HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-20 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting May 20, 2002
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................... 138
1. Mitchell Park Library Joint Services Proposal ................ 138
2. Resolution 8167 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Charles Borg Upon His Retirement” .............................................. 140
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................... 140
3. Approval of Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $25,000, Receiving a Grant from the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation and Transferring City Matching Funds of $25,000 into Capital Improvement Project 10204, Library Master Plan .. 141
4. Ordinance 4751 - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Chapter 16.24.020 [Standard Fences - Height and
Location Regulations] of Title 16 and Chapter 18.88.070
[Watercourse or Channel] of Title 18 of the Municipal Code to
Modify Fence and Easement Regulations Along a Portion of San
Francisquito Creek ........................................... 141
5. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply
for a Grant and Execute an Agreement with the State of
California for a Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urban Open Space and
Recreation Grant for Improvements to Parking Lots at the Baylands ..................................................... 141
6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget to Accept Revenue from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund in the Amount of $138,311 and Increase the City’s Allocation from the 1996 Measure B Pavement Management Program Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority by $121,605, and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Program Project 9630, Street Maintenance, in the Amount of $259,916 .. 142
7. Professional Engineering Services Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Carollo Engineers in the Amount of $2,324,637 for the Design, Project Management and Administration Phase I: Reservoir Booster Station Improvements; Distribution System
05/20/02 94-135
Water Quality Enhancement; Existing Booster Station
Improvements; Reservoir, Pump Station and Well Land
Acquisition .................................................. 142
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Streamline
Incorporated in the Amount of $242,880 for Water/Wastewater
Operations Contract Services (IFB #142310) ................... 142
9. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Member
Agencies of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority for the Funding and Maintenance of the San Francisquito Creek
Levee Restoration Project .................................... 142
10. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0123181 Between the City of Palo Alto and Energy Masters, International in the Amount of $150,000 for Comprehensive Energy Project Management Services 142
11. 900 High Street: Recommendation from the Historic Resources Board (HRB) at the Request of the Owners, the Santana Family, to Designate a Building Designed by Birge Clark to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory in Category 2 Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) 143
12. 351 Channing Avenue: Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide a 1.00-acre parcel into Ten Single Family Lots with Detached Accessory Structures, 00-SUB-08 .............................. 143
14. Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 Regulating Leaf Blowers ................................................. 143
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Proposals to Lease the Roth Building, 300 Homer Avenue ................................... 146
13A. (Old Item No. 5) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a Grant and Execute an Agreement with the State of California for a Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant for Improvements to Parking Lots at the Baylands ................................................. 153
13B. (Old Item No. 7) Professional Engineering Services Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Carollo Engineers in the Amount of $2,324,637 for the Design, Project Management and
Administration Phase I: Reservoir Booster Station Improvements; Distribution System Water Quality Enhancement;
Existing Booster Station Improvements; Reservoir, Pump Station
and Well Land Acquisition .................................... 154
13C. (Old Item No. 11) 900 High Street: Recommendation from the
Historic Resources Board (HRB) at the Request of the Owners,
the Santana Family, to Designate a Building Designed by Birge
Clark to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory in
05/20/02 94-136
Category 2 Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic
Preservation Ordinance) ...................................... 159
15. Conference with City Attorney — Existing Litigation .......... 161
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m .................... 161
05/20/02 94-137
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Eugene Nickell, 920 Loma Verde Avenue, spoke regarding new parking.
Elaine Meyer, University South Neighborhood Group, spoke regarding the City website. Mayor Ojakian requested the City Manager respond to Ms. Meyer and neighborhood associations. Stephanie Sussman, 739 Josina Avenue, spoke regarding parking garage maintenance. John Hanna, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding truck limits.
REPORT OF OFFICIALS
1. Mitchell Park Library Joint Services Proposal Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison stated no definitive action could be taken on the Mitchell Park project until Council certified and approved the environmental document for the project. She noted that the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) was also in the process of reviewing the proposal. She asked for feedback on the joint services proposal with the PAUSD and asked that Council
consider adopting the agreement on June 10, 2002, when the
remainder of the Mitchell Park project was presented to them. The
State Bond application would not be submitted until the day after
Council took action on the project.
Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy presented the draft proposal to
Council entitled: “Everyone’s Homework and Enrichment Center”
(EHEC). The proposal established a place and program with a
familiar and safe location for homework and enrichment activities
outside the school library or classrooms. It operated year round, targeting students from 4th through 8th grades. Vice Mayor Mossar questioned a statement in the staff report (CMR:262:02) that the application would obligate the City to provide matching funding if the proposal were successful, and whether or not there was a successful bond measure in November. City Manager Frank Benest said if the application was not successful, there would not be a problem. If successful, and if the bond measure passed, staff would not have to obligate the total
05/20/02 94-138
amount of the bond proceeds. If the bond measure did not pass,
staff would let the State know that the City could not do that.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked if the City received money, was it
obligated to do anything further; and if the City was in that
situation, could it find ways to get the money.
