HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-01 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting April 1, 2002
1. Interview of Candidates for the Human Relations Commission..490
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m...................490
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................491
1. Housing Element Update (continued from 2/04/2002)...........491
2. Resolution of Support for Senate Bill 1870, the Bay Area
Water Reliability Act, and Assembly Bill 2058, the Bay Area Regional Water Supply and Conservation Act..................500
3. Ordinance 4740 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.30.120 Of Chapter 2.30 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertinent to the
Authority to Purchase Commodities by Open Purchase Contracts”..................................................501
4. Resolution 8137 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Temporary Construction
Easements at 314 Lytton Avenue and 420 Florence Street for the Downtown Parking Structures (Capital Improvement
Project 19530) and Authorizing and Directing the Filing of Eminent Domain Proceedings”.................................501
5. Resolution 8138 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing Examination of Sales and Use Tax Records”................................................501
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Power Engineering Contractors in the Amount of $162,000 for the Filter Valves Replacement Project at the Water Quality Control Plant (Wastewater Treatment Capital Improvement Program Project #8021)......................................501
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Maze and Associates for an Amount Not to Exceed $160,500 for External Audit Services.....................................501
04/01/02 93-488
9. Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Duncan,
Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C............................501
10. Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the East Palo Alto Law Firm of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, LLP....................501
11. Amended Joint Funding Agreement related to Countywide Radio
Interoperability and Public Safety Data Communications Network Project.............................................501
12A. (Old Item No. 8) Acceptance of Auditor’s Office Quarterly
Report......................................................501
12B. (Old Item No. 12) Request for Council to Initiate Zoning
Text Amendment Pertaining to Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage.....................................................502
13. Vice Mayor Mossar and Council Members Beecham, Burch, and Kleinberg re Support for Strong Productive City/School Relations...................................................503
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................506
14. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation.........506
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m............506
04/01/02 93-489
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:33 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Kleinberg, Lytle
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Interview of Candidates for the Human Relations Commission No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
04/01/02 93-490
Regular Meeting April 1, 2002
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle,
Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, Menlo Park, spoke regarding
destruction of Iris and historical 1906 earthquake remains by rangers at the Baylands. Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the library.
Bernice Loeb, 2120 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding cable AT&T. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, spoke regarding Council Woman Nancy Lytle.
Larry Horton, 401 Gerona Road, Stanford, spoke regarding Community Day at Stanford.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding Stanford open space and field research zoning district and Stanford Research Park
transportation impact fee.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding politics. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Zoning
Administrator.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding parking. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Housing Element Update (continued from 2/04/2002)
Mayor Ojakian said the Housing Element was last heard on February 4, 2002. At that time, public testimony was taken and
it was his understanding that there would be no public testimony that evening. Staff provided a report with a recommendation that Council review and approve the proposed site criteria and direct staff to re-evaluate the housing sites inventory, as well as other potential housing opportunity sites.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne announced that additional testimony would be presented that evening.
04/01/02 93-491
City Manager Frank Benest asked Council to review the proposed site criteria that staff used to evaluate potential housing
sites. Mr. Benest requested that an approved final set of criteria be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) to evaluate the sites based on the criteria and recommend a final housing sites inventory to the City Council for review and approval.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie gave a summary of criteria on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report
(CMR:196:02). He said on March 4, 2002, the draft went to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and
that the State had 60 days to reply. A meeting was scheduled in May 2002, for the P&TC to consider HCD comments, criteria changes, and Council modifications. Vice Mayor Mossar said that in prior years Council was told not
to consider school impacts in housing decisions. One of the criteria clearly asked that school impacts be considered in relationship to housing decision, and she asked whether that policy had changed.
Mr. Calonne said the State legislator took away the City’s power to mitigate environmental impacts caused by school enrollment
increases in the last 10 years. He advised that school enrollment increases could be mitigated only by school district’s adopted mitigation fee.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked how the Council should apply those
criteria. Mr. Calonne said that Council could take the school enrollment
impact in making fundamental decisions in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), in developing its own Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) and where development might happen. None of the City’s planning power was taken, only the police power that was used to create a mitigation of enrollment impact. Vice Mayor Mossar said if the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) report did an analysis on an upcoming housing project and identified negative impact on schools, would the Council need to rely on the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to
mitigate.
