a progress report in order to get
feedback on Palo Alto’s progress. Council Member Beecham asked about the timing of sending the Draft Housing Element to the P&TC. If the Draft were sent to the State as a progress report, he asked whether
the City was better served by waiting for the State’s comments, if that were reasonably soon, and incorporating
the State’s comments when the Draft Housing Element went back to the P&TC for more public discussion.
Mr. Benest said the P&TC could begin working on the Draft Housing Element while it went to the State. Staff assumed
the State would respond with comments within 60 days and, at that point, staff needed to rework the Draft and return to the P&TC and Council for public hearings.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the City Manager
thought it was efficient to send the Draft Housing Element to the P&TC with the expectation that it might go back to the PT&C if comments were received from the State. Mr. Benest said his bias was to send the Draft Housing
Element to the State for comments. Staff’s position was the Housing Element was a number one priority, and staff felt the policies and sites were good. The Council had to decide
what was right. Staff supported the Council directing the P&TC to review the Draft Housing Element.
02/19/02 93-363
Council Member Beecham clarified the Council’s intent was to convince the State that the City was moving along in
good faith. Mr. Benest said that was correct. Staff would call the Housing Element a “draft” rather than a “progress report.”
Mr. Emslie said housing was recently identified as a Council priority, and staff wanted to deliver on it as soon as possible. The State would offer substantive comments
that would call into question the policies.
Council Member Beecham said staff convincingly presented the value to sending a draft/progress report to the State. The Council and community believed the Housing Element was a draft and an imperfect document.
Council Member Lytle asked whether institutional uses included childcare. Ms. Grote said childcare was included.
Council Member Lytle said the Council heard that the purpose of the housing site selection was to serve the
State mandate. Palo Alto used the selection as a core set of goals and objectives for the housing program.
Mr. Emslie said the State did not preclude the City from using the information in any proactive way.
Mr. Benest said Housing was a top priority of the Council and community and would shape the future of the community.
Council Member Lytle said the list included at least three
sites that were zoned for commercial use. More rationale should be given to the site selection and the sites reevaluated with more attentiveness to the core policy objectives for the Housing Element.
Mr. Emslie said staff needed to look at more diverse sites during the following 60 days.
Council Member Morton said there was an inherent conflict. The Housing Element struggled between the City’s commitment
to the community’s unique character of the neighborhoods and the commitment to affordable housing. Identifying the
02/19/02 93-364
sites was not a specific process that needed to be completed right away.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by
Mossar, to accept the staff recommendation to forward the Draft Housing Element to the State with the principle that the community is committed to preserving the unique
character in the neighborhoods and developing and emphasizing affordable housing.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the Council named affordable housing as one of the top five priorities. The process assumed that
as affordable housing was built, the public was guaranteed there were no impacts. Forwarding the list of sites to the P&TC and assuming that a different list would be developed that would not increase traffic in town or increase the burden on schools or parks was a sham. The Council told the
public that it wanted to build housing and emphasized affordable and attainable housing for the residents. Changing areas in the community would cause impacts. The sites on the list put together by staff deserved consideration as the planning process moved ahead. The
Draft Housing Element was outstanding, needed to be sent to the State, and the Council needed to proceed with a fair,
open public process to further develop and finalize the Housing Element.
Council Member Burch said he read the Draft Housing Element, talked to people on the phone, and read the
emails, trying to understand the Housing Element as best he could. He agreed with Vice Mayor Mossar that the document was good and should be sent to the State. He suggested that
site number 12-12 should be removed because that location was a violation and betrayal of what was started in the
process. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that site number 12-12, the
northeast corner of Maybell and Clemo Avenues, be removed
from the Housing Site Inventory list. Council Member Burch understood the list was sent to the
State to show that Palo Alto had the sites to develop, but Palo Alto would look at each site individually.
Council Member Kishimoto believed there were substantial changes that would be made to the Housing Element. A
02/19/02 93-365
housing inventory list and set of policy changes could be developed that was more palatable to the community. A set
of policy and program changes were suggested by Council Members Freeman, Lytle and Kishimoto, which was available for people to look at. The changes started from the Vision Statement, which should address three goals: a strong commitment to social and economic diversity in the
population; to build on neighborhoods; and a strong statement that any changes avoided degradation of community services and the environment.
Council Member Beecham said some Council Members might have
believed that the draft was nearly finished as it was and that it adequately defined the affordable housing plan for the City; others might have thought there were significant policies that needed to be altered or clarified.
