HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-24 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting June 24, 2002
1. Study Session re Status of AT&T/Comcast Transfer of Ownership Process...........................................240
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m...................240
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................241
1. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Approving the Conceptual Design for Renovation and
Expansion of the Children’s Library.........................241
2. Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program and Approval of Conceptual Design for the Art Center Expansion Project...........................................248
3. Resolution Approving Installation of New Midblock Crosswalk on Channing Avenue between Bryant Avenue and Waverley Street and Relocation of Existing Midblock Crosswalk on Homer Avenue between Bryant Avenue and Waverley Street......255
4. Approval of Resolution to Enter into a Joint Powers
Agreement with Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service.255
5. Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and the Cities of
East Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills for Information Technology Services.............................256
7. Professional Services Agreement Between the City of Palo
Alto and Geodesy in the Amount of $102,000 for Development Support of New Computer Applications linked to the
Geographic Information System (GIS).........................256
8. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C9115650 Between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte and Touche to Increase the
Funding in the Amount of $300,000 for Risk Management Services from the Electric and Gas Funds to Continue to
Provide Assistance in Implementing an Energy Risk
06/24/02 94-238
Management Program for a Total Maximum Compensation of $740,000....................................................256
9. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Safety-Kleen (San Jose), Inc., in the Amount of $420,000 per year, with an Option to Renew for Two Additional Years, for Household and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste Management Program Services...........................256
11. Agreement with Skyhawks Sports Academy for Recreation Youth Sports Contract Camps.......................................256
12. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Gachina
Landscape Management in the Amount of $84,231 for Byxbee Park Vegetation Management..................................256
13. Referral to Policy and Services Committee: Human Relations Commission Proposed Recommendation to the City Council to Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination..................256
14. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in
the Ninth Circuit in Valley Outdoor v. County of Riverside, Docket No. 02-55475.........................................256
14A. (Old Item No. 6) Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bragato Construction Company Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $474,290 for Construction of Harbor Point and Byxbee
Park Parking Lot Improvements...............................256
14B. (Old Item No. 10) Contract Between the City of Palo Alto
and St. Francis Electric in the Amount of $269,915 for Construction of Downtown Street Lighting Improvements (IFB#143754)................................................260
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................262
15. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation.........262
16. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation..................................................263
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m............263
06/24/02 94-239
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman (via teleconference from Carlsbad, CA), Kleinberg, Lytle (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Ojakian
ABSENT: Kishimoto, Morton, Mossar SPECIAL MEETING
1. Study Session re Status of AT&T/Comcast Transfer of
Ownership Process Mayor Ojakian announced that Vice Mayor Mossar would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because there were AT&T holdings in her family. Council Member Morton
would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because he had holdings in AT&T. The purpose for the study session was to give Council an update on the status of the cable transfer request from AT&T/Comcast
and lay out the options that Council would have in deciding the transfer. The Council was informed of the steps staff had taken
with AT&T in negotiating the transfer. Council was informed of the options it would have on July 8, 2002, when they considered the transfer. The options included: 1) approve the transfer
with conditions acceptable to AT&T; 2) approve the transfer with conditions unacceptable to AT&T; and 3) deny the transfer.
The following people spoke regarding their concerns about the AT&T/Comcast Transfer: Audrey Seymour, City of Menlo Park; Bob
Smith, 2291 Greer Road; Joe Rolfe, 1360 Emerson Street; Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632; Doug DeLong, 982 Wright Avenue, #1; and
Mike Liveprisn, 260 Byron Street. No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
06/24/02 94-240
Special Meeting
June 24, 2002 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 (via teleconference from Carlsbad, CA at 7:23 p.m.), Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ABSENT: Kishimoto
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Glenna Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, spoke regarding trucks on University Avenue.
Dieter Folta, 97 Erstwild Court, spoke regarding the library bond. Sophia Dhrymes, spoke regarding finances.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding regulations for use
of parks and open space. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics.
Lorraine VanDeRiet, 271 Creekside Drive, spoke regarding
libraries. City Attorney Ariel Calonne spoke regarding park regulations.
REPORT OF OFFICIALS
1. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Approving the Conceptual Design for Renovation and Expansion of the Children’s Library
Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen presented a video that depicted issues surrounding the Children’s Library. He said
it was not only an expansion project. The expanded space was to accommodate the existing services but not try to create space
for new programs. The plan had to meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation. The program required 12,000 square feet for the expansion of the Children’s Library; however, due to the constricted site the conceptual design was only for 10,625 square feet.
