HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-10 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
June 10, 2002
1. Recognition of the City of Palo Alto’s Print Shop as a
Santa Clara County Green Business...........................186
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m...................186
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................187
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Assessments for California Avenue District Parking Bonds Plan G - Fiscal Year 2002-03..................187
1. Presentation on Community Survey and Options for City Council Consideration in Response to Results of Second
Community Survey on Library and Other Community Facilities Bond Measure................................................189
2. Resolution Certifying Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Conceptual Design of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Project..........198
3. Application for California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of
2000 Funds for the Mitchell Park South Resource Library Project.....................................................206
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................208
4. Approval of Agreement Between City and Palo Alto Unified School District for Development of Everyone's Homework and
Enrichment Center in the Proposed South Resource Library at Mitchell Park...............................................209
5. Amendment to Existing Contract Between the City of Palo
Alto and Foothill DeAnza Business and Industry Institute in the Amount of $15,715, Changing Contract Amount From
$85,000 to $135,000 in Second Contract Year for Employee Training....................................................209
6. Approval of Second Amendment to the 1996 Measure B Pavement Management Program Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA); Approval of a
Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Fiscal Year 2001-02 to
06/10/02 94-184
Accept Revenue from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund and the VTA and to Provide an Additional Appropriation
to the Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project, Number 9630 in the Amount of $259,916; and Approval of a Contract with Desilva Gates Construction in the Amount of $2,544,081 for the 2002 Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project 9630....................209
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................210
8. Conference with Labor Negotiator............................210
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m............210
06/10/02 94-185
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:50 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg (arrived at 6:54 p.m.), Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Beecham, Lytle
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Recognition of the City of Palo Alto’s Print Shop as a Santa Clara County Green Business
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison introduced the Print Shop staff and expressed her appreciation for their hard work in earning the Santa Clara County Green Business certification.
Carol Berg, Green Business Program Coordinator, Santa Clara County Pollution Prevention Program, presented the Print Shop
with the Green Business certificate and said the Green Business Program was designed to encourage implementation of more sustainable business practices through incentives and
certification. The Print Shop was the first print shop and the first public agency to receive the Green Business certification.
Council Members Mossar and Burch expressed their appreciation to staff for their commitment to Green Business.
Ms. Berg said she was working with staff towards certifying the
City. The Bay Area did not have a city that had achieved Green Business status and, if the City were certified, it would be the first in Santa Clara County.
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
06/10/02 94-186
Regular Meeting
June 10, 2002
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ABSENT: Beecham ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Reed Content, 827 Matadero Avenue, spoke regarding support for the Palo Alto Art Center. MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg, that
Item No. 7 be moved forward ahead of Item No. 1.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Assessments for California Avenue District Parking Bonds Plan G - Fiscal Year 2002-03
Mayor Ojakian stated it was the time and place set for the public hearing on the parking assessment roles for the following
projects: 1) California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking Project Number 86-01 which was Resolution of Intent Number 6485 adopted
January 20, 1986 and California Avenue Project Number 92-13 Resolution of Intent 7230 adopted August 9, 1993. The City Engineer had cause to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk
a report providing for the levying of special assessment districts created and established for the projects and under the
Resolutions of Intent expressed. The report set forth the amounts of assessments proposed to be levied for the fiscal year 2002-2003. The assessments would be used to pay principal and
interest on the bonds issued on the various projects. The report was and had been opened for public inspection. The
purpose of the hearing was to allow Council to hear all persons having an interest in any real property within the parking
assessment districts; to hear all objections, protests, or other written comments from any interested persons; to take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to matters
pertained in the filed report; to remedy and correct any error or informality in the report; and to amend, alter, modify, and
06/10/02 94-187
correct and confirm the report and each of the assessments therein. He asked City Clerk Donna Rogers if written reports
had been received from interested persons. Ms. Rogers replied no. Mayor Ojakian asked if staff had any additional information.
Ms. Harrison replied no.
Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing open and hearing no requests to speak from the public, declared the Public Hearing
closed. Council Member Morton stated he could not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because he had clients with interests in the properties.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt
the resolutions confirming the Engineer’s Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue District, Project No. 86-01, and California Avenue District, Project No. 92-13.
Resolution 8170 entitled “A Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll [California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking Project No. 86-01 (For Fiscal Year 2002-2003)]”
Resolution 8171 entitled “A Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll [California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (For Fiscal Year 2002-2003)]”
Mayor Ojakian said the procedure was one that the City was
required to go through every year. Mr. Calonne said it was required in order to turn unpaid assessments into liens against the properties.
Mayor Ojakian said in previous years, members of the public had gone before the Council to protest. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Morton “not participating.” Beecham absent.