Council Member Freeman said the sites were important to everyone for affordable housing and maintenance of neighborhoods. The Council needed to take a good look at the sites and other details that were not included in the evaluation. One of the details was the schools. Other
details were listed in the Colleague’s Memo, dated February 18, 2002. Something needed to be sent to the State, and the
Council needed to discuss and give direction to the people who would make the changes, which included the P&TC and staff.
Council Member Lytle said she could not support sending the
Housing Element to the State with any change except the Clemo removal unless the Council expressed that it was still working on the Element. Impacts of housing growth
could be reduced if the City implemented its own policies for placing housing in compact locations near transit
centers and walkable to services. The concept of parallel process was supported. Council Member Kleinberg asked for an explanation of the difference between a draft report and a progress report.
Mr. Benest said there was no difference. Council Member Kleinberg questioned whether the Colleague’s
memo, dated February 18, 2002, asked for a different process than would normally be done.
Mr. Benest said the normal process was that the Council sent a draft to the State for comments prior to scheduling
02/19/02 93-366
public hearings. The revised draft was submitted to the P&TC for a public hearing and then to the City Council for
a public hearing. The Council approved the Housing Element that it wanted the State to certify. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the Colleague’s Memo, dated February 18, 2002, asked the Council to consider a
more accelerated process, combined with policy direction to the P&TC that was different from the timing of what was described by the City Manager.
Mr. Benest said the Colleague’s Memo, dated February 18,
2002, made the argument that since there were policy changes to work on, sending it to the P&TC made sense. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the Housing Element was subject to the Comp Plan.
Mr. Calonne said neither controlled the other; they had to be consistent. Council Member Kleinberg said her concerns with the depth
of analysis, breadth of analysis, and amount of public input was that those were needed from different
stakeholders and individuals. That analysis should eventually be put into the document. The Housing Element would not get done if the community did not support it.
Mr. Calonne said the State was not concerned with where
housing was located within the City borders if there were land zoned and available for housing. Staff should be congratulated for putting together a list that provided
enough land zoned and available for housing. The State would not be particularly upset if the City found other
available land for housing. The tuning to adapt the list to local policies should happen and should not offend the State. AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto
moved to include a cover letter that would incorporate the Colleague’s memo dated February 18, 2002. Council Member Morton would not accept the change suggested
by Council Member Kishimoto.
Vice Mayor Mossar would not accept the amendment. The Colleague’s memo, dated February 18, 2002, contained
02/19/02 93-367
information that the Council had not had an opportunity to discuss with the public.
AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Kishimoto said calling out the Clemo Avenue property was strange, and there were other sites that could
be added. Mayor Ojakian said the Hyatt site, for example, had to go
through its own process and a determination had to be made as to how many units could be built on the property.
Mr. Emslie said the number of potential units on a particular site was a best guess. A benchmark was set for reviewing other policies but was not binding.
Mayor Ojakian agreed with comments made by the City Manager that the document was substantive and took into consideration many of the things the Council asked staff to look at when the Council originally discussed the item in October 2001. His preference was to make sure that some of
the housing was located near transit centers. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-3, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle “no.”
Council Member Beecham asked whether the Council was willing to work on the policies at the current meeting.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether it was acceptable to have a motion that suggested the Council discuss policies further
at the current meeting.
Mr. Calonne said debate could be limited or discussed at another meeting. Council Member Beecham suggested agendizing discussion of policies related to the Housing Element in the near future.
Mr. Benest said the Council needed to check with staff to find a date.
Council Member Beecham suggested the discussion be held within one month or wait three months.
02/19/02 93-368
Mr. Benest suggested that he and the Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison work with the Mayor and Vice Mayor to set a
date that would work for further discussion. Council Member Kleinberg said the Council had a lot of work to do to obtain information and feedback from the public, which she wanted to see done prior to going back to the
P&TC. Mr. Calonne said the Council might want to continue the
item to a future session without involving uncontrolled public comment. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded
by Mossar, to continue discussion of policies related to the Housing Element to a date in the near future.
Mr. Benest said the draft would be sent to the State with the notation that the Council was working on it and urged the State to get its comments back to Palo Alto. The City Manager, Mayor, and Vice Mayor would find a date to get the item back to the Council for policy direction prior to
sending it to the P&TC.
Council Member Freeman thanked members of the public and affordable housing organizations for their help in solving the issues.
Council Member Kleinberg said she would be persuaded to
vote for the motion if it were not characterized in a way that meant the Council tried to prevent public comment. Public input should be maximized.