Mr. Calonne said when housing was authorized in the Comp Plan, State law put up barriers against the City taking housing authorization away. When the Comp Plan designated a piece of ground for housing at a certain density, the City must show extraordinary reasons why it should not be developed at the
04/01/02 93-492
density set forth in the Comp Plan. He advised that when choosing densities for housing, to keep in mind that a big step
was being taken towards preapproving that kind of building. Council Member Morton asked how parcels were placed on or taken off the inventory.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said properties were evaluated with the previously mentioned criteria.
Council Member Morton asked if one criterion was the impact on the neighborhood, could properties be shifted in the order in
which they appeared on the inventory. Mr. Emslie said it was possible to order the inventory in terms of priority of potential housing sites. A policy was being considered at the staff level to provide an individual detailed
analysis of each site to discuss compatibility and proximity to help illustrate potential housing concerns. Mayor Ojakian reinforced the fact that staff was requesting Council to review and approve a set of proposed site criteria.
Mr. Emslie said the results of the review were shared with the
P&TC who would report back to Council with the final document. Council Member Freeman asked if the memorandum from Council
Members to Council Colleagues regarding the Housing Element Review had been taken into consideration or whether it still
needed to be evaluated. Mr. Emslie said it was a two-step process: 1) the site criteria
would be used to finalize a list that met the community’s objectives; 2) to evaluate potential policy changes that the
application of the criteria engendered. Mr. Benest said the Colleagues Memo was not used in forming the staff recommendation.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the Council’s goal was to provide a comprehensive list for the Planning staff to use in site selection and wanted to know the process on how to
incorporate the ideas listed in the memorandum.
Mayor Ojakian said it could be incorporated in the form of a motion.
04/01/02 93-493
Council Member Freeman asked whether all of the criteria listed in the Housing Inventory list had to be met in the site
selection process. Mr. Emslie said Planning staff strived to meet all of the criteria. The State set housing targets and if land use criteria were not met, the State asked that it be amended so that targets were met.
Council Member Lytle said that many of the criteria listed in the Housing Site Inventory list applied to almost every lot in
the City. She suggested shortening the list by using criteria that would put emphasis on things that applied specifically to
certain sites. That would help Council focus on where to direct their efforts. Mr. Emslie said the Planning staff listed every possible criterion so Council would have a list to work from.
Council Member Lytle asked whether staff would be providing the results on how sites were selected. Mr. Benest said staff proposed that once the criteria were
approved, they would elaborate on how sites fit the criteria. Staff would then go forward to the P&TC, but there were no plans
to return to Council before going to the P&TC. Council Member Lytle asked if school capacity, growth, and
projects could be used as a criterion when ranking housing sites.
Mr. Calonne said yes.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the criteria “support transit use, walking and bicycling and reducing dependency on
the automobile by encouraging transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly development” referred to supporting the current available mass transit uses. Mr. Emslie said the Housing Element period was through the year
2006 and that it referred to the current available transit options.
Council Member Kleinberg asked if the criteria “adequate public facilities and urban services available” referred to current
planned services. Mr. Emslie said yes.
04/01/02 93-494
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the words “school capacity available” in the criteria of “School capacity
available based on Palo Alto Unified School District’s growth projections” referred to current or proposed planned school capacity. Mr. Emslie said it was based on PAUSD’s demographic studies
through the period ending 2006. Council Member Kleinberg asked can the Council site housing
possibilities where there was nothing currently planned, and rather than the housing following what was planned, could the
Council not encourage something to happen near housing. If the City was always stuck in the same preplanned housing layout, it would not be expanding the infrastructure or encouraging it to happen.
Mr. Emslie said the Housing Element was a tool used to assess the possibility of housing and constraints to building housing and her question dealt more in the area of the Comp Plan. Council Member Kleinberg said sites would be established based
on criteria but could radically change.
Mr. Emslie said in order to meet housing objectives with radical changes, the Housing Element would need to establish a process to look at changing land use criteria in the Comp Plan and
zoning ordinance. The State would look to the Housing Element to provide guidance for future decisions, but not make
decisions. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether in the criteria, “Allows
reuse or redevelopment of already developed sites, particularly non-residential sites appropriate for housing”, did the word
“allows” mean it could not be “encouraged”. Mr. Emslie said “encourage” meant having proactive policies or housing programs that actually was proactive. “Allowing” was a more neutral word that removed land use restrictions.