REPORT OF OFFICIALS 1. Presentation on Community Survey and Options for City Council Consideration in Response to Results of Second
06/10/02 94-188
Community Survey on Library and Other Community Facilities Bond Measure
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison introduced Ruth Bernstein, of Evans/McDonough Company, Inc. to present the results of the library survey. The matter would be agendized for the June 17, 2002 meeting for further discussion.
Ruth Bernstein, Evans/McDonough Company, Inc., presented the results of the library survey. The consensus was that the
libraries needed improvement. One significant item, which had changed since the November 2001 survey, indicated there was less
trust in the City. Council Member Lytle asked whether the survey indicated that most people would support the measure.
Ms. Bernstein said yes. Council Member Burch asked whether the survey identified renters from homeowners since renters would not be paying property taxes.
Ms. Bernstein answered that the survey showed major demographics
and the most prominent ones were represented on the survey. Council Member Burch said the fact that renters are entitled to
vote should be considered in the survey.
Ms. Bernstein said that renters were more supportive of tax measures.
Council Member Burch asked how relevant was the $96 million mentioned in the survey because residents were curious as to how
much that would cost them. Ms. Bernstein said the cost was important but that was not the main factor, and she believed people would vote in favor of the measure regardless of the cost.
Council Member Burch asked what indication she had that people understood the difference between the assessed valuation and the
possible selling price of their home.
Ms. Bernstein replied the survey pointed out the pros and cons of the measure, and she did not know whether it would make any difference in how people would vote whether or not they knew the assessed value of their home.
06/10/02 94-189
Council Member Burch asked whether the survey asked people if they knew the assessed value of their home, and would people
know the answer. Ms. Bernstein said most Palo Alto voters would know the answer. Council Member Morton asked whether the survey would indicate
whether residents would be supportive of a smaller, less complex project rather than a larger, more complex project.
Ms. Bernstein replied they could not predict whether a smaller less complex project would pass rather than a larger, more
complex project. Council Member Morton asked whether chances of the measure passing would increase if the project were simplified and more cohesive.
Ms. Bernstein said yes. Council Member Morton asked whether there was a correlation between the assessed home value and the level of support.
Ms. Bernstein said chances of the measure passing improved with
the decrease of the costs associated with the measure. Council Member Morton asked whether the chances of passing
improved by including children’s programs and activities in the measure.
Ms. Bernstein said the most important issue was to decrease the amount of money and not use special programs to increase the
likelihood of the measure passing.
Council Member Morton clarified that if the children’s activities were enhanced, then the dollar amount would present the most cohesive package. Ms. Bernstein said there was a large base of support along with
some opposition. An important element would be to get supporters out to vote.
Council Member Lytle stated she wanted to focus on the 20 percent and any cross tab evaluation that had been done.
Ms. Bernstein replied they would continue to review that segment and try to create cohesive themes and messages that could be used to generate interest among that segment.
06/10/02 94-190
Council Member Lytle asked whether Evans/McDonough was advising simplification of the measure, reduction of the cost, focusing
on children, and a less complex bond project. Ms. Bernstein said that was correct. Council Member Lytle asked about the other criteria and whether
the measure needed to respond to each criterion. Ms. Bernstein said the other issues were important, but the
dollar amount was most important.
Ms. Bernstein said she would not recommend using the children’s issue as the leading factor in deciding whether to include something in the project. However, when there was a need to cut back on cost, it was important to look at things that would be most useful. The children’s issue was more of a theme in how
the campaign would progress, and there were people in the City who did not have children. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there was a correlation with income levels.
Ms. Bernstein replied the survey asked that question but 22
percent declined to state, and she did not see that as a determining factor in improving the passage of the measure.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the outcome would be skewed since the public had not been educated about the New
Library Plan. Ms. Bernstein replied the results should give enough impetus to
move forward with the measure, but the reality was that not everyone would be educated about the measure before the November
election. She predicted 68 percent support because most people had already made up their minds on the issue. Mayor Ojakian requested that all speaker cards be turned in by 8:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether the election should occur during the national or gubernatorial election and if that would bring
voters to the polls who were opposed to raising taxes.
Ms. Bernstein replied the best election turnout for that type of measure to pass was in even-year November elections. Those factors usually attracted liberals, renters, and occasional voters.
06/10/02 94-191
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether it could be expected that the next gubernatorial election would attract voters most likely to
support the measure. Ms. Bernstein said yes. Council Member Freeman asked whether the categories on the
survey of “leaning yes” and “leaning no” were later placed in the undecided category.
Ms. Bernstein replied they were included in the “yes” or “no” categories.