Mr. Calonne said the Council needed to shape how it wanted
public comment to happen. Mr. Benest said hearings would be held at P&TC and Council meetings. The policy discussion that the Council would have at its next meeting was based on all the public comments it
had received. Council Member Beecham said the Council received public
comment at a prior meeting but did not have the opportunity to discuss that public comment. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Kleinberg, Lytle “no.” ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
02/19/02 93-369
Regular Meeting February 19, 2002
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
Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, spoke regarding
Friends book sales. Marty Paddock, 4147 Donald Drive, spoke regarding Friends book sales.
Ed Powers, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding politics. Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding property harassment for years and years.
Wayne Martin, 3657 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the retreat.
Warren Beer, 153 California Avenue, spoke regarding community garden.
Jeff Bulf, 10215 Parkwood Drive, #6, Cupertino, spoke
regarding community garden. Maria Makela, 1134 Palo Alto Avenue, spoke regarding
community garden.
Vladimir Brik, 656 Lytton Avenue, spoke regarding community garden. Lyubov Vysotskaya, 656 Lytton Avenue, #F327, spoke regarding community garden.
Caroline Knopf, 347 Ramona #2, spoke regarding community garden and in support of Maria Makela.
City Attorney Calonne said he spoke with Ms. Makela and
asked for a written report of the incident at the community gardens.
02/19/02 93-370
Harvey Blight, 615 11th Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the judiciary.
Mayor Ojakian announced that staff had requested that Item No. 8 be removed from the agenda to be scheduled to another Council meeting date.
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in Item No. 8 due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University.
Council Member Kleinberg could not participate in Item No.
8 due to a conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land use matters. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by
Kishimoto, to remove Item No. 8 from the Consent Calendar
to be scheduled to another Council meeting date. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Presentation from League of California Cities,
Personnel and Employee Relations Department; Career Leadership Award
Mark H. Flannery, League of California Cities Personnel and Employee Relations Department Director, presented a Career
Achievement Award to Palo Alto Director of Human Services Jay Rounds. The award was given for the wonderful things Mr. Rounds had done in Palo Alto and for the enormous
esteem in which his colleagues in the profession held him. Mr. Rounds was a leader in the local, state, and national
level in professional organizations. No action required. 2. Resolution 8127 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Jay Rounds Upon His Retirement”
City Manager Frank Benest said the City of Palo Alto was a great organization because of the employees, and the care
of the employees was entrusted to the leadership of Jay Rounds. Mr. Rounds provided continuity and guidance during his tenure to five City Managers.
02/19/02 93-371
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by
Kishimoto, to adopt the Resolution.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the Council worked with Mr. Rounds on many issues, and he had been invaluable to the Council.
Mr. Rounds said he found a good career in Palo Alto and enjoyed each year that he worked for Palo Alto. He
appreciated the associations he had with his staff and the employees of Palo Alto.
REPORT OF OFFICIALS 3. Results of the Site Feasibility Study for Palo Alto Main Library and Art Center Expansion, and
Recommendation to Proceed to Conceptual Design for Two Alternatives, Capital Improvement Program Project 10204 Library Master Plan Mayor Ojakian announced that speaker cards would not be
accepted after 8:25 p.m.
Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy said the project started as a recommendation in the new Library Plan. About the same time, the Art Center Foundation was interested in pursuing
an expansion of the Art Center. Between October 2000 and September 2001, the Art Center Main Library Site Committee
(Site Committee) was formed, prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP), developed project guidelines, and interviewed architects. The Site Committee looked at
several site options and held many meetings. Each of the meetings moved the project along with different iterations,
and the proposals got refined. The guiding principles indicated the type of things the Art Center staff, community members, Library staff, and community garden representatives tried to keep in mind when looking at the total site. The next goal was to be ready for the Bond
Measure. During the fall 2000, Staff worked on the environmental review process for the Main Library and the Art Center. In December 2000, consultants were retained to
provide technical expertise and, in January 2001, the firm, Architectural Resources Group, did a report on both
facilities and discovered both sites were potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Places.