06/24/02 94-241
Cathleen Malmstrom, Project Architect for the Architectural Resources Group, spoke about goals of the Library Plan. Goals
were to relieve the overcrowding and improve the efficiency of the Library; to accommodate program needs; repair deteriorated facilities for safety and accessibility; preserve the significant features of the Library while accomplishing all of the needed upgrades; and rehabilitate the Secret Garden in
conjunction with the building project. She also covered the conceptual design of the building.
Mr. Thiltgen said one of the issues that came with the expansion of the library was the issue on parking. The Lucie Stern parking
lot was reconfigured to include ten additional spaces. The New Library Plan was approved by the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC).
Library Advisory Commissioner Mary Jean Place, 809 Northampton Place, asked for Council’s support on the project. Historic Resources Board Member Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona
Street, said the HRB felt that additions could be made on the north and south end of the building. She was concerned about
the historic passageway between the Community Theater and Library being referred to as an alley or driveway. The passageway was always shown in the designs as a pedestrian
walkway. The HRB questioned the narrowing of the library by taking three feet from the width of the south addition. Since
that made a significant difference in the design of the building, the HRB asked if the historic passageway could be reduced, which would eliminate narrowing of the building.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
the staff recommendation as follows: 1) adopt a Resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Children’s Library Expansion Project (Attachment E of CMR:299:02); and 2) approve the conceptual design of the Children’s Library Expansion Project with the intention that this project is to
conform to Secretary of Interior Standards. Resolution 8183 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and
Approving the Conceptual Design for Renovation and Expansion of the Children’s Library (02-EIA-06, 1276 Harriet Street, City of Palo Alto, Proponent)”
06/24/02 94-242
Council Member Morton had reservations regarding the alleyway between Children’s Theatre and the Library and asked that the
width not be made narrower than 13 feet. Council Member Freeman asked whether the vegetation along the north perimeter would sufficiently hide the bathroom windows that faced the house across the driveway.
Ms. Malmstrom said the bathroom windows of the library were much higher and did not directly face the house. Every effort would
be made for the public restrooms to have maximum privacy. The final design of the windows could be made with non-clear glass
and made inoperable. Council Member Freeman asked if one of the single doors from the Library into the Secret Gardens could be replaced with double doors so people could get in and out easier. She also had
concerns about two hidden corner spots in the paseo and asked that security be upgraded at those two points. Ms. Malmstrom said the two corners had been modified to improve security. The corners had been changed from ten-foot to three-
foot high corners. A door was added to one corner and landscape to the other.
Council Member Lytle asked if it was a requirement of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to make a distinction between
the additions and the historic, or could the architecture be duplicated.
Ms. Malmstrom said it was a very strong requirement
Council Member Lytle asked how it was done in the design.
Ms. Malmstrom said she did not know since it was still a conceptual design. However, changes were normally made in the materials or detailing, or having some sort of visual break between the two, either by glazing, revealing the setback, or bringing forward an addition. There were a number of ways to
differentiate and specific changes would be made as the project moved forward.
Council Member Lytle referred to the area that had the highest sensitivity impact and asked which was the addition that
extended into the Secret Garden with the removal of six Sycamore trees, and what was the evaluation of the impact in relation to changes that already happened in the Garden. The main courtyard originally was a mirror image of the Secret Garden. Then the Theatre was put into two quadrants of the Garden and a majority
06/24/02 94-243
of the Sycamore trees were removed, which was part of the original historic garden design. With the current design,
another 20 percent of the Sycamore trees were removed. She asked for an explanation on how the removal of another 20 percent of the original garden design was considered as not being a significant impact.
Ms. Malmstrom said she did not think 20 percent of the design was removed. It was a total of 5 out of 31 trees, which was only 5 percent of the garden area. Every effort was made in making
the design as transparent as possible. Part of the mitigation for the loss of the 5 trees was to relocate them in another area
of Garden. Council Member Lytle asked about the cost of adding square footage at the site. It was either double, triple, or quadruple the amount of what it would be at the Mitchell Park Library.
She asked if some portion of program space could be moved from that site to Mitchell Park, which might eliminate the need for the reading room intrusion into the Secret Garden or help open up the walkway area.
City Manager Frank Benest said the site was relatively costly to redevelop and expand. The community had stated that they valued
the institution and rated it the best library community service facility. The citizens wanted a library that would adequately provide the programs and services expected at that location. He
felt it was a value issue more than a cost issue.
Council Member Lytle asked whether some of the children’s programs could be relocated to the Mitchell Park Library for cost savings purposes; what segment of the programs could
feasibly be moved.
Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy said the answer was what the New Library Plan should be. The children’s program space that was planned for Mitchell Park was larger than what was planned for that site. The current use of the Children’s Library was extraordinary. When the Mitchell Park Library opened, she did
not anticipate that north Palo Altans would use that library. The Plan envisioned having similar library service for children in both north and south Palo Alto. The program at Mitchell Park
envisioned a program room for children.