Council Member Freeman asked for clarification on where the Art Center stood on the voting public’s mind. Ms. Bernstein said the public believed the Art Center alone was
not an important factor. The survey indicated the Art Center had less support than the other projects. The public believed the libraries, which were more widely used than the Art Center, should be the only improvements on the measure.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the public understood the survey question regarding the renovation of the Art Center as
part of the measure. Ms. Bernstein replied the survey posed a number of questions to
determine whether including the Art Center on the measure decreased the public’s support. If the Art Center were removed
from the survey, it would probably increase support of the measure; however, it would still be impossible to guarantee passage of the measure.
Council Member Kleinberg asked for clarification about the
survey response as to how the public felt about improvements to the Children’s Library. The survey indicated that 69 percent “strongly agreed” or “somewhat agreed,” but the summary stated that was irrelevant and the issue was the amount of money.
Ms. Bernstein said it was relevant, children were important and the needed improvements for the Children’s Library were important. Projects for children always sounded good on a survey
but that did not mean other items should be eliminated for the sake of what sounds good.
Council Member Kleinberg asked for clarification on a survey question that dealt with whether or not to separate each item on the measure.
06/10/02 94-192
Ms. Bernstein replied that 1 percent responded that items should be separated as individual projects. She thought the issue of
separating the projects and putting them all on the ballot as separate projects would be politically difficult. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether those who thought combining all the items on one measure would be too grandiose.
Ms. Bernstein said the voters who were undecided did not expect to vote on each individual project and, if they did, they would
probably support Children’s Library and not the other projects.
Council Member Kleinberg said she was pursuing that question because of the analysis that Council asked Evans/McDonough to make of whether including the Art Center and other items would jeopardize the positive response.
Ms. Bernstein stated there was not one specific project that would jeopardize the project. Council Member Kleinberg asked for elaboration on the value of surveys with respect to determining how the public would vote.
Ms. Bernstein agreed that surveys could not guarantee how the
public would vote, but they were useful in making evaluations based on responses.
Council Member Kleinberg asked if there were any thoughts on what the public’s response would be in the time preceding the
election since the percentages went down since November 2001. Ms. Bernstein said the support and opposition of the measure was
in direct correlation with the increase and decrease of the dollar amount.
Stanley R. Smith, 610 Wildwood Lane, said he was one of the residents contacted for the survey. Most residents realized the libraries needed repair, but the measure was too costly. He suggested taking advantage of the digital revolution because a
library based on printed paper would prove to be too expensive and inadequate. He encouraged the Council to decrease the dollar amount and number of projects on the measure.
Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant Street, said the cost of a $1 million
bond measure would probably add up to $2 million when it was completed, and he believed the public needed to know the total cost and not be given piecemeal information.
06/10/02 94-193
Mary Carey Schaefer, 742 De Soto Drive, said she thought the project was too large and expensive.
Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, said she believed the Children’s Library had a lot of support. The potential for a 65 percent state library bond match would bring strong voter support for improving Mitchell Park Community Center. Polling
data suggested there was not community consensus on all the projects. She believed the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center had the most community support and would be the facility
that would have the greatest community use.
Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, on behalf of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library, encouraged the Council to formulate a bond measure that would serve the needs of all City residents. Lucy Berman, 535 W. Crescent Drive, Vice President of the Board
of the Palo Alto Art Center, spoke in support of the Art Center and encouraged Council to adequately present the needs of the Art Center in the bond measure. Walter Eich, 481 San Antonio Road, asked if a tally was kept of
the people who participated in the survey that he felt was replete with loaded questions. He believed a modified plan
would be more acceptable to the community. Stephanie Muñoz, 101 Alma Street, said she was one of the
residents who were called to answer survey questions. She believed the survey should have had more questions related to
the Art Center. George Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, said he was one of the
residents called to answer survey questions. He believed City money should not have been spent to advise the Council how to
run a successful election. He supported upgrading the libraries but believed the present plan needed to be modified. Library Advisory Commission Chair Tina Kass, 1730 Cowper Street, said there were many positive things on the library survey. She
noted there were many residents in favor of the measure with 70 percent positive responses to some of the questions. The Library Advisory Commission (LAC) was willing to assist the
Council in creating a bond measure for libraries that would be successful.
Library Advisory Commissioner John Kagel, 737 Channing Avenue, encouraged the Council to make an informed decision before putting the measure on the ballot.
06/10/02 94-194
Paul Bundy, 143 Park Avenue, encouraged Council to keep all the projects on the measure.
Library Advisory Commissioner Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said the survey results should not be used as an indication of what the outcome of the measure would be but as a forecast of the current opinion of the residents. He suggested fewer
projects with a lower cost. Mayor Ojakian noted that the public comment segment was closed.
City Manager Benest asked whether there were any options to
consider when the matter was continued for the following week, and if Council would like to receive additional comments from Ms. Berstein or Mr. Tramatola in terms of evaluating those options.
