HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-10 City Council Summary Minutes
11/10/2014 116- 068
Regular Meeting
November 10, 2014
Study Session ........................................................................................71
1. Council Study Session with Parks and Recreation Commission. ............71
2. Partner Presentation Between the Palo Alto Library and Palo Alto Art
Center for Veteran Audiences. .........................................................79
3. Appointment of Candidates to the Architectural Review Board, the
Historic Resources Board, and the Planning and Transportation
Commission. ..................................................................................80
City Manager Comments .........................................................................86
Oral Communications ..............................................................................87
Minutes Approval ....................................................................................89
Consent Calendar ...................................................................................89
4. Policy and Service Committee Recommendation to Release Agenda
Packets One Week Earlier and Make Other Conforming Changes. .........89
5. Finance Committee Recommendation that the City Council Approve
Design Guidelines for the 2014 Water Utility Drought Rate Cost of
Service Study. ...............................................................................90
6. Finance Committee Recommends Approval of Staff's Second Follow-up
Response to the Inventory Management Audit. ..................................90
7. Resolution 9446 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Summarily Vacating Public Easement Which has been Relocated at
1050 Page Mill Road.” .....................................................................90
8. Denial of a Historic Designation Request for the Palo Alto Little League
Site Located at 3672 Middlefield Rd. .................................................90
9. Resolution 9467 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Concurring with the City of Menlo Park for the Naming of the Mike
Harding Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge at San Mateo Drive (Menlo Park).” ...90
10. Approval of Contract With Concern: EAP for the City of Palo Alto's
Employee Assistance Plan, in the Amount of $2,800.60 per Month for
up to Sixty Months for a Total Amount not to Exceed $168,036. ..........90
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 69
11. Approval of a Public-Private Partnership Agreement between the City
of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Players for the Cooperative Use of the
Lucie Stern Community Theatre. ......................................................90
12. Approval of the Renewal of a Public-Private Partnership Agreement
Between the City of Palo Alto and West Bay Opera for the Use of the
Lucie Stern Community Theatre. ......................................................90
13. Approval of a Three Year Contract with Downtown Streets, Inc. in a
Total Amount Not to Exceed $470,616 for Maintenance Services for the
City's Five Downtown Parking Garages, Downtown Sidewalks and
Alleys, Lytton and Cogswell Plazas, the Stanford/Palo Alto Playing
Fields, and the Old Community Garden, and Provide Outreach Case
Management Services to the Downtown Core with the Intent of Linking
Homeless Individuals to Community and Housing Services. .................90
14. Approval of a Blanket Purchase Order with TMT Enterprises in an
Amount Not to Exceed $2,407,850 to be the Primary Supplier of New
Construction Materials and Haul Away of Construction Debris from the
Municipal Service Center to Off-Site Recycling and Disposal for the
Utilities, Community Services and Public Works Department for a
Three Year Period from October 27, 2014 through October 26, 2017. ...90
15. Approval of Contract No. C15153692 With RMC Water and
Environment in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $4,357,899 to Provide
Program Management Services for Projects Under the Long Range
Facilities Plan of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant – Capital
Improvement Program Project WQ-14001, and for Projects Under the
Organic Facilities Plan of the Palo Alto Landfill Project RF-11001. .........91
16. Approval of Extension of the Trial Caltrain Go Pass Program for City
Employees and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5282
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto in the Amount of $80,280 for the 2015 Go Pass Program.” .....91
17. Approval of Contract No. C15155378 With Carollo Engineers, P. C. in
the Total Amount Not to Exceed $291,335 to Provide Design Services
for Old Pumping Plant (OPP) Rehabilitation at Regional Water Quality
Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021. ........91
18. Approval of the Submission of a National Endowment for the Arts Our
Town Grant Application. ..................................................................91
Action Items ..........................................................................................91
19. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 9468 entitled “Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 2015-2023 Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan and Associated Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Program.” .................................................91
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 70
20. Approval of Letter of Intent for Construction and Operation of the New
Junior Museum and Zoo Building by the Friends of the Junior Museum
and Zoo in 2019. ............................................................................95
21. Approval of a Two-Year Contract with Flint Strategies For a
Communications and Outreach Contract to Support the Our Palo Alto
Initiative and the Planning and Community Environment Department
at a Cost Not to Exceed $175,000 (Continued from October 27, 2014). 100
22. Review of City Hall Remodel Project (Continued From October 20,
2014). ..........................................................................................106
Closed Session .......................................................................................106
23. CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL ...............................106
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. ........................107
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 71
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:06 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Kniss
Parks and Recreation Commissioners Present:
Ashlund, Crommie, Hetterly, Knopper, Lauing, Markevitch, Reckdahl
Absent:
Study Session
1. Council Study Session with Parks and Recreation Commission.
Jennifer Hetterly, Parks and Recreation Commission Chair, noted the Council
packet did not contain a memorandum from the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PARC) regarding dog parks. The Packet contained a summary
of PARC's work over the prior year and a fact sheet regarding the 7.7-acre
parcel at Foothills Park. In 2015, PARC planned to complete work on the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and continue work regarding the 7.7-acre
parcel, a pilot program for shared-use dog parks, review of Community
Services and Natural Environment Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, an
enhanced Community Gardens Program, the Byxbee Park Trails Project, an
update of PARC's website, and park improvement projects. Three ad hoc
committees were working with Staff and consultants regarding the Master
Plan outreach process. PARC Commissioners focused on identifying possible
gaps in input and data collection in order to obtain well-rounded information.
Once the Master Plan was finalized, PARC hoped to move forward with
funding and implementation of facility and programming improvements
consistent with community priorities. PARC requested Council comment and
insight regarding current and future projects.
Ed Lauing, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Vice Chair, reported a PARC
ad hoc committee worked with Staff to assist with prioritizing capital
improvement projects for parks, recreation and open space. The Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) planning process for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016
would be different from previous years, because the City was making a
significant investment in the Master Plan. PARC recommended changes to
the planning process, because projects could not be prioritized until the
Master Plan was complete.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 72
PARC recommended a specific dollar amount be utilized as a placeholder in
the Budget for priority projects revealed by the Master Plan process. PARC
wanted the Master Plan to guide future priorities. Currently, six approved
park projects would not be started, because the level of staffing was
insufficient to manage the implementation of projects. The City employed
one Landscape Architect who had primary responsibility for managing most
projects. If the City hired a second Landscape Architect, approximately
three additional projects could be managed each year. PARC requested the
Council consider a second Landscape Architect position in the next fiscal
year.
Abbie Knopper, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, advised that a PARC ad
hoc committee was appointed to develop land-use ideas for the 7.7-acre
parcel at Foothills Park. The City leased approximately a half acre of the
parcel to Acterra, who maintained a nursery on the site. The lease would
expire in 2015, but could be renewed by mutual consent of the City and
Acterra. A significant portion of the property was covered with quarry waste
material and/or creek sediment resulting in poor soil. The City now had
responsibility for clearing the creek of sediment. Approximately 2.1 acres of
the parcel were the only usable area; the remainder contained steep hills or
was subject to easements. The parcel contained only one public entry/exit
point. Nineteen members of the public toured the parcel with rangers and
provided comments. Twenty-seven members of the public attended a
meeting regarding the parcel. Public comment concerned restoration of the
parcel; allowing Acterra and other environmental organizations to utilize the
parcel; and the addition of recreational facilities.
Ms. Hetterly hoped the Master Plan would identify potential locations for dog
parks. The PARC ad hoc committee proposed a six-month pilot program to
allow dogs off leash on a fenced athletic field during limited hours. A pilot
program would serve interim needs, test usage and behavior, and evaluate
impacts on neighbors, other users, and facilities. The next step was to
conduct outreach with adjacent neighbors, user groups and the broader
public. Input obtained during outreach would be incorporated into a
proposal for Council consideration. The ad hoc committee determined a pilot
program could be implemented at the Baylands Athletic Center, Greer Park,
or Hoover Park. While those three parks were located in an area served by
two small dog parks, they would be useful for testing purposes. The areas
varied in size from 3.3 acres to slightly less than 1 acre. Start-up costs were
estimated to range from a few thousand dollars to $25,000. Other concerns
were curtailing use once the pilot program ceased and preventing use
outside of authorized hours. The ad hoc committee proposed to minimize
concerns through clear messaging that the pilot program was temporary and
through increased enforcement.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 73
As a policy matter, enforcement of rules and hours of use would be vital to
justify compromises made by neighbors and park users. The ad hoc
committee encouraged the Council to consider increased resources for leash
law enforcement.