Council Member Lytle recapped by saying it would be possible to take some portion of the program from Children’s Library to Mitchell Park Library, but some of the services in north Palo Alto would be lost.
06/24/02 94-244
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts briefly discussed the Cost Review Committee’s drafted comments. Their comments showed
the potential of transferring services from the Children’s Library to the Main Library. It would be more cost-effective to build new space on an unconstrained site than to build it at the Children’s Library. The option of transferring to Mitchell was not considered. If that option were taken, there would have been
associated site and cost constraints since Mitchell already had significant site constraints with the structured parking.
Council Member Lytle suggested an amendment that would allow in approval of the conceptual design, a caveat to adjust to the
site plan, and other site plans given the recommendations going forward from the Library Cost Committee. Council Member Beecham noticed in Birge Clark’s 1940 drawings, a structure between the Library and the Theatre and there was a
transition in size between the two. He felt that was a key element of how Mr. Clark would have modified the building in the future. He also referenced the structure between the Library and the Theater as it impinged on the Garden. Staff had mentioned that it was a transition to the Theatre, and it also
softened the tall wall. He noted when staff said that it substantially conformed to the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standard, it was primarily because of the impact on the Garden. He asked if that was correct or was there some other impact that was affecting the City’s compliance with the Standards.
Planning Project Manager Tricia Schimpp said the word
“substantially” simply meant that staff wanted the plans for the building as well as the Garden to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Council Member Beecham asked whether that could be interpreted
to be not completely complying. Ms. Schimpp said “substantially” was a way of indicating that these plans would go through review, and to ensure that plans complied with the Standards.
Mayor Ojakian reiterated that Vice Mayor Mossar had asked for her motion to include the fact that the City must comply with
those standards.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the resolution, if adopted, approved the mitigation negative declaration and the conceptual plan had a set of mitigated measures that stated “it shall be designed in substantial measures.”
06/24/02 94-245
Mayor Ojakian said the word “substantial” should be removed from Item #1, Exhibit “A” to Attachment “E”.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO remove under section number one of Exhibit “A” to Attachment “E” of CMR:305:02 the word “substantial.”
Council Member Beecham supported the motion. Council Member Kleinberg asked what the maximum parking was for
the reconfigured parking space for the entire site.
Ms. Schimpp said currently there were 100 spaces with an additional 10 spaces required to satisfy the needs of the expansion. According to the traffic consultant, it could be maximized to 144 spaces.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what the cost was for completing the fire sprinkler system at the Children’s Theater and where the funds come from. Mr. Thiltgen said it would cost about $50,000 and would come
from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds.
Council Member Kleinberg said Birge Clark’s sketch showed a one-story building for possible expansion. She asked since that was a one-story addition and the entire space was needed for the
program, was it possible to take the space of the second-story over the lobby and stairwell, place it over the glassed-in
reading area of the first floor and use the upstairs space in the back of the building rather than in the front. That would give a step-back appearance from Harriet Street.
Ms. Malmstrom said that idea would be taken into consideration.
Council Member Kleinberg discussed the staff’s review on the possibility of scaling back the Children’s Library in some fashion in order to create space to accommodate the current and future needs.
Council Member Burch said renovating an historic building could be costly. He also spoke of the width of the passageway and
discouraged minimizing it any more than it was.
Council Member Freeman asked that the renovation of the Secret Garden, reconfiguration of the Lucie Stern parking lot, relocation of the electrical equipment and fire sprinklers at the Children’s Theater be included in the total price tag.
06/24/02 94-246
Mayor Ojakian reiterated that would be included in the total project capital cost of $6.5 million.
Council Member Freeman wanted verification that the Cost Advisory Committee’s Report would be taken into consideration. Mr. Benest said the Cost Advisory Committee Report would be
presented to the Council as soon as it was compiled. Council Member Freeman asked how that would influence decisions
made at that evening.
Mr. Benest said it would add information that would help identify if the cost of the conceptual planning phase were reasonable. The community was told the proposed bond measure would cost a certain amount of money and he confirmed that the estimated amount was reasonable for the projects. It also
translated into additional property tax paid per $100,000 of access value. Council Member Freeman asked that all additional costs be considered in the cost evaluation, which would return to Council
for discussion.
Council Member Lytle supported the motion but had regrets that more of the Secret Garden was being taken away in the design.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether the $682,000 was in addition to the current annual operating cost or did it include the operating
cost. Ms. Levy said it was additional cost projected including
materials.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether the $682,000 was in addition to the current cost. Ms. Levy said that was correct.
Mayor Ojakian asked what percentage of the overall usage was for that particular library.