Mayor Ojakian said if his Colleagues were agreeable the discussion would continue. He asked about the changing cost and when Council could expect to receive more specifics regarding the costs.
Ms. Harrison answered that in conceptual design, which was where the discussion was, there were adjustments to the costs but
those adjustments would not decrease the project by millions. Council Member Burch stated he was dismayed by the way residents
and the media had portrayed the survey. He said some of the misleading statements by the media skewed the survey results.
He suggested putting three bond measures on the November ballot. The first one would be a full scale measure for the Main Library, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, the
Children’s Library, and the Art Center at $5 million priced at a total of $96 million or $50 per hundred thousand dollars of
assessed value. The second measure would be a reduced measure including all three libraries and the Community Center and Art Center at $78 million or $42 per hundred thousand dollars of assessed value. The third measure would renovate and expand the Children's Library, Mitchell Park Library Community Center, and
renovate the Art Center for $50 million or $25 per one hundred thousand of assessed value. If the full-scale measure received 66-2/3 percent votes, it would pass and trump the other two even
if one of the other measures received more than 66-2/3 percent of the votes. If number one lost and number two received 66-2/3
percent of the votes, it would win. If number two lost and number three received 66-2/3 percent votes, it would win. If neither of them received 66-2/3 percent votes, no measure would pass. In that way, everyone would have a chance to express his or her view. He asked Mr. Tramutola if that plan would work.
06/10/02 94-195
Mayor Ojakian asked if that would be one of the options to review at the next meeting.
Larry Tramutola, Tramutola Company, replied in his opinion the plan would not work. He agreed to parts of Council Member Burch’s suggestion, but he believed the community expected clarity and leadership and for the Council to present the
residents with a plan that would meet those expectations. The community was interested in supporting a plan but wanted it to be a simple and frugal plan. The simplicity was important
because ultimately the 20 percent of undecided voters were composed of a cross section of the community and the survey did
not reveal who they were. The measure had to be a simplistic plan with a clear explanation. He believed three measures would create confusion and non of them would receive 66-2/3 percent of the votes.
Council Member Burch said there had been elections where one issue took precedence over another. Mr. Tramutola said a measure in the Bay Area, which occurred in a Fairfield Unified School District, had Measures A, B, and C,
and people were given various options of which none of the measures passed. He believed the plan with three measures would
be unsuccessful. Council Member Burch asked if he recommended one measure.
Mr. Tramutola responded he would recommend only one measure. He
said, within the research generated by the survey, a measure could be found that would address most of the needs of the community. The measure needed to be clear and concise and every
faction had to be willing to work together. The risks of the measure not passing increased with the length of time that the
debates were allowed to continue. There needed to be a compromise because everyone would not receive everything they wanted out of the measure. Mayor Ojakian noted to the Council that the meeting that evening
was to take the public testimony and he would allow Colleagues to speak, but the item would be continued to the next meeting.
Mr. Tramutola commented the more options presented on the measure, the more complex it became and the interest of the
community would decrease. Council Member Lytle agreed with Council Member Burch regarding the manner in which the media portrayed the library survey. She thanked the consultants for their work and support. She asked if
06/10/02 94-196
the Council choose Option Number 4, what would be done for the Art Center. If the Art Center could not be included in the
measure, what could staff offer as a solution to renovate that facility. The Council wanted to support the efforts made by Art Center supporters. Mayor Ojakian asked whether staff could return with an answer at
the next regular Council meeting. Council Member Morton stated he would support the option that
would establish a dollar amount for each facility. He believed a single measure with an established dollar amount for each
facility would receive more community support. Council Member Freeman said it was the Council’s responsibility to listen to the community and act upon what they said. She also agreed there needed to be a single measure and the survey
results included enough information for the Council to construct a measure that two-thirds of the community would accept. She suggested the Council look at Option Number 4 and modify it to include the Main Library and the Art Center. She suggested that some of the operations that were planned for the Main Library
could be moved to Mitchell Park.
Mr. Benest said staff would respond in writing to the suggestions by Council Members Lytle and Freeman before the next meeting.
Council Member Freeman said the tennis and paddle courts needed
to be included in the discussion for the next meeting. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Option Number 4 could be
modified to include a children’s facility bond to renovate essentials such as plumbing and electricity; the Mitchell Park
Library Community Center reduced community center option; the Art Center for $5 million would go toward children’s facilities; and the Children’s Library would either stay the way it had already been presented or reduced in some fashion. She asked whether those options could come in under $50 million, and also
whether the storm drains would be renovated through a fee or a tax.
Mr. Benest clarified that the storm drain renovation would be paid through a property owner utility fee, which would be put to
a vote at a different time. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether it would be better to renovate the storm drains first or proceed with the library bond.