Council Member Kleinberg addressed the issue regarding Second Units under the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Blueprint 2001, “An effective way to increase the supply of affordable housing with very limited costs” and questioned the
editorial added by staff, “This is not a housing sites inventory criterion”. Mr. Emslie said that was correct, and that staff did not use the second units to evaluate because with the existing inventory and
04/01/02 93-495
the application of the criteria, staff would be able to arrive at the required number of housing units.
Council Member Burch asked in working with ABAG’s quota for housing units to be built by the year 2006 and the population doubling by 2040, what were the penalties if Palo Alto did not want to build more homes after 2006.
Mr. Benest said in terms of specific penalties, not only would affordable housing funds be lost, which was one of the top
priorities, the City would have a Comp Plan that could not be defended. Without the approved element in the General Plan, the
City could not defend any land use decisions made. The State required that the City have a defensible Housing Element that met certain requirements. He felt the focus should not be on the number of units to be built, but on providing affordable housing, reducing the long commutes, and providing social
diversity in the community. Council Member Burch understood Mr. Benest’s explanation, but no one had addressed the issue of “carrying capacity”.
Mr. Benest said in a recent Joint Venture Silicon Valley meeting, a committee was working at a regional level for Palo
Alto’s council as well as other councils to move forward and identify “carrying capacity”.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, asked when an affordable housing provider would be chosen and approved by Council and if sites
had been chosen. Lisa Michael, 4215 Suzanne Drive, asked what impact the Housing
Element would have on the already traffic-congested area of Arastradero and Charleston Roads.
Deborah Ju, 371 Whitclem Drive, requested that the issue of compatibility with existing single-family neighborhood be taken into consideration when choosing sites for the housing inventory.
Carlin Otto, 231 Whitclem Drive, spoke on the issue of adding cottages to an existing home. She asked developers to keep the
square footage of the cottages significantly smaller in proportion to the existing homes to eliminate a “duplex
neighborhood”.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to adopt the five criteria listed in the Colleagues Memo dated February 18, 2002. as follows:
04/01/02 93-496
a. compact development near transit centers.
b. walking distance to services. c. mixed use designations to protect and enhance local services. d. conversion of commercial office to mixed use or residential use.
e. minimize traffic congestion. Further, that the motion call for weighted usage of the criteria
and two additional criteria be added:
f. compatibility adjacent to land use including single family neighborhoods. g. level of service for community and neighborhood services and public facilities should be preserved and enhanced as housing is increased.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by
Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation for Housing Site Inventory Criteria on pages 2 and 3 of CMR:196:02, with a change to the next to the last bullet point on page 2 of 6 to
“compatibility with adjacent land uses, including particularly single-family neighborhoods to be made primary criteria.
Council Member Lytle said that attention should be given to traffic congestion and intersection capacity in the absences of
transit alternative.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether Ms. Lytle wanted to ask the maker and seconder of the motion to add her proposed criteria.
Council Member Mossar said the population could not be increased without increasing the number of cars unless people radically
changed their behavior. She was willing to add the criteria to the list, but it was important to note that it was a self-canceling concept to have no additional cars and increase the population. INCORPORATED INTO SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate traffic impacts.
Council Member Lytle asked what “compatibility with adjacent land uses, particularly single-family neighborhoods” meant.
Council Member Morton said it meant a visual criterion. For example, if a home was adopted with a single-story overlay, a 50-story high-density building should not be placed next to it.
04/01/02 93-497
Council Member Kleinberg said that with the development of affordable housing, more density meant more cars. She suggested
that more focus be made on transportation, and the criteria did not cover creative solutions, only finding sites. The issue of compatibility was vague, which would cause future disagreements when evolutionary changes occurred in the community. Criteria should encourage decentralization of additional units so high-
density, affordable housing should not be lumped together in the areas that were already heavily impacted along mass transit lines where they were now.