Ms. Levy said Mitchell Park, Main, and Children’s Libraries accounted for approximately 86 percent of the use and about 28-
30 percent of the entire library use. Mayor Ojakian said the parking aspect was greatly emphasized in the conceptual designs and asked how many spaces would the bikes and strollers accommodate.
06/24/02 94-247
Ms. Malmstrom said she did not have that number. There would be dedicated areas for bikes and strollers but the goal is not to
have them all over the front lawn. Ms. Schimpp added that the zoning standards required 25 percent for automobile parking spaces and of that, 25 percent was for bicycle parking. The dedicated areas for strollers and bicycles
would be made visible from inside the building. Mayor Ojakian supported the motion. Being a long-time user of
the building, he was pleased to see that many good changes were happening to the building.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kishimoto absent.
RECESS: 9:00 p.m. to 9:17 p.m.
2. Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report for the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program and Approval of Conceptual Design for the Art Center Expansion Project
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth explained that staff report (CMR:305:02) would be presented in a legal format, and
there were two Resolutions being presented. The first Resolution certified the Newell/Embarcadero Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as being legally adequate under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). That certification of the Resolution meant the document provided necessary information.
It did not mean that any particular project was being approved. The second Resolution was requesting approval for a conceptual design only of elements of the project originally studied in the
EIR. Those elements were described in Attachment H of CMR:305:02.
Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen gave an overview. The first portion dealt with the EIR. It was followed with a presentation of the Newell/Embarcadero conceptual design and a conceptual design for the Art Center expansion project. The
project would be returning to the Council in a schematic design along with a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan. He then gave a presentation on two conceptual designs for the Main Library.
The designs were reviewed and the Boards and Commissions approved the adequacy of the drafted EIR.
Mark Cavagnero, Architect, Mark Cavagnero and Associates, gave a presentation of the conceptual site plan as outlined in the staff report (CMR:305:02).
06/24/02 94-248
Mr. Thiltgen discussed the conceptual design for the Main Library, which had two schemes: the Retention Scheme that would
retain the reading room with additions, and the Replacement Scheme that would replace the existing library with a new library. Jeff Scherer, Architect, Meyer, Sher and Rockcastle, gave a
presentation on the conceptual design of the Main Library as outlined in the staff report (CMR:305:02).
City Manager Frank Benest refocused on the staff’s recommendation stating there were three phases to the project.
Due to the significant cost of the full potential project, it was not determined which phase was funded or in what order it was proposed until the Art Center returned with a proposal. It was critical to the Art Center Foundation that the conceptual design be approved in order for them to begin a capital
campaign. Staff and the Art Center Foundation would return to Council with a schematic design of the actual focus of the effort as well as the TDM program for this expansion. Ms. Furth said the first Resolution, Attachment G of the staff
report (CMR:305:02), was a bare-bones approval of the final EIR.
Library Advisory Commission (LAC) Chairperson Tina Kass, said the Council directive to staff was that explore the November Bond Measure include two key components of the New Library Plan
(NLP), which was an excellent first step toward the improvement and expansion of library services for Palo Alto. The LAC
strongly supported the action and considered it as Phase I of the implementation of the New Library Plan.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, asked that a simple mitigation be done to: further hour restrictions, protect the
gardeners from intensive noise during the six days allowed for construction and monitor noise. Art Center Foundation Board of Directors President Carolyn Tucher, 4264 Manuela Way, spoke on the need for improvements to
the Art Center. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke on the connector road that
appeared to be a traffic bypass through the Library parking lot to avoid the signal light at Embarcadero and Newell Roads. He
also spoke on revised floor area estimates between net and gross square footage and the reduced program for the Replacement Scheme of a 14 percent increase and a 15 percent increase in the Retention Scheme. The resource impact of dollars outlined in the staff report (CMR:305:02) did not show how it related to the
06/24/02 94-249
previous dollar figures. He asked to what extent the dollar figures were increased. There was also a project management-
staffing estimate to pursue the final construction design, and he asked what the dollar amount increase was for those positions for Children’s and Mitchell Park Libraries. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, spoke on her concerns of the
possible parking problems that could occur if the conceptual designs were approved.
Historic Resources Board Chairperson Martin Bernstein, P.O. Box 1739, referred to the staff recommendation, which did not ask
Council to make a final decision on the Replacement or the Retention Scheme, but Council could make a project determination and adopt a statement to override considerations for the Main Library. If that were to be discussed that evening, he felt it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the issues to
override considerations for the Main Library. MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1) adopt the Resolution certifying the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment
G of CMR:305:02); and 2) adopt the Resolution approving the conceptual design for Renovation and Expansion of the Palo Alto Art Center and related site improvements and approving a
Mitigation and Monitoring Program, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment II of CMR:305:02).