06/10/02 94-197
Mr. Benest said staff would provide an analysis at the next meeting.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked staff to provide information at the next meeting about the Main Library and Art Center because Option Number 4 only dealt with Mitchell Park.
Council Member Kishimoto said she would support a package under $50 million and asked staff to clarify what part of the renovations was already included in the City Works program. She
also wanted the community to be aware of the total annual operating cost for each option and asked staff to provide those
quotes. Council Member Lytle asked staff when they are making those slimming measures to do so with an eye to strict compliance with national standards for historic protection of the facilities
(both the building and the grounds). Council Member Kleinberg said her expectation was that staff would comply with those guidelines. BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL the item was continued to the Regular June 17, 2002, City Council meeting.
Mr. Benest said the annual budget would be considered at the next meeting and staff would work on clarifying the options and
addressing the questions presented in that evening’s meeting.
Mayor Ojakian thanked the public for participating in the survey, and said he was pleased that 57 percent of the public expressed trust in the City Council. He also thanked Mr.
Tramutola and Ms. Bernstein for their presentation and remarks. No action required. RECESS: 9:30 p.m. to 9:40 p.m.
2. Resolution Certifying Adoption of Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Approval of Conceptual Design of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Project
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said a number of related items should be addressed that evening. If the City chose to
apply for the state bond financing, a decision needed to be made that evening. There were three sets of numbers that had been made public, but the numbers were subject to change during the conceptual design phase. The Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC), the Architectural
06/10/02 94-198
Review Board (ARB), Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the site committee had reviewed the plans.
Wayne Gehrke, Group 4 Architects, said he thought the community was given a daunting task but responded well with inspirational ideas, which helped to craft the design ideas for the Mitchell Park project. The Council approved the feasibility study and
selected scheme 4 on March 11, 2002. Scheme 4 was chosen because it provided joint use by the library and community center and allowed the best access for parking, bicyclists, and
pedestrians.
David Schnee, Group 4 Architects, explained the various rooms in the conceptual design and described how they could accommodate a variety of uses. Ms. Harrison said staff had received input from community
members and professionals who gave them some good advise about the costs and she believed it would be helpful to know who those persons were. It was the group that was looking at all the projects.
City Manager Frank Benest noted that staff had not figured in some of the operational costs for the entire complex. That cost
would be reduced by rental space. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to: 1)
adopt a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Project
(Attachment B of CMR:286:02) with a revision to Mitigation 10 providing for the replacement of the two tennis courts and two paddle tennis courts at a suitable location in South Palo Alto;
and 2) approve the conceptual design of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Project, including relocation of
the tennis and paddle ball courts in South Palo Alto. Resolution 8173 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Project
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (02-EIA-05; 3700 and 3800 Middlefield Road, City of Palo Alto, Proponent)”
Council Member Morton spoke as the liaison to the Parks and
Recreation Commission (PARC) stating the excitement for the project had grown because the facility was well designed and would meet community needs. One of the concerns had been the distance of the entrance from Middlefield Road but Council had insisted upon the green space. The conceptual design had two
06/10/02 94-199
entrances and he believed that was unfortunate because the second entrance was lost walk space.
Council Member Lytle said she was concerned about placing the paddle and tennis courts near the creek or at Cubberley and did not like either option. She believed there would be a significant impact unless there was an option that would not
create further impacts. The daytime population of Palo Alto had increased as playing fields had decreased. The City was planned together with the schools to include school fields as part of
the calculation for meeting neighborhood and district park requirements. As the City moved forward, it did not appear to
be responsible stewardship of the community assets to give up recreational facilities. She did not see that reflected in the conceptual design and, if Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) needed more space in the future, they would need to use the space at Cubberley. Tennis courts could not be placed within
100 feet of a creek so those two options did not seem acceptable. She asked whether there was a way to adjust the site plan to go one more level underground for parking to free up space.
Ms. Harrison asked whether the decision on where the tennis courts would be moved needed to be addressed that evening or if
it could be included in the schematic design. Council Member Lytle said she had an additional concern that
would possibly create some perception problems. It had to do with the architectural rendering of the entryway into the
Mitchell Park facility. The overall architecture of the project conveyed simplicity, but the architect’s rendering in the conceptual design looked too grandiose. She thought it would be
beneficial to have more than one rendering since the community wanted something that was more simplistic.
Council Member Kishimoto said she saw that evening’s discussion as the key Council review of the project because the next step would be the awarding of the construction contract. There were five points that she wanted to either raise as questions or
suggestions. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the project
proponents and the Planning Department would confirm that was not the case. There were a number of other design phases to
complete before the construction contract was awarded. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether Council could direct that they wanted to see the designs return to Council before the construction contract was awarded.