02/19/02 93-372
Mark Cavagnero, Mark Cavagnero Associates, said the basic site analysis showed the Main Library, as it currently
existed, the Art Center, the large community gardens, the parking fields, and the stretch of Rinconada Park to the west. The challenge was to double the size of the Library, have a long-term plan for doubling the size of the Art Center, and respect the community gardens and elements of
nature, including some beautiful front lawns that surrounded the Library and courtyards and gave character to the Art Center. The community process resulted in comments
such as the notion of sharing space and facilities, to provide adequate parking, to make sure alternative
transportation was accommodated, to minimize the destruction to the neighboring houses in terms of overflow parking, to consider the neighborhood carefully in terms of the scale of the buildings and the buffers between the property and surrounding backyards, to keep the park-like
setting, and to develop further opportunities for the enhancement and display of public art within the property. There was a strong focus on incorporating and respecting sustainable design, creating more community exhibition space of all types for all ages, and maintaining and
enhancing the community gardens. The Site Committee realized there were two different approaches that seemed to
solve most of the issues. The preferences were expressed as Scheme 2 and 3. Scheme 2 retained the main reading room of the Edward Durrel Stone Library. Scheme 3 looked at the
option of demolishing the building in its entirety. Four schemes were analyzed and presented to the community.
Various commissions requested scheme 1 and 4. Scheme 1 was an approach to merge the Library with the Art Center by expanding the new program of the Library in a linear
fashion towards the Art Center and have the addition of the Art Center to the north and to create it to feel more like
one building. A big concern was with the building scale. The massing model showed that the building was over 300 feet long and surrounded by small scale, largely single-family residences, which appeared to be inappropriate for the neighborhood. Scheme 4 was a request to consolidate all
the community gardens, but the treatment of the community garden was not well received by the gardeners, and the program for the Library could not be met. Scheme 2 was the
best effort to retain the main reading room of the Edward Durrel Stone Library. The plan was to create an open space,
utilizing the mature Redwood and Stone Pines and to use the trees as a common open space for the Art Center with its expansion and the Library. The community garden was reduced
02/19/02 93-373
by approximately 10 percent in overall area. The two-story building for the new Library addition was placed in what
was currently a surface parking area. In addition to losing the parking in the mature trees, parking was supplanted with a two-story parking structure. The idea in Scheme 2 was to have a strong garden out of the mature landscaping, and another courtyard was made out of the landscaping
between the current parking field and the Art Center. The garden that surrounded the Art Center would be maintained. The mature landscaping along Embarcadero Road and Newell
Avenue was maintained, and the buffer zones along the residential neighborhoods were respected and thickened. An
edge to the community garden was developed to provide privacy and a terrace where people could sit and eat lunch. The benefit to Scheme 2 was that it retained the main reading room, although structural seismic work was necessary. The seismic retrofit changed the character
significantly and required a parking structure that was a considerable expense to build and an ongoing expense to maintain. Scheme 2 compromised the Library’s program to meet the needs it set out in its own study. Scheme 3 considered the demolition of the existing library.
Following analysis, the ideal location for the library was a compact two-story building close to the footprint of the
existing building. Ninety percent of the community gardens were maintained, and parking was met without any structure in the area. The overwhelming negative issue of Scheme 3
was that the library was destroyed. The advantage was the opportunity to build an entire new library. The library was
more compact, less expensive to staff and maintain, and was more energy efficient.
Senior Project Manager Bob Morris said Mr. Cavagnero, as part of the feasibility study, retained a cost-estimating
subconsultant, Mack5, to prepare construction cost estimates of both the Main Library and Art Center in both Schemes 2 and 3. Estimates were prepared for landscaping and the parking structure. The costs were attributed 70 percent to the Library and 30 percent to the Art Center.
Mack5 came up with a construction estimate of approximately $27 million for the Library and $11 million for the Art Center. Staff subsequently added additional construction
costs that Mack5 excluded in its estimates. Approximately 3.5 percent was added for escalation, 5 percent was added
for sustainability for green building design, 1 percent added for public art, and phasing costs for the Art Center were added to enable it to remain open during construction.
02/19/02 93-374
The construction total of Scheme 2 for the Main Library was approximately $29.5 million and $12.5 million for the Art
Center. Fixtures, furnishings, and equipment, relocation costs, construction change order allowance, and soft costs were added. The project total for the Main Library was $42.6 million, and the Art Center was $18.5 million. The grand total in Scheme 3 for the Main Library was $42.5
million and $17.4 million for the Art Center. The Art Center Foundation informed staff that it did not expect to budget a project greater than $10 million for the Art
Center. Staff worked with Mark Cavagnero to develop a scope of work that looked at options to potentially reduce the
Phase 1 addition and/or reduce some of the renovation costs at the Art Center. The City retained a consultant to prepare a historic evaluation of both the Main Library and the Art Center, and the consultant determined that both structures were potentially eligible for the California
Register of Historic Resources. Any scheme that demolished the Main Library required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared prior to the Council deciding to move ahead. Staff recommended moving ahead with both Schemes 2 and 3. The EIR was expected to be completed in June 2002,
at which time it would go to the Council for certification.