Further, to revise: 1) Attachment G, Section 1(6), third paragraph, “The Art Center also appears eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and the California
Register of Historic Resources. The proposed additions to the Art Center would be designed and built in substantial compliance
with The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The impact to the Art Center is thus considered less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is required;” 2) Attachment H, Section 2, “The conceptual design for the
renovation and expansion of the Art Center and related site improvements as shown on those plans attached as Exhibits A and C and drawings prepared by Mark Associates/SWA Group dated June
14, 2002 and on file with the Department of Planning and Community Development are hereby approved;” and 3) Attachment H,
Section 3, “As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15097, the City has prepared a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, titled ‘Art Center Renovation and Expansion Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan’ (‘MMRP’) attached to this resolution as Exhibit B and is hereby adopted.”
06/24/02 94-250
Resolution 8184 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (1213 And 1313 Newell Road, City of Palo Alto, Proponent)”
Resolution 8185 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Conceptual Design for
Renovation and Expansion of the Palo Alto Art Center and Related Site Improvements and Approving a Mitigation and
Monitoring Program, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act” Vice Mayor Mossar said she was comfortable with the conceptual plans for the Art Center. However, she had concerns regarding
the parking situation; the roads and the reduction of garden space in the proposed site improvements. She wanted to make sure that public lands were not to be used to accommodate the automobile unless it was absolutely necessary, and when making the final approval for improvements, that minimum open space be
used.
Council Member Lytle asked for clarification on what was being approved that evening.
Mr. Benest explained that Council was asked to acknowledge the full potential build-out of the Art Center and all of its
necessary improvements. The Art Center Foundation would do a follow up by letting Council know the amount of money raised and the phase it would be applied to, which would be given to
Council for final approval.
Council Member Lytle said she heard that Council would be getting a phasing plan to approve. She raised her concern about the potential conflict with the ability to raise private funds and the ability to appeal to the taxpayers. In raising private funds, one needed to have a motivating project to generate
support from the art community making them feel inspired to give money.
Mayor Ojakian thought the Council was at the stage of not considering adding the Art Center to any bond proposal and asked
whether Council Member Lytle’s comment on taxpayers related to thinking in general because eventually taxpayers’ money will be needed.
06/24/02 94-251
Council Member Lytle thought of just devoting the General Fund money to the project.
Mayor Ojakian understood Council Member Lytle saying that the area reduction for the Children’s Library Garden was 10 percent and not 5 percent Council Member Lytle confirmed there was a 5 percent reduction
and wanted to know with the Children’s Theater addition, how much was reduced in the past. She thought it was much more significant.
Council Member Freeman asked whether Vice Mayor Mossar intended
to include changing the statement regarding conforming to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Vice Mayor Mossar said yes, and to strike the word “substantially”.
Council Member Freeman stated that although approval was being made conceptually, it clearly was going in the direction for approval rather than conceptual approval. The City was doubling the size of the footprint at Newell and Embarcadero Roads going
from 28 feet, 8 inches to 53 feet, 3 inches for the Art Center and from 26 feet, 8 inches to 53 feet for the Library. She asked
for clarification on the noise ordinance issue. If a neighbor had a noise complaint during construction hours, what would they need to do to rectify the problem.
Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said there was a noise
ordinance that restricted construction hours. It prohibited construction hours on Sundays and limited the hours considerably on Saturdays. In addition, there was a Construction Management
Program that informed the neighbors of peak hours of construction noise and allowed neighbors to report noise
complaints to the Construction Management Program or the Police Department. Monitoring was automatically done to ensure there was not a noise intrusion. Council Member Freeman asked what the radius was that
encompassed the neighbors getting that information. Mr. Lusardi said he did not have the answer but the minimum was
300 feet plus all the neighborhood associations. If the noise problem became a sensitive issue, then a broader noticing was
done, such as noticing in the newspapers or a pre-construction neighborhood meeting to inform neighbors of the processes for noise complaints.
06/24/02 94-252
Council Member Freeman asked if there would be a report given to Council on how the problem was fixed.
Mr. Lusardi said a report would be done. In the Construction Management Program, staff prepared a report prior to Council awarding any kind of construction project.
Council Members Beecham, Burch, Freeman, and Kleinberg supported the motion.
Council Member Lytle asked to amend the motion to revise the EIR sections that described the impacts on the Community Gardens so
it was considered as an impact that needed mitigation. The relocation of 10 percent of the garden was truly a loss in outdoor gardening and recreational space. Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether she was correct in understanding
that the mitigation program was being adopted. Ms. Furth said that it was correct. Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether there was a mitigation
specifically called out to address the loss of those garden plots in the mitigation program.