Ms. Levy clarified that if the City did not get State matching funds, it would not have to do the Homework Center.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked if funds were received, would the City be obligated to come up with the matching funds. Mr. Benest said the tough choice was if the City received the money from the State and the local bond measure did not pass. Council Member Morton clarified the dollar amounts for the project. The first year’s commitment was $24,000; thereafter was $5,300. Ms. Harrison reminded Council that the 700 square feet required for the program would not exist without the renovation. Mayor Ojakian asked what the estimated time of completion was for the facility. Ms. Levy said within three to four years. Karen White, 146 Walter Hayes, supported the project and strongly urged the Council to approve the creative joint venture in June. Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, strongly supported the project and said that the Friends of the Library had committed over $215,000 plus additional grants to help implement the project and to support the Palo Alto City Libraries. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to approve the submission of a joint venture project with Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD), the Everyone’s Homework and Enrichment Center project, as part of the City’s application for
funding from the State Bond Act, which would go before the Council
for consideration at its meeting of June 10, 2002.
Council Member Kleinberg spoke on some of the advantages of the
program. The program incorporated volunteers that helped keep the
costs down. It carried out the New Library Plan and enhanced the
State Bond proposal. It gave students opportunities and provided a
safe and constructive place for youth during non-school hours. It
provided much needed space and recreation component or program
services year round for 4th to 8th graders. Most important was that the program was located in the southern portion of the City where
05/20/02 94-139
there was a large youth population. It was a tremendous asset to
that neighborhood.
Council Member Kishimoto said the program provided a good
opportunity for keeping teenagers in the habit of using libraries.
Council Member Morton said it was a positive alternative for youths
and youth programs that were big contributors and beneficiaries.
Council Member Freeman strongly supported the program and hoped that the EHEC Center would stay open when schools were closed. Council Member Lytle thanked those who had yet to receive proper recognition but were primarily responsible for the monumental effort to get the City to that point and who were in the audience: The Friends of the Palo Alto Library, Karen White and Shelby Valentine. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Resolution 8167 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Charles Borg Upon His Retirement” MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to adopt
the Resolution.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
the Minutes of April 8, 2002, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke on Item No. 5 regarding the Roberti-Z’Berg-Harris grant to improve the parking lots at the Baylands. She noted that for many years the Baylands parking lot was kept unpaved in order to keep it in its natural state. She urged Council not to proceed with the grant until proper planning and Site and Design were reviewed to determine what needed to be paved. Mayor Ojakian announced that Item No. 6 would be removed at the request of staff.
05/20/02 94-140
Council Member Beecham would not participate in Item No. 11 due to
a conflict of interest because a client had a financial interest in
one of the properties.
Mayor Ojakian noted for the record that Item No. 4 had a correction
to the ordinance that was put at places.
Council Member Lytle requested that Item No.5 be removed to become Item No. 13A.
Council Member Kishimoto requested Item No. 7 be removed to become Item No. 13B. Council Member Freeman requested Item Nos. 8 and 11 be removed. Council Member Freeman suggested on Item No. 8 that a financial analysis be provided in the future, and the item could remain on the Consent Calendar. The City Manager noted that Item No. 11 would become Item No. 13C. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 12. LEGISLATIVE
3. Approval of Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $25,000, Receiving a Grant from the Palo Alto Art Center
Foundation and Transferring City Matching Funds of $25,000 into Capital Improvement Project 10204, Library Master Plan
Ordinance 4750 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2001-02
to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of
$50,000 to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project 10204,
Library Master Plan, to Accept a $25,000 Grant from the Palo
Alto Art Center Foundation, and to Approve a $25,000 Transfer
of Funds from the Community Services Department to CIP 10204
4. Ordinance 4751 - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.24.020 [Standard Fences - Height and Location Regulations] of Title 16 and Chapter 18.88.070 [Watercourse or Channel] of Title 18 of the Municipal Code to Modify Fence and Easement Regulations Along a Portion of San Francisquito Creek (1st Reading 05/06/02, Passed 8-0, Beecham absent)
5. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a Grant and Execute an Agreement with the State of California for a Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant for Improvements to Parking Lots at the Baylands
05/20/02 94-141
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing
the City to Apply for Grant Funds for the Roberti-Z’berg-
Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program under the Safe
Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2000 for Improvements to the Parking
Lots at the Baylands Nature Preserve (Item continued from May
13, 2002)
6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the
Budget to Accept Revenue from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund in the Amount of $138,311 and Increase the City’s Allocation from the 1996 Measure B Pavement Management Program Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority by $121,605, and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Program Project 9630, Street Maintenance, in the Amount of $259,916 Amendment No. 2 to the 1996 Measure B Pavement Management Program Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and DeSilva Gates Construction in the Amount of $2,536,081 for the 2002 Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project 9630 (Item removed at the request of staff)
ADMINISTRATIVE
7. Professional Engineering Services Contract Between the City of
Palo Alto and Carollo Engineers in the Amount of $2,324,637 for the Design, Project Management and Administration Phase I: Reservoir Booster Station Improvements; Distribution System Water Quality Enhancement; Existing Booster Station Improvements; Reservoir, Pump Station and Well Land Acquisition 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Streamline Incorporated in the Amount of $242,880 for Water/Wastewater Operations Contract Services (IFB #142310) 9. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Member Agencies of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority for the Funding and Maintenance of the San Francisquito Creek Levee Restoration Project 10. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0123181 Between the City of Palo Alto and Energy Masters, International in the Amount of $150,000 for Comprehensive Energy Project Management Services 11. 900 High Street: Recommendation from the Historic Resources Board (HRB) at the Request of the Owners, the Santana Family,
05/20/02 94-142
to Designate a Building Designed by Birge Clark to the City of
Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory in Category 2 Pursuant to
Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance)
12. 351 Channing Avenue: Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide a
1.00-acre parcel into Ten Single Family Lots with Detached
Accessory Structures, 00-SUB-08
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Items Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 12.