Ms. Harrison said staff planned to bring to the Council on March 11, 2002, the results of the Site Feasibility Study for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, and a
conceptual design would be completed on the Children’s Library. All the information with solid cost estimates
would be brought to the Council to make its selection of the projects that would be included on a November bond measure.
Council Member Lytle asked about the extra expense in
Scheme 3. Mr. Morris said Scheme 3 included all new construction. New construction was slightly more expensive than renovating existing construction.
Council Member Lytle said she heard the cost of renovating existing construction was more than new construction.
Mr. Morris said the estimates indicated the cost was
slightly less to renovate the existing Main Library.
02/19/02 93-375
Council Member Burch asked where the 10 percent came off the community gardens.
Mr. Cavagnero said the community garden had a swale, which would be eliminated in order to get efficient surface parking and allow the surface road to connect the parking fields through the site.
Council Member Burch suggested the community garden could be put back if the Council decided it wanted fewer parking
spaces. The map indicated a “relocated 10-foot perimeter road.” He asked whether the perimeter road was used by
gardeners to bring in supplies. Mr. Cavagnero said the gardeners preferred to have two surface roads that connected to an area for a dumpster and compaction.
Council Member Burch asked about the five percent for sustainability. Mr. Morris said the five percent was benchmarked against
other cities that tried to obtain lead certification on projects.
Council Member Burch asked whether payback on the systems was taken into account.
Mr. Morris said the cost was purely a capital upfront cost.
The capital costs were to build the structures. Council Member Burch asked whether including the five
percent was necessary.
City Manager Benest said the five percent was included because staff thought it was a good investment. The amount had to be shown at the front end. Vice Mayor Mossar clarified staff recommended that both
Schemes 2 and 3 were brought forward. Mr. Morris said staff originally intended to ask the
Council to approve one scheme for development in two conceptual designs.
02/19/02 93-376
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether it was reasonable to assume that the historic significance was greater with the pair of
buildings rather than a single building. Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said the EIR would reach conclusions of potential significant impacts.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether the $10 million amount was too rough a guess.
Mr. Morris said he did not believe staff was informed about the $10 million limitation until late in the process.
Vice Mayor Mossar said it appeared to her that the first construction subtotal line was approximately $10 million on both schemes. Many of the additional costs had to do with phasing the project and delaying the building of the
project. Mr. Morris said there was a line item for phasing costs. Phasing costs were a premium a contractor charged in order to keep the building open and in use while they did their
work.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the natural amenities of the site were incredible, and she questioned whether there was much discussion about parking structures and minimizing the
amount of paved surface on the site.
Mr. Cavagnero said from the beginning there was concern about the overall project cost. Parking under the new construction was reasonably cost affordable. The idea of
self-standing parking structures where there was no building aboveground and a high water table ended up being
extremely expensive. The plan was to try putting underground parking where it was reasonable and cost effective and utilize surface parking in a way where mature landscaping was not demolished.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the parking structure on Embarcadero Road was a sunken structure.
Mr. Cavagnero said the neighborhood was sensitive to a two- story, aboveground structure. The cost for an underground
parking lot was more, and there was concern about security.
02/19/02 93-377
Council Member Freeman asked about the compromise of the Library’s needs if the City went with the historic scheme
versus the new building scheme. Ms. Levy said the next phase of the conceptual design work included working the floor plan. The Library staff envisioned that people on the east side of the building,
where the parking was, wanted to come in on that side. The plan was for two entrances into the building. The least effective way to operate a library was to have multiple
entrances. Building programs for the libraries tried to have one entrance with security and only one circulation
desk. Collections of books would be split between two floors, and flexibility was lost to overtime. Initial assumptions would be tested during the conceptual design phase.
Council Member Freeman asked which design was more environmentally friendly. Mr. Morris said Scheme 2 was considered more environmentally friendly because it retained the existing
Main Library.
City Attorney Calonne said from a CEQA standpoint, staff asked the Council to consider both schemes.
Council Member Freeman asked about the cost of going forward with two schemes rather than one scheme.
Mr. Morris said the budget was the same for one or two conceptual designs. Some of the more technical engineering
studies were eliminated.
Council Member Morton asked whether it was easier to make decisions with respect to the EIR work. Ms. Harrison said staff was not in a position to make a decision at the current meeting. The EIR work had to be
done. Council Member Morton said he was concerned that little
financial limitations were built into the program. He asked hypothetically if the Council decided it could not fund a
66,000-square-foot main library and could only fund a 55,000-square-foot library, would the cut back in 10,000 square feet change the parking limitations or site issues.