Council Member Lytle thought it was the relocation of the gardening plots and felt that it was a loss of outdoor
recreation space. She would like to see another mitigation measure that did not diminish the recreation facility space.
She asked that this be added to the motion. Vice Mayor Mossar said she did not understand what other
mitigation could be done and suggested that Council Member Lytle pursue it as another motion.
Council Member Lytle thought Vice Mayor Mossar was alluding to it in her motion and that was to look at TDM, redesign the site so that less parking was necessary without needing to intrude into the 10 percent of the garden area.
Vice Mayor Mossar did not accept the amendment. AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Freeman, to
add another mitigation measure to preserve the garden space, and
design a site plan that would include internal circulation in a different configuration that did not impact the garden.
06/24/02 94-253
Council Member Freeman wanted to know the actual reason for the necessity of the connector road through the Library Parking Lot.
Mayor Ojakian said the motion dealt with a mitigation measure to
not relocate the garden and to look at the site plan in a way to preserve it.
Council Member Freeman said that was correct, and also to see if the connector road was affecting the preservation of the garden. Mr. Lusardi said the critical factor of the connector road was to facilitate internal circulation and strengthen the two
parking lots accessible for joint use. The connector road made both parking lots accessible from Embarcadero or Newell Roads.
Council Member Beecham said the Council was talking about
mitigation measures and preferred to focus on mitigation rather than the plan design.
Ms. Furth said the issue was addressed at the previous discussion and was part of the traffic study as explained by Bob Morris, Project Engineer. One of the key reasons for having the connector road was the impact on off-site circulation. If you had disconnected parking lots, that encouraged off-site circulation,
which was one of the things that needed to be avoided.
Council Member Kleinberg said the Eleanor Pardee Park gardens had a lot of underutilized spaces that could be improved into a recreational or garden use.
Mr. Thiltgen confirmed and said there was about 10,000 square feet that could be converted into garden plots. Council Member Kleinberg said she acknowledged Council Member
Lytle’s point that there was land lost, but there was also an opportunity to increase the net amount of organic gardening or
recreation field through the process. Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct.
Council Member Kleinberg recalled that the community gardeners
who would rather not lose the 10 percent of land agreed to the mitigation. Mr. Thiltgen said he did commit and assured the community gardeners that they would not lose the space.
Mayor Ojakian said he understood Council Members Lytle’s concerns for the need to preserve a particular area. On the
06/24/02 94-254
other hand, concern was raised that a piece of land was originally intended for some other use and because of its lack
of use, another activity was allowed to happen and it institutionalized itself. He did not support the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED: 1-7, Lytle “yes,” Kishimoto absent.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kishimoto absent. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ojakian removed Item No. 6 to become Item No. 14A.
Council Member Lytle removed Item No. 10 to become Item No. 14B. Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in Item No. 8 due to a potential conflict of interest because her
husband’s law firm represented Deloitte & Touche. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton to approve Item Nos. 3–5, 7-9, and 11-14 on the Consent Calendar.
LEGISLATIVE
3. Resolution Approving Installation of New Midblock Crosswalk
on Channing Avenue between Bryant Avenue and Waverley Street and Relocation of Existing Midblock Crosswalk on Homer Avenue between Bryant Avenue and Waverley Street
Resolution 8186 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Removing a Crosswalk Between Intersections on Homer Avenue Between Bryant Street and Waverley Street Preparatory to Relocation in the Same
Block”
Resolution 8187 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Crosswalk on Channing Avenue Between Bryant Street And Waverley Street”
4. Approval of Resolution to Enter into a Joint Powers
Agreement with Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service
Resolution 8188 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto to Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service” ADMINISTRATIVE
06/24/02 94-255
5. Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and the Cities of East Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills for
Information Technology Services 7. Professional Services Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Geodesy in the Amount of $102,000 for Development Support of New Computer Applications linked to the
Geographic Information System (GIS) 8. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C9115650 Between the City
of Palo Alto and Deloitte and Touche to Increase the Funding in the Amount of $300,000 for Risk Management
Services from the Electric and Gas Funds to Continue to Provide Assistance in Implementing an Energy Risk Management Program for a Total Maximum Compensation of $740,000
9. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Safety-Kleen (San Jose), Inc., in the Amount of $420,000 per year, with an Option to Renew for Two Additional Years, for Household and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste Management Program Services
11. Agreement with Skyhawks Sports Academy for Recreation Youth
Sports Contract Camps 12. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Gachina
Landscape Management in the Amount of $84,231 for Byxbee Park Vegetation Management
13. Referral to Policy and Services Committee: Human Relations Commission Proposed Recommendation to the City Council to
Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
14. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the Ninth Circuit in Valley Outdoor v. County of Riverside, Docket No. 02-55475 MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3-5, 7, 9, and 11-14, Kishimoto absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 8, Kleinberg “not participating,”
Kishimoto absent.