AGENDA CHANGES, DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham to move
Item No. 14 forward ahead of Item No. 13. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Mayor Ojakian confirmed with Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case that the Closed Session would not be heard that evening. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 14. Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 Regulating Leaf Blowers Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said that staff’s recommendation was to ask Council to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) regulating leaf blowers and to defer the prohibition of using combustion-fueled leaf blowers in residential areas from July 1, 2002 to July 1,2005. The primary reasons were associated with the downturn in the economy and financial hardships gardeners were experiencing as well as the projected cost for the City. She also clarified that all City staff and contractors had completed
training, passed a test, and were certified. With regard to enforcement, it was the same across the board for commercial
gardeners as well as City crews and contractors.
Council Member Morton asked whether the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LADWP) developed an alternative battery-powered
blower and made them available on a wide-spread basis, then
deferral could be revisited.
Ms. Johnson said that the first generation of the new leaf blower
would probably be seen in February 2003; however, it would be
another four years before commercial gardeners would be able to get them. Council would be given updates on those reports.
Council Member Freeman said there were 21 cities in California with the same type ordinance and wondered if an analysis had been done to see if changes were working in those cities.
05/20/02 94-143
Ms. Johnson said an analysis had been presented two years prior
along with the original legislation. In recent contacts with other
cities, she found that many changes had not occurred because cities
did not go out of their way to enforce the prohibitions.
Council Member Freeman asked to see a more up-to-date version of
the analysis. She had read that more cities had adopted the
ordinance, but there were more concerns in area of noise pollution rather than in economic pressures.
Council Member Burch said the ordinance had been reviewed extensively by Policy and Services (P&S) Committee and now a decision needed to be made in extending the prohibition date to July 2005. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said that a ban could easily be accomplished by merely asking the gardener not to use a leaf blower. It was possible to legally have a ban on gas leaf blowers in residential areas but not public areas without financially impacting the City. Gerardo Lomberra, 436 Warrington Avenue, Redwood City, supported the referendum to extend the matter to 2005. Isaias Rumanor Jr. spoke on behalf of his father who is a member of Bay Area Gardeners Association (BAGA) and asked that the 2005 deadline be extended. Paul Rode, 1590 Maddux Drive, Redwood City, spoke supported extending the date. Frank Manocchio, 1280 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, on behalf of the California Landscape Contractors Association (CLCA), urged that the deadline be extended for three years. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the State had been working on passing an ordinance to limit the amount of contamination from gas-
powered combustion engines. Since leaf blowers were high-level contributors to pollution, it was anticipated that within the next
five years gas—powered leaf blowers could be the single greatest
source of gases the State would eliminate. He asked Council to
extend the deadline date to January 1, 2004.
Francisco Deleon supported the extension to 2005.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to amend
Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regulating leaf blowers to defer the prohibition of the use of combustion-fueled
leaf blowers in residential areas from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2005.
05/20/02 94-144
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and
Safety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise), Section 9.10.60 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Defer the Prohibition on Combustion-
Powered Leaf Blowers”
Council Member Burch noted a significant decrease in leaf blower
complaints due to City’s training and certification program.
Council Member Morton supported the motion. Council Member Beecham supported the motion. Council Member Freeman suggested an amendment to add a clause “or at an earlier date when a commercially viable alternative is available.” Council Member Burch did not accept the amendment. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case advised the Council to stay with the main motion and not divert to a non-specific issue after a specific issue had been set, which was for enforcement purposes. Council Member Kishimoto found it difficult to support the motion because she was new to the Council and had not heard all the past discussions regarding the ordinance. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Freeman, Kishimoto “no.” MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Beecham, to address the topic again at the first notice of an alternative and commercially viable solution that is not gas combustible for the City. Council Member Burch suggested a friendly amendment to include
economically feasible. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include that the alternative is also economically
feasible.
Council Member Freeman accepted the amendment with the caveat that
the Council determine what was economically feasible.