02/19/02 93-378
If that were the case, it was incumbent on the Council to look at the financial reality and impose limitations.
Ms. Harrison said staff anticipated providing options to the Council for sizing and phasing the project. Staffing to implement the plan was not identified. Staff planned to bring to the Council in May additional options as to how to
look at construction and staffing. Mr. Cavagnero suggested looking at a realistic phasing plan
that had construction, funding, and utilization logic.
Council Member Kishimoto asked about the appropriate time to discuss financing structure. She was aware that there had been earlier discussions that the Children’s Library construction costs would be privately fundraised.
Ms. Harrison said cost estimates of both options were approximately the same. A decision was not made at this time. The Council would have a good idea of the cost range after making decisions on the Mitchell Park Feasibility Study. Preliminary information from Mitchell Park and the
Children’s Library were necessary before making a decision.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there would be a separate Council meeting to discuss bond configuration and financing questions.
Ms. Harrison said a Council meeting was scheduled for the
Council to decide what it wanted to include in the survey that went to the community. A separate meeting would be scheduled when the Council decided what it wanted to put on
the ballot.
Mayor Ojakian said the Council needed to make a determination on City facilities to survey for the November bond measure at a meeting on April 15, 2002. Council Member Beecham asked for a cost difference of going
forward with two schemes versus one scheme. Mr. Morris said approximately $57,000 was descoped and
might have to be added in the next phase of work. Two contracts were coming before the Council on March 4, 2002:
one for the Art Center Conceptual Design ($160,000), and one for the Main Library Conceptual Design ($200,000).
02/19/02 93-379
Council Member Beecham said costs for the Art Center showed a shared cost for the parking structure. There was no cost
allocation to the Art Center for the underground parking. Mr. Morris said the underground parking was beneath the Main Library only. Council Member Beecham asked what might happen if the Art
Center program needed to be descoped because of the cost. He asked whether an opportunity was created for laying out the buildings and making different uses of the parking if
Phase 2 was not to be.
Mr. Morris said the work for the Art Center Conceptual Design was rescoped. Mr. Cavagnero would look at potentially reducing and relocating the Phase 1 work to minimize the cost to the site and minimize parking, reconfiguration costs, and landscaping costs.
Bruce Davis, Executive Director of Arts Council Silicon Valley, 1034 Colorado Avenue, said the Arts Council funded the Art Center Foundation for the Kaleidoscope program and funded the Art Center for its Exhibitions programs. The
Council was encouraged to include the Art Center in the planning for bond measures and funding for expansion. The
Art Center received a grant of more than $100,000 from the California Arts Council for its arts education programs, which was one of the largest grants in the State. The
Council’s investment in the future of the arts was important.
Judith Content, 827 Matadero Court, said excellent schools, great parks, close knit neighborhoods, and the Art Center
made Palo Alto a special place. The Art Center was a local treasure with a national reputation and presented
consistently, top notched exhibitions. The Art Center youth programs added an important supplement to the public school curriculum, and the beautiful grounds hosted varied events. She encouraged a bond measure that helped support the needed renovation and expansion of the Art Center.
Carolyn Tucher, Art Center Foundation Board President, 4264 Manuela Way, said the Board voted unanimously to cap the
project at $10 million and direct the architect to assist the Art Center in finding solutions within that budget. The
Foundation began with a program study that proposed an additional 29,000 square feet to house important programs, but reduced the square footage to 10,000 for the study
02/19/02 93-380
prepared by Cavagnero and Associates. The cost estimate of $18 million was beyond the Art Center Foundation’s ability
to raise funding. The Foundation’s focus was to repair and renovate the existing structure and add studios and classrooms for children’s programs. The Foundation paid approximately $60,000 toward the studies and was committed to spend an additional $25,000 on the next phase as part of
a partnership with the City. Additional parking, as outlined in the presentation by staff, went beyond the Foundation’s needs as the scope was reduced from 29,000 to
10,000 square feet. The community gardens made a real contribution to the site and should be maintained.
Community Services promised her committee that any gardens that could not be maintained at the site because of the reduction of ten percent, were to be replaced at another site in the City.
Susan Stansbury, 741 Josina Avenue, urged the Council to look at the Embarcadero/Newell site comprehensively. The community gardens, Library, and Art Center were equally important assets. The community garden was a place to rejuvenate and reconnect and was a sanctuary for humans and
other creatures. The size and integrity of the gardens needed to remain intact.