14A. (Old Item No. 6) Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bragato Construction Company Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $474,290 for Construction of Harbor Point and Byxbee Park Parking Lot Improvements
06/24/02 94-256
City Manager Frank Benest presented two options for Council on
this agenda item. One was that the Municipal Code allowed an administrative site and design process. The other option was for the full Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), Architectural Review Board (ARB), and City Council site and design process.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest, spoke on the site and design review process for this project and felt the site and design review
process was handled incorrectly. It was a major project and the public should have been involved in looking at the process. She
asked that a full site and design review be done and Council speak to staff about the process. Mayor Ojakian asked Ms. Renzel, since she was so familiar with the area, what brought her to the conclusion that it was a
significant project.
Ms. Renzel said the landfill area of the parking lot was going to be decommissioned and a decision needed to be made on how that was going to be used so it would be consistent with the
Baylands Master Plan, which should not be a staff decision without guidance from the P&TC. Changes were being made in that
area, making it look more like an urban setting. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke about his disapproval of the process on awarding the contract for this project without a site and design review.
Mayor Ojakian asked that the City Attorney comment on Mr. Borock’s statement.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the question was “should a
contract be awarded without having approvals done.” It was not ideal, but it certainly was what a private applicant would do;
hire a contractor prior to having the project approved. He did not see it as a legal defect. Certainly one would not give a starting order until one received necessary approvals. The
argument was not about whether there would be site and design review, but whether it was going to happen administratively or
through another hearing process. The code allowed a site and review to be done administratively when the project involved a minor change. Minor change was defined as an alteration of an
existing plan that was quite a bit smaller in size, scope, or importance than the basic plan. In that case, the staff stated
that a parking lot was consistent with the Baylands Master Plan and the use of non-petroleum, paving materials was a minor modification of the Baylands Master Plan. They believed it was
06/24/02 94-257
substantially inferior in bulk degree or importance to the overall plan, so it could be approved through the minor change
process. What Mr. Borock referred to was a provision in the chapter that stated not to use minor changes when the opinion of the Planning Director of the project change was or would be controversial. If it was a minor change from a previously approved plan, the process described was legally adequate. He
advised to condition performance the contract on obtaining the necessary approvals and consult with Open Space and Sciences Superintendent Greg Betts to make sure the City had that power
under the contract.
Open Space and Sciences Superintendent Greg Betts said staff did have that provision of “no notice to proceed,” which was scheduled and waiting for a final approval from the Regional Water Quality Board before the next steps were taken.
Council Member Lytle said when a site and design review was diverted from the longer process, especially in a Baylands situation, it was diverted to the ARB. She asked whether it was diverted to the ARB so a public hearing could be scheduled and people would be notified of the change.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said it had been determined
to have that done at staff level. It was interpreted to mean either with the full ARB or at staff level, whether it was minor or not.
Council Member Lytle said that explained a lot because it was
not used for several years as the practice under that section of the law. If there was a minor site and design approval, it always was at a minimum, especially in a controversial area,
sent to the ARB so there would be a public hearing and some kind of design consideration according to the Baylands Master Plan.
She thought there could be some compromise, which meant not necessarily going through the full site and design process. It could at a minimum be taken to the ARB and have staff do a thorough policy analysis of the project prior to moving forward on the contract.
Mr. Benest said it seemed like a reasonable compromise. The site and design review would be done and then forwarded to the ARB
for comments, prior to moving forward with the contract. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Bragato Construction Inc. in an amount not to exceed $474,390 for construction services to implement Harbor Point and Byxbee Park parking lot improvements;
06/24/02 94-258
and 2) authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with
Bragato Construction Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $47,000. Further, to include a revision that the Mayor not sign the contract until after a minor site and design review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Council Member Freeman asked why the Mayor pulled the item.
Mayor Ojakian felt that the public should publicly hear the answer to the concerns.
Mr. Calonne said the staff report (CMR:218:02) should have identified the approval process of building a parking lot at the Baylands. That did not happen and was corrected. By not including the approval process, it created a disconnect with the
interested public. Council Member Kleinberg said the cost for this contract was considerably higher than what was estimated by the engineers. The estimate was $360,000 and the bid came in at almost
$475,000. The $114,000 difference was a considerable amount of money. She asked if the contract could go out to bid again
after the site and design review. Mr. Benest said since it was difficult to get bids on the
project, to go around the second time might generate a higher price. It would be okay to postpone the project, but he advised
that if that approach was taken he did not think bids would come in at a better price.
Council Member Kleinberg said there would be time for a site and design review and a plan that would assure the Baylands would be
protected and would fit into the Baylands Master Plan. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Freeman, for the Council not to accept the contract bid, and that the contract be put out for bid again after the plan was
sent back to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for site and design review.