Vice Mayor Mossar did not support motion. MOTION PASSED 6-3, Burch, Morton, Mossar “no.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
05/20/02 94-145
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Proposals to Lease the Roth
Building, 300 Homer Avenue
Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland summarized the major
requirements and terms in the Report for Proposals (RFP) and said
that staff recommended that the Council approve the RFP package and
direct staff to solicit proposals for leasing the Roth Building as
outlined in CMR:254:02. After approval of the RFP by Council, proposals were accepted through May 20, 2003. Proposals were
evaluated by a committee comprised of City staff, the Architectural Review Board and/or Historic Resources Board members and recommendations given to Council based on criteria that were consistent with the City’s policy on land use. Council Member Kishimoto asked what the potential possessory interest tax rate would be. Ms. Freeland said she did not have an exact figure, but all the non-profit tenants were responsible for paying the tax. She had not received any burdensome complaints about the amount and knew that it was in the hundreds but not thousands. She was aware of one tenant that was paying approximate $300 per year. The County Assessor’s Office was forwarding detailed information to her regarding taxes. Council Member Kishimoto asked when the RFP stated “excluding the building from the park dedication” did it mean excluding the land between the Roth Building and Summerhill Homes. Ms. Freeland said that staff recommended excluding the building, since only the building would be leased and not the .41-acre site. Council Member Kishimoto asked if the walkway between the building and Summerhill Homes would be dedicated. Ms. Freeland said yes, only the building would be excluded.
Council Member Kishimoto confirmed that 2.4 acres would remain dedicated.
Ms. Freeland said excluding the building, it would be approximately
2.2 acres.
Council Member Kishimoto asked if land was being excluded under the
building.
Ms. Freeland said yes.
Council Member Kishimoto said when the RFP referred to tenants being required to provide public access to the restrooms in the
Roth Building and provide a community meeting room, would
05/20/02 94-146
maintenance of those rooms be up for negotiation and was it part of
the proposal.
Ms. Freeland said the RFP stated that the property would be
maintained and operated at no cost to the City, which would include
the public restrooms and the community meeting room. Council could
give direction on the maintenance.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the RFP was referring to a
building and a ground lease. Ms. Freeland said yes. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether only the building was
being leased and maintained, why was the ground being included in the lease. She queried why the entire property was not being
dedicated. She also asked for a technical and legal explanation regarding whether there was no building on the site, would the ground underneath be considered part of the park. Ms. Case said it was about uses and uses were connected with the building. Council Member Kleinberg said people might be concerned if the building was not used as a non-profit building, would it be
consistent with all of the dedicated parkland. In other words, the building would always be protected because it was owned and
controlled by the City in terms of its leasehold purposes.
Ms. Case said that was correct.
Council Member Kleinberg asked how the deadline date of May 20,
2003, for returning the RFP was established. She felt that the 12-
month timeframe was too short for non-profits to obtain capital
improvement monies.
Ms. Freeland said that the P&S Committee had established the one-year timeframe. Ms. Harrison said there would be no problem in extending the deadline. Council Member Lytle asked if staff had considered the community room as a requirement rather than an encouragement. Ms. Harrison said that it had been voted on. Council Member Lytle said she understood the agreement was when the Roth Building was purchased it was going to be cost neutral to the City. The lease price would cover the purchase and rehabilitation cost of the building and the space would be for public use.
05/20/02 94-147
However, it did not pan out. Then the idea of non-profit proposal
was opened and continued to be cost neutral. The results were the
proposals did not carry the land acquisition cost and the capital
cost.
Ms. Harrison said Council’s direction was for the proposals to
carry the capital cost. When cost calculations for the Development
Center were made, they did not include having the Center recoup its land cost. The tenant, whether it was the City or a non-profit was
not expected to pay back the original acquisition cost of the building. Council Member Morton felt there was still some concern among his colleagues regarding the non-dedication of the land under the Roth Building. He recalled the case with the Community Skating, Inc., where the building was rezoned making it a Public Facility (PF zone). It became a historical building but the land remained open for commercial use. He did not think the underlying land should be included in the park because it would have made it parkland. By making it a PF zone it would limit its usage. He asked whether the Roth Building would be handled the same way. Ms. Harrison suggested waiting for the RFP responses. If the tenant’s terms met the park’s dedication requirement, the decision could be made at that time. It might then be appropriate to dedicate the land under the building because it represented no restriction on them. Council Member Morton said by using Community Skating, Inc. as a model, the successful bidder would be responsible for all future costs of the building. Ms. Harrison said it was similar to the same arrangement as Avenidas Center. Council Member Morton asked if the bidder was expected to raise $4.5 million as stated in Attachment B of CMR:254:02. The City’s
budget was higher than what non-profits were able to raise in the short term. He asked if there were certain costs that could be
required and the ability to give the non-profits additional time to
meet other financial obligations. For example, if a non-profit did
not want to do interior improvements to meet City’s standards,
could the City insist that they fund only seismic upgrades and
utility service. For a non-profit to raise $4.5 million dollars
was a very significant accomplishment in a year.