Fran Adams, 1111 Stanley Way, was excited to see something happening at the Art Center. The Art Center was a treasure.
R. Bernard Coley, 3597 South Court, said he shared the
Council’s goals to obtain the broadest appeal for funding success, to maximize return on investment, and to leverage the City’s resources in providing the greatest investment
funding. The Art Center was part of the City’s infrastructure and was in need of attention. The citizens
of Palo Alto, under the auspices of the Art Center Foundation, expressed their support for the development of the site. The Council was urged to make sure a comprehensive solution was provided with the investment of City funds.
Cornelia Pendleton, 267 Hamilton Avenue, urged the Council to continue to move forward with the site plan and continue
to look forward to having a bond measure in November.
Sharon Chinen, 814 Richardson Court, urged the Council to show its commitment to the arts by providing the necessary facilities to house and nurture its many fine programs. The
02/19/02 93-381
Council was urged to seek a way to support the proposed renovations of the Art Center and to present it to the
community as a bond measure as a viable way to help maintain the wonderful programs that made Palo Alto a valuable city. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the numbers on floor area
were based upon usable space, and the dollar amounts were multiplied by the square footage. The number was different from the number for buildings with gross square footage
that were looked at in planning. The gross square footage number was important in order to make comparisons with
other types of buildings. The CEQA process required an EIR on the whole project. The idea of scoping was to have the public suggest things that were covered in the EIR. The bar chart indicated the EIR was available for review after the end of the scoping process. He was unsure what the scoping
process was and hoped the process was done properly. MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, that Council select Main Library/Art Center Expansion Feasibility Study Scheme 2 and Scheme 3 for development
into conceptual designs of both the Main Library and Art Center and direct staff to proceed with preparation of an
EIR which will analyze both. Council Member Morton asked whether the maker of the motion
would consider adding financial parameters.
Vice Mayor Mossar said that was premature. The Council did not agendize the discussion of financial parameters. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to have staff return as soon as possible on a future agenda to give the Council an opportunity to determine the financial perimeters on the costs of the community improvements for the bond measure in November 2002.
Council Member Morton was concerned about the fact that the Foundation cut back on the project prior to the Council
making a decision about its level of funding. The Council needed to give clear indication to the Foundation that the
Council would or would not fund at a certain level.
02/19/02 93-382
Council Member Beecham clarified the Council requested staff to look at lower cost options on the library a few
weeks prior and asked whether that would return to the Council in March. Mr. Benest said staff planned to return to the Council in April with the phasing to deal with capital costs and the
staffing issues. Ms. Harrison said staff wanted the Library Advisory
Commission’s (LAC) input prior to returning to the Council in April.
Council Member Beecham clarified the consensus of the Council was that the LAC suggested phasing as a way of reducing costs. The Council looked at ways other than phasing of reducing costs.
Ms. Harrison said staff agreed, and the Council was to receive the staffing study done on the Library. The Council would have information of what staff was working with in terms of phasing and alternate options for the cost.
Council Member Freeman asked when the Council would receive
the results of the next survey that gave the Council indication of the amount the public was willing to bear.
Mr. Benest said staff planned to have the information at the end of April 2002.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the time frame included understanding the appetite of the public.
Mr. Benest said the Council needed to make an ultimate
decision about how it wanted to size the bond and needed the survey data to accomplish that. The numbers in both the City survey and the Library’s survey suggested $60-$80 million. There was time to make the case to the community.
Mayor Ojakian clarified the CEQA process was for the Main Library because of the potential historic nature and a Mitigated Declaration was required for the other two
libraries.
Ms. Harrison said renovations would be done to the Children’s Library in conformance with the Secretary of the
02/19/02 93-383
Interior’s standards as a historic structure, but there was not the same issue with Mitchell Park.
Council Member Lytle said she was unable to attend the session the following Saturday but wanted to ask whether a financial discussion prior to a survey would influence the outcome of the survey.
Mayor Ojakain said Council Member Lytle’s question would be brought up.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Burch,
to approve the Minutes of January 7 and 14, 2002, as
submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Morton absent. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by
Freeman, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4-7 and 9-10.
Stanley Cole, 2808 Greer Road, spoke regarding Item No. 9 and said he wanted to see the boundaries changed to
recognize that the section on Greer Road, south of Van Auken Circle, was predominantly opposed to the overlay approach. Four homes out of six on Greer Road were opposed.