Vice Mayor Mossar said she understood Council Member Lytle’s motion to have time for site and design prior to giving it to
the ARB, but work could not proceed until the site and design was complete.
06/24/02 94-259
Council Member Kleinberg said specifically that the bid was not being accepted for the reason that the estimate came in too
high. The City was a captive contractor with one bidder. Council Member Morton supported the main motion but not the substitute motion.
Council Member Beecham supported the main motion but not the substitute motion.
Council Member Freeman supported the substitute motion.
Council Member Lytle supported the substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-5, Freeman, Kleinberg, Lytle, “yes,” Kishimoto absent. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Kleinberg “no,” Kishimoto absent. 14B. (Old Item No. 10) Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and St. Francis Electric in the Amount of $269,915 for Construction of Downtown Street Lighting Improvements
(IFB#143754)
Council Member Lytle was concerned because a contract was award without the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval.
Director of Utilities John Ulrich spoke on the project to increase the lighting levels in the Downtown area as outlined in
the staff report (CMR:287:02). MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Mossar, to refer
the item to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for design review.
Council Member Lytle was concerned about the selection of the lighting pattern that was selected. It was labeled as a random pattern as opposed to a formal, uniform spacing of the light fixture. Light spacing would interfere with the tree canopy
causing problems with the pruning of the trees. She felt that the plan should be reviewed by the ARB.
Vice Mayor Mossar said in reading the staff report she had concerns on how the lighting would look.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by
Burch, to: 1) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract with St. Francis Electric in the amount of $269,915 for downtown street lighting improvements; and 2)
06/24/02 94-260
authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with St.
Francis Electric for related, additional but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project, the total value which shall not exceed $26,990. Council Member Burch pointed out that the bid was 24 percent
below the engineer’s estimate. Council Member Freeman felt she could have supported the item in
its original form if she had more information and asked to utilize the boards and commissions for their opinion.
Council Member Beecham supported the substitute motion. Council Member Kleinberg asked the City’s Arborist if it was necessary to go to the ARB to protect the trees or if the plan is acceptable.
Arborist Dave Dockter said if there was a conflict with the tree canopy and the lights, it would just be a matter of a simple adjustment. He felt that was what the ARB process would facilitate.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the ARB would require
anything more than what Mr. Dockter had stated. Mr. Dockter said if there was a conflict, staff would assist in
the siting of the lights.
Council Member Kleinberg asked if that would be done anyway. Mr. Docktor said yes.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the 12-foot height of the
lights had any affect on residents living in those areas. Mayor Ojakian said he was not sure if there were residents in these areas.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said there were some residents in those areas, and the town architect would be able to help with the analysis on light reflections and how it would
impact residents and commercial uses.
Council Member Freeman asked whether that would happen automatically or would it require a motion. Ms. Grote said it would happen automatically.
06/24/02 94-261
Council Member Lytle asked with the process staff was proposing, would residents and businesses be notified of upcoming changes.
Ms. Grote said they would do a courtesy noticing and also place an ad in the newspapers. Council Member Lytle said she preferred to defer to the main
motion, which was to follow the ARB process that included public notification and the board that was equipped for public hearings could hear from the public and incorporate that into their
findings of approval. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDED to include courtesy notices to residents in
the affected areas. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 5-3, Freeman, Lytle, Mossar “no,”
Kishimoto absent. COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Morton asked if staff had addressed the proposal
by Senator Torlakson (SB 1243) regarding Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). City Manager Frank Benest replied staff was drafting a letter
for the Mayor’s signature indicating the City’s concerns.
Council Member Burch noted he had attended the Tall Tree Toastmasters Award Ceremony earlier that day and recognized their accomplishments.
Mayor Ojakian noted that on Wednesday, June 26, 2002, at 5 p.m.,
a ceremony would be held at Werry Park. There would be a ceremony at Hoover Park on Thursday, June 27, 2002, for completion of the restrooms. He thanked the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) including Kerry Wright and Beth Trailer for the Black and White Ball event.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to a Closed Session. 15. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a
California Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court case No.: 01-30923DM
06/24/02 94-262
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
16. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Written liability claim against the City of Palo
Alto by Allstate Insurance Co./John Stewart Authority: Government Code sections 54956.9(b)(1) &
(b)(3)(C)
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation and potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 15 and 16.
Mayor Ojakian announced that on a 7-1 vote with Council Members Freeman and Kishimoto absent, the City Council authorized settlement of a claim by Allstate Insurance in the amount of $17,677.53. Motion by Kleinberg, seconded by Mossar.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:20 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.
06/24/02 94-263