06/10/02 94-200
Ms. Furth said the designs could be reviewed at any point.
Council Member Kishimoto agreed with Council Member Lytle’s comment about the design of the entryway into the facility. She asked how the largest community meeting room in the design compared to the present meeting room.
Mr. Gehrke replied the schematic design was only one phase and Group 4 would continue to work with the community, boards and commissions, and with Council to listen to ideas and review
options. The design would be improved based on what ideas were generated at those meetings. Group 4 would be happy to review
the entryway design to meet the needs of the community. Mr. Schnee said the present community room was approximately 2000 square feet, which was the size proposed for the Oak Room. The Redwood Room was proposed to be 3000 square feet, which was
50 percent larger than the present room. Council Member Kishimoto asked where the bike access and bike parking was located on the plans.
Mr. Schnee replied there were 65 dedicated bike spaces for the building and half of that was proposed in the garage level,
which was the preferable location. A bike cage with 25 spaces would be located in the garage and a bike rack would be located on the surface level.
Mayor Ojakian said he was concerned that the discussion was
becoming too detailed because there was a motion on the floor to adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve the conceptual design.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there could be input on
the site design. Mayor Ojakian answered in terms of the conceptual design, could it be put in the form of an amendment to the motion if she thought it was something that would pass.
Council Member Kishimoto said if Council was going to schedule another review of the site and conceptual design, was that a
commitment from staff.
Ms. Harrison said before staff could decide to begin construction, they would have to bring the schematic design back to Council. Staff would not proceed with schematic designs unless there was a successful bond measure in November and had the funding to move to that next step.
06/10/02 94-201
Council Member Kishimoto asked if it would be useful to have comments about the overall design.
Ms. Harrison said those issues were what staff was attempting to obtain that evening. Council Member Kishimoto said one concern was about the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the site. Mr. Benest said before staff could move forward to the next
phase, there could be a very detailed discussion on the schematic, which would take the project to the next step.
Council Member Kishimoto suggested modifying Mitigation Measure 13 by adding “The Transportation Demand Management Program for the site shall be submitted to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their consideration during the schematic design
phase of the project. Consideration shall be given to extra shuttles for special citywide events at Mitchell Park such as the Chili Cook Off, provisions for special bike arrangements for special events, inclusion of information on limited parking, and alternative transport in publicity for large events, including
privately sponsored events.”
Council Member Morton agreed to an incorporation and to refer the review of a TDM program to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) with the request that they consider additional
shuttles, bike arrangements, and publicity for special events. Their decision would be used to guide Council.
Vice Mayor Mossar said if Council specified the precise instruments to be included, responsibility would be taken away
from P&TC. She supported the amendment, including the language in the original motion that referred the development of the TDM
program to P&TC. She believed it was inappropriate for Council to do the details because that was the responsibility of P&TC. Council Member Kishimoto said to submit it as a consideration, which would indicate to P&TC that Council was interested.
Council Member Mossar said it was unfortunate that anyone would imply the Council was not interested in improvements to the
transportation system. She said she would rely on the maker of the motion whether that was acceptable or not.
Council Member Morton said in the interest of moving forward he would accept the incorporation with consideration of P&TC.
06/10/02 94-202
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to modify Mitigation Measure 13 by adding the following
language: “The Transportation Demand Management Program for the site shall be submitted to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their consideration during the schematic design phase of the project. Consideration shall be given to extra shuttles for special citywide events at Mitchell Park such as
the Chili Cook Off, provisions for special bike arrangements for special events, inclusion of information on limited parking, and alternative transport in publicity for large events, including
privately sponsored events.”
Council Member Kleinberg said she believed Council was attempting to approve conceptual plans and thought it was a mistake to go beyond the policy phase. She believed it was not a good idea to make decisions about the architectural look of the building based on what Council thought the public would or
would not like. She appreciated what the architects tried to do in reflecting the spirit of the community in terms of a love for trees. She supported the motion but asked what Council was being asked to approve about the paddle and tennis courts. She asked whether they were to give approval to move the courts near the
creek or to Cubberley and if they were being asked to make that decision that evening.
Council Member Morton said his motion was to find an appropriate space for the courts.
Ms. Harrison replied somewhere in south Palo Alto would be fine.
There was a spot on the Cubberley site. The ideal solution would be to keep them at Mitchell Park and extend the underground parking, which would not jeopardize the approval of the
mitigated negative declaration. All options could remain open and staff would present pros and cons at a later meeting.
Council Member Freeman said she thought it was important to be clear on where the courts would be located. Two items needed to be accomplished that evening: 1) approve the mitigated negative declaration; and 2) approve the conceptual design.