Ms. Harrison said because of the City’s bidding process, the cost
calculations were much higher than private or non-profit sectors.
Bidders were given only a sense of the scope of improvements that were required. Staff did not require the bidder to have a certain
amount in the bank prior to allowing them to lease.
05/20/02 94-148
Council Member Morton asked that the word “required” be removed
from the estimated cost list (Attachment B of CMR:254:02).
Ms. Freeland said it was her understanding that improvements were
required to make the use functional but not the price.
Council Member Morton asked when the RFP referred to the “estimated
price for required improvements,” did that mean staff was setting the amount. He was concerned about identifying what really was
required and maybe the only thing that was absolutely required according to staff’s standards was the seismic upgrade and the remainder was visual. Ms. Harrison said that was Council’s direction and it was felt that the building was part of the overall public space and was more than just seismic requirements. Council Member Morton asked whether the non-profits could return with their budget on improvements. Mayor Ojakian said it was an RFP process where closed bids were taken and reviewed based on the bidder’s amounts against what was expected to happen on the building. Ms. Harrison said that the process was more flexible. Bidders responded with their proposals hoping to meet the RFP’s requirements. Mayor Ojakian said that helped determined the successful bidder. The bidder would return with a financial statement showing what they were going to do with the building. He asked what the property was zoned. Ms. Freeland said the property was zoned PF. Mayor Ojakian confirmed that the RFP did not require a single entity bidder. A consortium or group of various agencies could bid
on that property.
Ms. Harrison said that was correct.
Council Member Kishimoto said the lease stated the minimum cost for
tenant’s improvements to the premises was $4,000,000 and asked if
staff would consider changing the language to lessen the impact to
bidders.
Ms. Harrison said what she was hearing from the Council was that
Council was comfortable with the minimum improvements required, but
needed to recognize that a non-profit might make a viable proposal less than $4,500,000. Staff would recognize that in the RFP.
05/20/02 94-149
Council Member Kishimoto asked why the Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) was not included in the group to review the bids.
Ms. Harrison said the P&TC could be included.
Mayor Ojakian declared the public hearing open.
David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, said the Roth Building encumbered the dedication of the park and asked Council to reconsider the
downsizing of the park through non-dedication. A park could not be dedicated until lessee was known. He recommended leaving the option in the RFP to favor those who could live with property that was dedicated for park use. He asked that the original intent and promise be kept to have the building as a community resource and to keep the land as parkland. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, supported the extension of time given to raise $4,000,000. He proposed that the following should be the City’s responsibility: cost of installation and maintenance of public restrooms, and lead and asbestos abatement for the wings and the building. If the applicant wanted to retain the spine structure, City should pass its savings on to the applicant by granting them the amount equivalent to what the City would pay to demolish the structure. There should be a requirement for the applicant to conform to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Emily M. Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, asked that applicants who were more compatible with park dedicated use be favored, and since that was a historic building, priority should be given to applicants who were willing to comply to the Secretary of Interior Standards. Herb Borock, P.O. Box. 632, supported keeping the property as parkland and rejected having office buildings on this site. Mayor Ojakian declared the public hearing closed.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the site was dedicated as
parkland, would it allow uses such as a museum or library.
Ms. Freeland said it was allowed since it would be open to the
public.
Council Member Beecham asked if the RFP included criteria related
to the compatibility with parkland.
Ms. Freeland confirmed that it did.
Council Member Beecham asked if the RFP included criteria related to compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
05/20/02 94-150
Ms. Freeland confirmed that it did.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve
the Request for Proposals (RFP) package, (Attachment C) to CMR:254:02, and direct staff to solicit proposals for leasing the Roth Building, with the clarification of the intent to dedicate the land as park land; delete Exhibit 1, Item 12C, and add as a criteria “compatibility with park use.” Council Member Beecham said Council intended to find something fully compatible with park use and move forward to see what could be placed at the site with minimal to no cost to the City. RFP’s would be competitive and answers to questions on what the Council would or would not accept would be determined on RFP responses. The one-year turn-around time for proposals was acceptable. Council Member Lytle said she did not want office space in the middle of the park space. Council Member Freeman asked if it was dedicated parkland and there were public restrooms, did that preclude who took care of the restrooms. Ms. Harrison said no. Council Member Freeman supported the one-year timeframe to prevent deterioration of the building. Council Member Morton suggested an amendment to extend the
timeframe for returning the RFP to 18 months. That would allow additional time for funding.
Council Member Beecham asked Council Member Kleinberg, a non-profit
leader, for her advice on the time extension.
Council Member Kleinberg agreed on the additional time.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to extend the timeframe for the Request for Proposal (RFP)
to 18 months. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there was any mention in the lease regarding subleasing. Ms. Freeland said any encumbrance including subleasing on the property needs prior approval by the City. Council Member Kishimoto asked to amend the motion by giving preference to organizations that would adhere more to the Secretary of the Interior’s requirements.