Eight out of 11 behind the homes on Greer Road opposed the change in zoning. The flood zone in that area required five
feet of elevated area to the first floor. Mayor Ojakian said the Council was not making a final decision but was initiating a process by referring Item No. 9 to the Planning and Transportation Commission.
LEGISLATIVE
4. Ordinance 4736 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Authorize the Transfer of $46,238 from CIP 19109, Police Information Systems Master Plan, to
02/19/02 93-384
Provide Additional Appropriation for CIP 19312, Fire/ Communication Computer System” 5. Resolution 8128 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion Improvement Act”
Resolution 8129 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting Proposition 40, The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood
Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002”
ADMINISTRATIVE
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Larry
Walker Associates in the Amount of $119,915 for Consultant Services to Assist the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant in Fulfilling the Requirements of the Wastewater Discharge Permit
7. Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C0115210 Between the City of Palo Alto and Hastings Landscape Conservation Services in the Amount of $17,445 to Provide Additional Vegetation Management Services for Byxbee Park
8. Special Conditions – Hanover Project (2475 Hanover
Street) City Council Review and Adoption of Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Revised Conditions for the Demolition of Two Buildings on a
4.7 acre site in the LM Zoning District and the Construction of a two-story office Building Comprising
81,928 square feet with parking facilities to include 146 Underground Parking Spaces and 127 Surface Parking Spaces
9. Request of Property Owners of a Portion of Tract 796
for Consideration of Single Story Height Combining Zoning in the Greer Park Neighborhood
10. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with Davis,
Wright & Tremaine, LLP MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 4-7 and 9-10.
02/19/02 93-385
COUNCIL MATTERS
11. Scheduling of Council Vacation Council Member Kleinberg suggested the Council begin its vacation on the second Monday in August.
Council Member Freeman said children were scheduled to return to school the last week in August, and she preferred to have more time off with her children.
City Clerk Donna Rogers said the last date to officially
pass a Resolution to send to County for the November election was August 9, 2002, and it was critical to hold the August 5, 2002, meeting. Vice Mayor Mossar said the vacation could begin on August
6, 2002, and go through September 3, 2002. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Morton, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 8130 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council
Vacation for Calendar Year 2002” for August 6, 2002, through September 8, 2002.
Council Member Lytle said the Council allowed phone in participation at meetings, which allowed participation
while being out of town. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
12. Colleagues Memo re Timely Staff Reports
Council Member Mossar said it was time the Council discussed the matter and referred the discussion to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee. Issues needed to be aired, and public input was important.
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar,
to refer the item of Timely Staff Reports to the Policy and
Services Committee for a public discussion and recommendations to the full Council.
Council Member Burch referred to the third paragraph of the Colleague’s Memo dated February 14, 2002, which indicated
02/19/02 93-386
the situation was exacerbated by the introduction of the 9/80 schedule. The Council fully supported the idea of the
9/80 schedule and wanted to work around that situation because the 9/80 schedule was successful. Council Member Lytle said years prior there was a practice among staff that packets were prepared ahead of time.
Council Member Morton asked the P&S Committee to consider the burden it placed on staff. Receiving packets a few days
earlier might be a benefit.
Council Member Kleinberg said the issue was discussed at a prior retreat, and staff indicated getting packets out earlier was difficult. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Ojakian announced that Saturday, February 23, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. there would be a meeting with
consultant Larry Tramatola regarding a potential bond measure. Further, on Monday, February 25, 2002, the Council
would hold a retreat. Council Member Kleinberg noted that Adele Khabbaz had
resigned from the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and that she had been a tremendous asset to the community. She also
noted that Brian Martin from Palo Alto won a silver medal for the luge at the Winter Olympics.
Council Member Morton asked that a letter or resolution be prepared commending Brian Martin.
Council Member Mossar said the documents on the libraries were voluminous, and the Council should return the materials to staff.
Council Member Burch announced there had been a badge pinning ceremony on that afternoon for eight Police Records Specialists and their Manager. They would now be wearing
distinctive uniforms at the front desk. He noted the previous vote on the bus shelter and asked that the item
return to the Council for a subsequent vote.
02/19/02 93-387
Council Member Burch requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of John W. Gardener who passed away at
his home located on Stanford University on Saturday, February 16, 2002. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. in memory of John W. Gardener, who played a major role in civil
rights enforcement, education reform and campaign finance reform. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civil honor. He founded Common Cause and
headed the Urban Coalition, and chaired numerous presidential task forces. He was Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare where he was instrumental in creating Medicare, and served on the faculty and Board of Trustees for Stanford University.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are
made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
02/19/02 93-388