Council Member Freeman asked if they were only talking about the
housing inventory criteria or did it include the State and ABAG criteria. Council Member Morton explained that the Housing Sites Inventory Criteria would take precedence when there was a conflict with
the State and ABAG. Mr. Emslie replied that was staff’s understanding. Council Member Freeman asked to add “decentralize affordable
housing growth” to the criteria list.
Vice Mayor Mossar said if decentralization took place, encouraging transit could not reduce traffic. Transit operated on high-density, that was what made transit work.
Mayor Ojakian noted that Vice Mayor Mossar did not accept the
addition of Council Member Freeman. Council Member Freeman said that Palo Alto Housing Corporation
(PAHC) has been successful in both compact, low-income housing, and decentralization of low-income housing.
Mayor Ojakian said it sounded like the maker and the seconder did not want to accept a change to their motion. He clarified that on the ABAG criteria Council Member Klienberg had asked about second units and staff had commented that was not a
housing site inventory criterion. Mr. Emslie said the analysis done so far showed that the City
did not need to go into the second units in order to make the housing goal. The criterion, based on the analysis, would not
conflict with the criterion that has been set so far. AMENDMENT: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to encourage the evaluation of decentralized low-income housing.
04/01/02 93-498
Council Member Klienberg thought she heard Council Member Freeman speak only about affordable housing in her motion, and
said it would be important not to limit it to affordable housing. Council Member Freeman said she would like one of the bullet points in the Housing Site Inventory criterion to be “to
encourage decentralization of attainable and affordable housing”.
Council Member Kleinberg removed her support for the amendment.
Council Member Lytle removed her support for the amendment. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER Council Member Beecham asked his colleagues to discuss and
develop a policy to resolve the job and housing imbalance. Mayor Ojakian commented the importance in the criteria was to find affordable housing and reinforced Ms. Otto’s comments on second units.
Council Member Kishimoto would consider the substitute motion,
but was concerned about the issue on the existing criteria that led to a list that produced 200 – 400 units at Ricky’s Hyatt and up to 65 units on Clemo Avenue with no transit or neighborhood
services.
Council Member Morton said that staff needed general guidelines so they could move forward on the project. He asked to move “neighborhood compatibility” to the first criteria so the
community would not continue to have disagreements on where low-income housing should be built.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Kishimoto, Kleinberg “no.”
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ojakian stated that on Consent Calendar Item No. 4, staff recommended that the Council adopt a Resolution for condemnation of temporary construction easements needed for the Downtown
Parking Structure to be built on Lot S/L. This resolution includes the following findings: (1) The public interest and
necessity require the project; (2) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (3) The properties sought to be acquired are necessary for the project; and (4) The offers of compensation required by Section 7267.2 of
04/01/02 93-499
the Government Code have been made to the owners of record. The staff report provides support for each of these findings. The
Resolution must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the entire Council in order to conclusively establish the City's right to condemn the construction easements. All the owners of record for the properties sought to be condemned were given notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of the Resolution and were
advised that they could ask to be heard on any of the matters contained in the Resolution. None made the request to be heard. The adoption of the Resolution does not require a public
hearing, only the opportunity for the owners to ask to be heard. Public comment is allowed under the Brown Act. If the Council
does adopt the Resolution, the City Attorney will be authorized to institute eminent domain proceedings. The fair market value of the construction easements determined by the City's appraisal would be deposited with the Superior Court to obtain an order for immediate possession of the easement rights. This will allow
the construction of the Parking Structure to proceed while just compensation for the easements is decided by jury trial or by negotiated settlement. Council Member Kishimoto requested that Item Nos. 8 and 12 be
removed to become Item Nos. 12A and 12B.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2–7, and 9-11.