05/20/02 94-151
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER
for the City to give preference in the RFP to organizations that
complied with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.
Council Member Kleinberg suggested an amendment to make the
community room a requirement rather than an encouragement. She said
one of the deficiencies in that neighborhood was meeting room
space. It could then be used by the community when not being used by tenants.
Council Member Beecham said he would not accept the suggested amendment because it would be difficult to find non-profits to take on that burden. Mayor Ojakian wanted the building to be cost neutral. He wanted to make sure that strong emphasis be made on the Secretary of the Interior’s standards compliance. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Morton, to
reflect stronger language in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for a requirement that there be a community room available in the Roth Building. Council Member Kleinberg strongly encouraged her colleagues to include the community room. She said there was not a non-profit she knew of that did not need some type of small meeting room. It would not be a financial burden and it would not change the inability to raise money. It would enhance the work that they did and enhance the community by having another meeting room in that area. It would not be inconsistent with the park dedication or the use of the building. Council Member Morton supported the amendment. Council Member Mossar would not support the amendment. She felt if
too many constraints were placed on those who responded to the RFP, the consequence would be not having any viable applicants for 18
months.
Council Member Burch was concerned about the responsibility of
administering the room. He said someone would need to keep a
tracking system if it were opened up to the public.
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-6, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton “yes.”
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
RECESS: 9:53 to 10:00 p.m.
13A. (Old Item No. 5) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a Grant and Execute an Agreement with the
05/20/02 94-152
State of California for a Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urban Open
Space and Recreation Grant for Improvements to Parking Lots at
the Baylands
Council Member Lytle asked whether the content of the grant was to
convert dirt-gravel parking lots into paved surfaces.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said both lots were a dirt-gravel combination and periodic grading left them unusable during
the winter season. Because of missing line markings for parking and traffic areas, safety issues occurred. Added use of the lots caused potential environmental issues of oil and gas leakage into the soil and into the bay. The solution was to install hard top material called Road Oyl that provided environmental solutions for lots that could last for 20 years with the proper maintenance. Council Member Lytle asked if the material was impermeable. Ms. Harrison said it sounded like it was impermeable; it was decomposed granite with a hardener. Council Member Lytle said the Sailing Station was done seven years prior and was already rutted. She asked whether applications were being sent for Site and Design. Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said he would talk to staff. He thought it was being treated as a maintenance issue and did not see it as a project. He would clarify the requirements. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Morton, to approve the Resolution to: 1) authorize the submittal of a grant application under the Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000, and approve the terms and conditions of the grant agreement; and 2) authorize the City Manager or his designee, as the person responsible for the administration of the grant, including certifications and any amendments, on behalf of the City. Further, to clarify that the
project will be subject to Site and Design review because it is in a (D) overlay zone, and that the paving material will be decomposed
granite.
Resolution 8168 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City to Apply for Grant Funds for the Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urban Open Space and
Recreation Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 for Improvements to the Parking Lots at the Baylands Nature Preserve”(Item continued from May 13, 2002) Emily Renzel, 1055 the Baylands parking lot. She urged that when proceeding with the grant application to simultaneously do some
05/20/02 94-153
fundamental planning to determine how much paving needed to be done
at the Baylands.
Council Member Lytle said those decisions would be made by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC).
Council Member Beecham asked whether what was being considered for paving and repaving outlined in the staff report (CMR:237:02) was
in the 1990 Baylands Master Plan. Ms. Harrison said that was staff’s understanding. Council Member Beecham asked if staff thought the Baylands Master Plan should be revised to bring it back to Council. Ms. Harrison said yes. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
13B. (Old Item No. 7) Professional Engineering Services Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Carollo Engineers in the Amount of $2,324,637 for the Design, Project Management and Administration Phase I: Reservoir Booster Station Improvements; Distribution System Water Quality Enhancement; Existing Booster Station Improvements; Reservoir, Pump Station and Well Land Acquisition Council Member Kishimoto spoke on her concerns regarding the environmental impacts and feasibility of preapproving the contract as outlined in the staff report (CMR:248:02). She suggested to break down the projects into smaller segments so that when it returned to Council it would have more information prior to assigning the funds for project implementation. Assistant Director of Utilities Administration Randy Baldschun explained that Council was asked to approve the contractor to go
ahead in getting the public’s input of placing a reservoir at a particular site. There were seven potential sites in the City.
Carollo Engineers would go out and get the public’s input on those
sites and return to Council with the results. If Council agreed
with the recommendations to proceed with the reservoir at a certain
site, then the consultant would be asked to do the environmental
report. Environmental results would then return to the Council on
the approved site. The contract was broken down into three
segments. The first portion dealt with the public outreach process.
Second, with the engineering design of the site and well, and the third with construction management.
City Manager Frank Benest said that came about from a Council approved Master Plan. Each step must have Council approval prior
05/20/02 94-154
to proceeding. It would avoid staff time, hard dollar costs, and
time delays if the project was not split into a number of
contracts. Carollo was well experienced in completing each phase
after Council approval.