Ms. Furth said that was correct. The staff was requesting adoption of the resolution approving both the mitigated negative
declaration and the conceptual plan. Council Member Morton’s motion was to approve the resolution for the mitigated negative
declaration and the conceptual plans, with the relocation of the paddle and tennis courts. If Council wished, they could exercise Mitigation Measure 10 because it dated back to an earlier stage, and said “the PARC should consider the need, if any, to replace the two tennis and two paddle tennis courts and
06/10/02 94-203
shall recommend other areas in the 18-acre park to construct new tennis and paddle courts if deemed necessary.” A more succinct
way of putting it, would be “that the paddle tennis and tennis courts should be relocated in south Palo Alto.” Mayor Ojakian said Council Member Freeman indicated she had a question of a slightly different nature in relationship to the
tennis courts. Council Member Freeman said Ms. Furth captured what she was
going to say. She suggested a change in the wording on item number ten to Council Member Morton’s motion. In the mitigated
negative declaration under cultural resources, there was a comment regarding an impact, which said tennis courts might be relocated to the south end of Mitchell Park along Adobe Creek. That area was rated extremely significant in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Although there were no known archaeological
sites of human remains in the area, there was a potential for accidental discovery during new construction. Under recreation, it was said that it was less than a significant impact regarding new recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Ms. Furth said those items had been reviewed. Council could not
change them and then proceed to adopt the mitigated negative declaration that evening. By doing so, new impacts were identified, even if they were mitigated. The environmental
analysis described a determination would have to be made as to whether the four courts needed to be relocated. The motion
before the Council would make that determination; it also reflected the fact that there was no exact determination as to the best location. One of the possible sites that came up during
the course of discussion was along Adobe Creek. If anyone considered building in that area the same process needed to be
followed that was used in other highly sensitive areas. The same procedure was used along San Francisquito Creek. Although there was no evidence of human remains in that area, it was the type of place that could possibly contain them.
Council Member Freeman said it had been heard that those issues needed to be addressed, and she understood there was a time constraint involved. If it was possible to save the courts by
moving the building nearer to Middlefield Road or creating more underground parking, that would save the City from having to
redo the courts. Council Member Burch said the City wanted a sustainable building but it was not necessary for Council to define each detail.
06/10/02 94-204
Council Member Morton said he appreciated Council support of the motion. He pointed out that it was Council Members Freeman and
Kleinberg’s motion in March to set the building back and that necessitated moving the tennis courts. Council Member Lytle asked where the City could relocate the 2,800 square feet of space for tennis courts that would not
create an impact on the creek or consume space at Cubberley. Mayor Ojakian reminded Council there was a motion on the floor
and the discussion would close so that a vote could be taken.
Council Member Lytle asked to say something before the debate was closed. She said it was a very important, critical review of a very significant community facility. She also had a concern with underground parking.
Mayor Ojakian said he understood the concern of each council member. Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said the original plan was to have the tennis courts placed next to the six tennis
courts at Cubberley. The other option was to place the tennis courts in south Palo Alto in Greer Park. It already had an
existing plan, which included tennis courts. A previous Council and the community approved it. At that time, it was looked upon as part of the field proposal. Recommendations would return to
Council regarding those options. The reason Cubberley was chosen was because asphalt was already laid. Another option would be to
place tennis courts on top of expanded underground parking at Mitchell Park.
Council Member Lytle asked whether expanded underground parking would be an option.
Ms. Harrison replied that expanded underground parking would be considered, but she had been cautioned that it would add a significant amount to the project. That information would be brought back to Council.
Mayor Ojakian said he would appreciate having that information because he did not necessarily want underground parking.
Council Member Kleinberg asked staff to consider surface parking
lots with tennis courts over them as is common in Berkeley. Mayor Ojakian said he was familiar with those courts.
06/10/02 94-205
Council Member Kleinberg said her understanding was if the courts were moved, they would be relocated to an appropriate
place in south Palo Alto. She asked if that language could be added. Ms. Furth said tennis courts modification to Section 10 of the mitigated negative declaration was contained in the motion.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
3. Application for California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of
2000 Funds for the Mitchell Park South Resource Library Project Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy said the agreement called for a local matching grant of $10.2 million and providing
supplemental funds to complete the project. The building would be multipurpose because a commitment was made to fund the community center side of the project. A strong case had been made regarding the value of having those two buildings together. If the bond measure did not pass, there would need to be another
way to match the grant.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Ms. Levy asked the Attorney’s Office to add some language that would modify the way the funding was described.
Ms. Levy said they were asked to put in the dollar amount to
make sure the application was accepted. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to:
1) approve a resolution certifying a project budget for the Mitchell Park South Resource Library (reduced library program)
of $29,268,821, the commitment of a 35 percent local funding match of $10,244,087 for the project, and approval of a proposed annual operating budget of $2.6 million upon successful award by the State Bond Act Board and opening of the new library; and 2) authorize the Mayor to sign the Bond Act application.