LEGISLATIVE
2. Resolution of Support for Senate Bill 1870, the Bay Area
Water Reliability Act, and Assembly Bill 2058, the Bay Area Regional Water Supply and Conservation Act
Resolution 8135 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of Legislation Allowing the
Formation of a Regional Water Agency, Specifically Senate Bill 1870, the Bay Area Water Reliability Financing Authority Act”
Resolution 8136 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of Legislation Allowing the
Formation of a Regional Water Agency, Specifically Senate Bill 2058, the Bay Area Water Regional Water Supply and
Conservation Agency Act”
3. Ordinance 4740 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.30.120 Of Chapter 2.30
of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertinent to the
04/01/02 93-500
Authority to Purchase Commodities by Open Purchase Contracts” (1st Reading 3/18/02, Passed 9-0)
4. Resolution 8137 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements at 314 Lytton Avenue and 420 Florence Street for
the Downtown Parking Structures (Capital Improvement Project 19530) and Authorizing and Directing the Filing of Eminent Domain Proceedings”
5. Resolution 8138 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing Examination of Sales and Use Tax Records”
ADMINISTRATIVE
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Power
Engineering Contractors in the Amount of $162,000 for the Filter Valves Replacement Project at the Water Quality Control Plant (Wastewater Treatment Capital Improvement
Program Project #8021)
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Maze and Associates for an Amount Not to Exceed $160,500 for External Audit Services
9. Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing
Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C.
10. Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the East Palo Alto Law
Firm of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, LLP 11. Amended Joint Funding Agreement related to Countywide Radio
Interoperability and Public Safety Data Communications Network Project MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2, 3, 5-7, and 9-11.
MOTION PASSED 8-1 for Item No. 4, Kishimoto “no.”
12A. (Old Item No. 8) Acceptance of Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report
Council Member Kishimoto had requested that Item No. 8 be removed because she saw two items that needed possible
correcting while she was reviewing the List of Reporting that the Audit Committee had reviewed and recommended. First, the
04/01/02 93-501
annual financial statements being on a Consent Calendar. In late January, Council explicitly stated that the item not be
brought to Council on the Consent Calendar but for the Finance Committee as a once a year report. Second, since the community and the Council had discussed the efficiency of the government and restoring credibility and confidence in the government, the Performance Audits would be of great interest to the Council and
the community. She suggested the Performance Audits not appear in the packet as information but return on the Consent Calendar so the item could be removed for discussion and questions if
needed.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson suggested returning to the Audit Committee for recommendations. MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
approve the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report. Further, to refer
back to the Audit Committee that the approval of the Annual Financial Statements return to Council under Reports of Committees and Commissions and the Performance Audit Reports return to Council on the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Morton supported the motion. He felt the Performance Audits needed to return as a Consent Calendar item
and could be agendized if there was an issue for discussion. Council Member Freeman supported the motion. As a member of the
Audit Committee, it was of great importance to the community to understand what was happening in the government arena with
respect to cuts and services to the community. She agreed that it was extremely important for the community to see and have input.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
12B. (Old Item No. 12) Request for Council to Initiate Zoning Text Amendment Pertaining to Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the intent was to tighten and enforce existing regulations against operable vehicles parked in front yards.
Special Counsel for the City Attorney’s Office Lance Bayer said
the proposed amendment was based on his work with City staff and dealing with the frustrations from neighborhood complaints regarding storage of vehicles. The proposed amendment would reduce storage of recreational vehicle on private property in a residential area for sleeping from 30 days to 72 hours. Three
04/01/02 93-502
new criteria for storage were 1) park on permeable or impermeable paved surface; 2) no more than 50 percent of a
required front yard may be used for storage of vehicles; and 3) no vehicles could be stored within the 35-foot visibility triangle at intersections. The proposed amendment also included penalties for violations. He said the proposed amendment would give the public clearer criteria and clarify the enforcement
provisions. Council Member Freeman asked whether there was a provision in
some other code that stated how much permeable or impermeable space was allowed in the front yard.
Mr. Bayer said for new developments the allowable space for paved surface was 40 percent plus allowable paved space for parking one car. MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Mossar, to refer to the Planning and Transportation Commission the initiation of zoning text amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.88.160 (Vehicle and Equipment Repair and Storage) pertaining to vehicle equipment repair and storage.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
RECESS: 9:25 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
COUNCIL MATTERS
13. Vice Mayor Mossar and Council Members Beecham, Burch, and
Kleinberg re Support for Strong Productive City/School Relations
MOTION: Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to confirm
the importance of the City/School relations and request the Mayor to determine how to proceed with these relations; confirm the Mayor’s role of appointing and removing Council Members to
standing committees; and request that the Mayor and City Manager meet jointly with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
counterparts (President of the School Board and School Superintendent) to discuss relations and best approaches.