Council Member Kishimoto said she did not see a checkpoint in the
staff report (CMR:248:02) that required Council’s approval to move
to the actual implementation of the reservoir.
Mr. Benest said Council would not be preapproving implementation until the results were received on all the sites. Council Member Kishimoto asked where in the contract it stated that it needed to return to Council for approval. She had raised some concern in the area of environmental impact. There were no funds for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be completed. Mr. Baldschun said the difference between an EIR and a negative declaration for the potential reservoir sites was about $10,000, which was covered in the contract. Council Member Kishimoto asked where in the contract it mentioned that it would return to Council for review and approval. Dave Carrasco, Carollo Engineers, said it was stated on page 5 in the Scope of Work of the contract, task A2.3, item No. 4. There were three public workshops. The intent of the workshops was to open up to the City and the public the seven sites identified for the project. It was made clear that El Camino Park was the best site, not only for specific and technical reasons, but the lowest cost site for the City. The first workshop was an educational workshop. The second was to develop preliminary ranking, and the third to develop an opinion summary. The summary consisted of the public’s opinion in terms of what site the project would be on. Results were then presented to Council for recommendation and approval of the site.
Council Member Kishimoto asked if it would return to Council with a full report and for Council’s approval at that point in time.
Mr. Benest reassured her that it would return to Council for
approval and any future direction.
Council Member Beecham said that in Exhibit B, page 2, it stated
the requirement of the consultant to complete a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental analysis, if in fact
the El Camino Park site was chosen.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve
and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Carollo
Engineers in the amount of $2,324,637 for the design, project
05/20/02 94-155
management and administration of Phase I: Reservoir Booster Station
Improvements; Distribution System Water Quality Enhancement;
Existing Booster Station improvements; and reservoir, pump station
and well land acquisition.
Council Member Lytle said there needed to be a checkpoint of
environmental disclosure on all five of the complex projects so
that an educated decision could be made in the site selection process.
Mayor Ojakian addressed the comment on the increase in the water supply as being growth inducement. He thought those sources were for emergencies only and not for on-going use. Mr. Baldschun explained that the water supply was for fire demands and dealing with chloride issues, but not to increase water supply. The proposed well was for emergency use only. Council Member Lytle said the last time that issue went to Council, the possibility of expanding the water supply in the future to permanent usage was left open and it was in the documents received. Even emergency usage would trigger growth-inducing impacts. Water-Gas-Wastewater Engineering Manager Roger Cwiak said when the project was taken to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), they looked for long-term needs and supplies for the City to see if supplies could be used as alternatives. At the current time those projects were being designed for emergency projects only. However, a mechanical fitting had been added to the system that would allow branching off for a filter system should the City ever get cut off from its normal water supply. Council Member Lytle said the physical effect was that the water supply was increased. Council Member Morton said he was going to take staff’s word and understood that it was an enhancement of the City’s emergency
response in the event the Hetchy-Hetchy system could not provide the water supply.
Council Member Freeman asked what the life span was of the proposed
reservoir.
Mr. Carrasco said the proposed reservoir was a below-grade
reservoir, made of concrete. Most of the City’s current reservoirs
were made of steel and above ground, making them more prone to
corrosion but easy to repair. Generally, with good maintenance,
the below-grade reservoir would last indefinitely. Perhaps 70 to
100 years is the life span used for utilities for accounting purposes.
05/20/02 94-156
Council Member Freeman asked what the length of time was for the
lease of the land from Stanford at El Camino Park.
Mr. Cwiak said the lease was through the year 2030.
Council Member Freeman said expending a good portion of $2,000,000
was anticipated to determine whether a tank was needed, the type of
tank and where it would be placed. The location for this tank that would last for 70 years was on a piece of property that could be
accessed for about 30 years. Mr. Benest said if the El Camino Park was the site, staff would have to come up with a strategy for insuring the use of that site for not only 70 years but longer. Council Member Freeman asked if research on the site would be done prior to expending the $2,000,000. Mr. Benest said it would be done prior to design and construction. If El Camino Park was chosen, staff would return with a proposal on how to proceed in securing the use of that site for the intended purpose. Council Member Freeman asked if it was correct that part of the $2,000,000 was being used to help decide which site to pick out of the seven and to design a tank suitable for that use. Mr. Benest explained that prior to the design and construction, staff would return to the Council with data from the public and technical analysis along with a strategy for Council approval in order to secure the site. Mayor Ojakian clarified that currently the project was still in the feasibility stage and not the design and construction phase. Mr. Baldschun said that was correct.
Council Member Freeman asked whether it was possible to go forward with the entire $2,000,000 project but delineate how much money was
needed for each phase.
Mr. Baldschun thought that had been built into the contract.
Mr. Benest clarified that if Council wanted to stop the project at
some point, it would not continue without the proper authorization.
Mr. Baldschun said that was correct. The work for the booster
station and the other items would continue, but not for the
reservoir.