Resolution 8172 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of an Application
For California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000 Funds
for the Mitchell Park Resource Library Project and Certifying Project Budget, Local Funding Commitment, Supplemental Funds, and Public Library Operation”
06/10/02 94-206
Council Member Freeman asked how much effort would be involved in submitting the application at the reduced rate rather than
the full option, inasmuch as the Main Library was not considered in the grant process. Ms. Harrison replied staff anticipated that Council would not accept staff recommendation. Staff recommended the reduced rate
because of the exposure to the General Fund reserve. Staff would continue to recommend the reduced rate option and even if Council did not accept staff’s recommendation, the deadline
would be met.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the exposure was $3 million. Ms. Harrison answered that it was more.
Mr. Benest said options were developed, which in fact tried to scale down the entire package and focus on what would be funded. Council Member Freeman said she believed the voters should be heard and scaled back could be viewed in several ways. She said
making Mitchell the Main Library could be discussed.
Council Member Lytle said it was good to preserve flexibility as much as possible in the event that adjustments needed to be made to the application.
Mr. Benest stated staff recommended the reduced package and a
decision had to be made as to which option would be used for the application.
Mayor Ojakian said that would offset what could be paid out of the General Fund against what the State would provide if it had
to be paid out of the General Fund. Mr. Benest said money was not being taken out of the General Fund for ongoing services but from the Infrastructure Reserve, which was part of the General Fund.
Council Member Lytle said she supported the motion and believed it was a good application. She suggested if staff was having
difficulty with the population aspect of the application, was there was a way to consider the expansion of the City’s daytime
population since that did impact the use of City libraries. That fact was documented in a Nexus study. She asked whether there was a way to consider the unincorporated County pocket directly adjacent to the City with a population of 25,000.
06/10/02 94-207
Ms. Levy answered that Stanford could not be used by the bond act regulation because it was an unincorporated area of the
County, which was making their own application for two branches. The factor that was being considered was the City’s population. Council Member Lytle said the daytime population expansion could be mentioned because that was a unique feature of the City.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the City would receive the $20 million if the grant application was approved or would the
libraries receive nothing if the application were denied.
Ms. Harrison answered that it was all or nothing. Council Member Mossar asked what would happen if the measure failed and the State approved the application for the library grant.
Mr. Calonne replied the staff recommendation in the report indicated there were infrastructure reserves available to go forward with the project. State law specified if the City chose not to go forward with the project, it would need to return the
grant funds. If Council expressed a present intention to go into reserves if necessary and, if circumstances caused Council
to re-evaluate in the future, that could be done. Council Member Mossar asked whether the decision to move the
grant application forward would bind the Council to a decision to put Mitchell Park Library on the November ballot for a bond
measure. Mr. Calonne replied no. The application did not speak at all to
a bond measure. It essentially represented the full faith and credit of the City to move forward.
Council Member Mossar asked whether it would be acceptable if Council agreed to submit the grant application and later decided to put nothing on the ballot.
Mr. Calonne said yes. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve the Minutes of May 6, 2002, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
06/10/02 94-208
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Burch, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4 and 6, with Item No. 5 removed at the request of staff. ADMINISTRATIVE
4. Approval of Agreement Between City and Palo Alto Unified School District for Development of Everyone's Homework and
Enrichment Center in the Proposed South Resource Library at Mitchell Park
Joint Use Cooperative Agreement for Development of "Everyone’s Homework & Enrichment Center" in the Proposed South Resource Library at Mitchell Park
5. Amendment to Existing Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Foothill DeAnza Business and Industry Institute in
the Amount of $15,715, Changing Contract Amount From $85,000 to $135,000 in Second Contract Year for Employee Training
6. Approval of Second Amendment to the 1996 Measure B Pavement
Management Program Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA); Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Fiscal Year 2001-02 to
Accept Revenue from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund and the VTA and to Provide an Additional Appropriation
to the Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project, Number 9630 in the Amount of $259,916; and Approval of a Contract with Desilva Gates Construction in
the Amount of $2,544,081 for the 2002 Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project 9630
Ordinance 4755 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Accept Revenue from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund and the VTA and Additional Appropriation to the
Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project, Number 9630 in the Amount of $259,916” Amendment No. 2 to the 1996 Measure B Pavement Management Program Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto
and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Desilva Gates Construction in the Amount of $2,544,081 for the 2002 Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project 9630
06/10/02 94-209
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Morton noted the Black and White Ball would be held on June 22, 2002, and the funds would go to the Recreation Foundation.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to a Closed Session.
8. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and Human Resources Director pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations
Employee Organization: Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 8.
Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 8.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.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.
06/10/02 94-210