Barb Mitchell, North California Avenue, urged Council to support their City/School appointees. She expressed her concern that
nothing had been done to justify the PAUSD’s hasty withdrawal from the Liaison Committee.
04/01/02 93-503
Betsy Allyn, Willmar Drive, spoke about her concern regarding the community’s perception when four members of the Council
wrote a memo against one Council Member. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the Media Center and how a few of the PAUSD members felt that decisions were made before public meetings occurred. He commented regarding people’s
concern on: 1) use of the land, and 2) finances of the group that wanted the land.
John R. Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding the Council Members’ actions against Mrs. Lytle.
Maureen Martin, 3595 Murdock Drive, spoke on PAUSD’s decision to suspend participation in the City/School Liaison Committee. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, recommended that the City stay out
of the Media Center location issue and possible use of the Mayfield site for the media center because it was not a City issue. The City should not get involved unless it is approached directly by one of the parties and asked to participate.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) stated that the Mayor had sole appointing authority for
Standing Committees including the City/School Liaison Committee. There was a process in removing a member from a committee that would require a name clearing hearing so their side of the story
could be presented.
Mayor Ojakian asked how that process would take place. Mr. Calonne said as the appointing and removing authority, the
Mayor was the ultimate hearing officer. Council could create a subcommittee if they wanted to go in that direction.
Mayor Ojakian said he considered City/School relations a very important council action. He felt strongly that the person selected by the Mayor should have certain latitudes on what they did, and that the current Mayor had the right to appoint or
remove someone. The motion provided a process to move ahead and report back.
Council Member Kishimoto supported the motion.
Council Member Burch appreciated and supported the motion. Council Member Morton supported the motion but did not support the Committee in its current composition. Due to the recent
04/01/02 93-504
PAUSD difficulties, he recommended that a new committee be appointed to clear the air and start over.
Vice Mayor Mossar supported the motion. Council Member Beecham did not support the motion. He did not feel that current board members should be removed, but to adjust
the duties of the members. In discussions with Council Members, his perception was that they had lost faith in current leadership of the Committee. Changes would need to take place
if the intent was to have an effective committee.
Council Member Morton asked if that was a proposed amendment, he would second it. Council Member Beecham said he was not making or recommending a change to the motion.
Mayor Ojakian said he would not accept any changes to the existing motion. Council Member Freeman supported the motion and urged supporting
the Mayor in determining the best way to foster a productive City-School Liaison Committee.
Council Member Kleinberg supported the motion and said that it was the Council’s joint responsibility with the Mayor to insure
that the City/School relationship was nurtured and that the Liaison Committee functioned in a constructive and mutual
fashion. Council Member Lytle supported the motion. She noted that she
had submitted a document to the City Clerk entitled, “Lytle Response to Nine Representations Regarding the School Liaison
Committee” in support of correcting the record. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Beecham “no.”
Council Member Kleinberg wanted to clarify the accusation that
Council Member Lytle or Mayor Ojakian were not contacted for discussion prior to writing the Colleagues Memo. She had asked the City Attorney if they could, but he said it was not allowed
because of the Brown Act.
Council Member Lytle said she had wished that one of the colleagues had contacted her.
04/01/02 93-505
Council Member Kleinberg wanted to go on record that a motion was passed at the Liaison City/School Committee meeting of no
limit on public discussions on non-agenda items. Mayor Ojakian said he noted Council Member Beecham’s concerns and would do everything in his power to try and make sure that there were good City/School relations.
Mayor Ojakian announced that the Closed Session would be continued to the April 8, 2002, regular City Council meeting.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Beecham spoke regarding the approved Consent Calendar Senate Bill 1870 and Assembly Bill 2058. He noted he
would be joining election officials on Wednesday morning, April 3, 2002, to support the two bills.
Mayor Ojakian announced that letters had been sent on behalf of the City regarding the two bills mentioned by Council Member
Beecham. He also stated there was a COPA free subscription service via the Internet.
Council Member Morton stated that Olympic winner Brian Martin would be recognized at the April 15, 2002, City Council meeting.
Council Member Burch announced that the State of the City Address would be held on Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
CLOSED SESSION 14. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation
Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a
California Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court case No.: 01-30923DM
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Item continued to the April 8, 2002, regular City Council meeting.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
04/01/02 93-506
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.
04/01/02 93-507