05/20/02 94-157
Council Member Freeman asked whether it was possible to delineate
the cost of this $2,000,000 project in order to know the status of
each stage when arriving at that checkpoint.
Mayor Ojakian said that was not the motion.
Council Member Beecham said in the Scope of Work on page 5, item 4,
it stated, “It is assumed that the consultant will present the opinion summary to the City Council to obtain approval regarding
which reservoir site should be developed. This step is critical for moving forward with design of a new reservoir at any one of the identified sites. Upon Council approval of a reservoir site, consultant will receive direction from a city to proceed with design services, etc.” Council Member Freeman asked whether at any point in time Council decided to cease the contract, would the City be obligated for the full $2,000,000. Council Member Beecham replied after the site was picked the consultant would do CEQA requirements for the reservoir. Council Member Lytle said she had an outstanding concern having to do a selection and to narrow the options without a good environmental analysis. She asked what the general environmental impacts were on the choices. Council Member Beecham said the consultant and staff would return to Council with the sites they would like to proceed with. It would then be narrowed down to one. Council Member Lytle said the environmental document reviewed all the sites. Mr. Benest committed publicly to have the legal staff and planning staff work with Utilities and the consultant to make sure the CEQA analysis was done.
Council Member Kishimoto addressed the issue of growth induction.
The El Camino Reservoir was meant to service Zone 3, which was the
Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford West, since Stanford did not
have enough allocation from Hetchy-Hetchy. She asked whether the
new eight-hour standard was going to benefit the Palo Alto
residents or Palo Alto businesses.
Mr. Baldschun replied both. Currently, the fire requirements were
not being met in Zone 3. One solution was to bring up the pressure
in that area by way of the reservoir.
Council Member Kishimoto questioned the issue of asking Stanford to
share the costs.
05/20/02 94-158
Mr. Baldschun said staff had met with Stanford to try and work out
sharing the cost or possibilities in sharing the reservoirs.
Stanford was not very receptive. They were looking for the most
cost-effective solution. If there were further developments, they
would be presented to Council.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the issue came up during the
Sandhill discussions in terms of servicing Stanford West or expansion of the Shopping Center.
Mr. Baldschun said he did not know. Mayor Ojakian said one of his main focuses was having a sufficient water supply for the residents in case of an emergency. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
13C. (Old Item No. 11) 900 High Street: Recommendation from the Historic Resources Board (HRB) at the Request of the Owners, the Santana Family, to Designate a Building Designed by Birge Clark to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory in Category 2 Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) Council Member Beecham would not participate in the item due to conflict of interest because a client had a financial interest in one of the properties. Council Member Freeman asked that Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) be explained. Director of Planning and Community Development Steve Emslie said Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) was a tool that cities and other public agencies used to achieve a public benefit at minimal cost to the City. It was a way of using a potential development to achieve other public objectives. It was often used to preserve environmentally sensitive land by requiring the purchase of
portions or rights of that land. It required both a sender site and a receiver site. The sender site was the land that sent its
development potentials to a receiver site. The sender site was the
one that sought to be protected. In that particular use, Palo Alto
encouraged the preservation of historical resources through the TDR
program. The sender site was a historic designated class, Category
1 or 2. The development potential of that site could be purchased
and applied to a Downtown development. It was an incentive to
achieve a greater public purpose without financial burden to the
City.
Council Member Freeman clarified that the TDR was being requested to maintain 900 High Street, which was the Peninsula Creamery Building, as a Category 2, and used the differential to increase
05/20/02 94-159
the size of a potential building that could be located across the
street from that.
Mr. Emslie said they were a step away from the TDR approval. Once
900 High Street was designated as a Category 2 or a historic
resource, the TDR could then proceed.
Council Member Freeman asked if the TDR portion would return to the Council at a later date.
Mr. Emslie said the Planning Director approved the TDR program. It would not return to Council until the time of the ordinance. Council Member Freeman said she was concerned with the benefit of being called a Category 2. She asked if it were torn down in the future, there would have to be a year waiting period before that would happen. Mr. Emslie said that was correct. Council Member Freeman asked what the property size would be after it was torn down. Mr. Emslie said in granting the TDR it would be restricted with a covenant that would take away the development potential so the size would not increase. The restrictions required the preservation of the building provided the developer duly transferred the development rights. MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Mossar, to honor the owner’s request to designate the building located at 900 High Street as a significant building in Category 2 based on the finding that the building meets the definition of a Category 2 building and all six local criteria for historic designation as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. Council Member Lytle asked if the TDR ordinance was only to be used
in the Downtown ground floor retail district.
Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said it was only allowed
in the Commercial Downtown (CD) district.
Council Member Lytle clarified that it was not in the ground floor
restricted.
Mr. Lusardi said it was the entire CD district.
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Beecham “not participating,” Morton “no.”
CLOSED SESSION
05/20/02 94-160
15. Conference with City Attorney — Existing Litigation
Subject: Jaim Nulman and Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto,
SCC #CV779831
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Item continued.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of 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.
05/20/02 94-161