Council Member Schmid suggested sand, rock, and gravel located on the
7.7-acre parcel could have economic value to the City and commercial
markets. Recalling comments contained in the Grand Jury Report with
respect to the 7.7-acre parcel, Council Member Schmid recommended PARC
attempt to include the public as much as possible. Perhaps PARC could open
the parcel one weekend and invite the community to view it without guided
tours. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan should address the issue of
population growth in meeting goals for parks and recreation. A recent draft
Existing Conditions Report had a nice cover picture showing Palo Alto north
of Oregon Expressway as dark green and Palo Alto south of Oregon
Expressway as light green or brown. If the Master Plan addressed the City's
urban forest, it should question the different colors for the two areas of the
City.
Council Member Klein requested a preview of potential projects being raised
through the Master Plan process.
Mr. Lauing advised that PARC would need data from the Master Plan process
before prioritizing potential new projects.
Council Member Klein felt Commissioner comments alluded to some new
ideas. He would prefer to learn of potential projects sooner rather than
later.
Mr. Lauing explained that demographic and growth changes could raise
some new things to address in the Master Plan. That data should drive the
CIP process. PARC did not assume projects would surface, but they could.
Council Member Klein asked if anyone had proposed new projects.
Ms. Hetterly reported Staff would provide the Council with data from
outreach later in the month. The data would provide detailed information of
issues that concerned the public. The Master Plan could reveal that the
projects currently included in the CIP were not the highest priority; there
could be a shift of priorities.
Council Member Klein inquired whether PARC Commissioners had talked to
the City of Menlo Park regarding its successful dog park. Menlo Park did not
appear to have the problems to which Chair Hetterly alluded.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 74
Ms. Hetterly replied yes. Commissioners talked to the City of Menlo Park
and a number of other communities with shared-use dog programs as well
as dog owner groups from Menlo Park and Palo Alto. The City of Menlo Park
hoped to transition its shared-use model to a dedicated full-time model.
Council Member Klein asked if the dog park in Menlo Park was located on a
school property.
Ms. Hetterly indicated it was a baseball field owned by the City of Menlo
Park.
Council Member Klein agreed with Council Member Schmid regarding tours
of the 7.7-acre parcel. He was worried that the property was not a usable
site and not suitable for investment of City resources. The public had the
misperception that the 7.7 acres was similar to property in Foothills Park.
The public should know the difficulties of transforming the property. He
requested estimates of the cost to rehabilitate the land suitable for public
use.
Council Member Holman wanted to understand if there was something that
would help promote PARC's involvement in CIP planning. She was always
interested in Sterling Canal and requested an update. With respect to the
7.7 acres, she concurred with having it open a couple of days for public
viewing. A Council meeting with PARC dedicated to discussion of the 7.7
acres could be beneficial.
Mr. Lauing reported each year PARC and Staff had begun the planning
process earlier. The entire process was working well. PARC agreed with
Staff's prioritization of projects.
Council Member Holman noted a CIP for a hydrology study of the 7.7 acres
was proposed the prior year, before the parcel was dedicated as parkland.
That CIP was not approved; however, it might be approved for FY 2016 now
that the land was dedicated as parkland.
Deidre Crommie, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, advised that a PARC
ad hoc committee was working on Sterling Canal, but had not made good
progress. Commissioners toured the site and learned additional fencing had
been installed. The ad hoc committee was having some difficulty obtaining
information about the parcel as it involved multiple City departments. The
ad hoc committee was considering use of the property for a community
garden.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 75
Council Member Holman suggested using the property for a dog park and
offered Council assistance with obtaining information from multiple
departments.
Ms. Crommie indicated the ad hoc committee did consider Sterling Canal for
a dog park.
Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks and Golf Director, met with the Utilities
Department and inquired whether some portion of the property could be
used for a dog park or community garden. The Utilities Department advised
that it was unable to relinquish the land.
Council Member Holman wished to learn of the Utilities Department's
reasons when it had not used the property for many years. She asked if a
joint Study Session would be beneficial to PARC.
Pat Markevitch, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, believed a joint Study
Session would be helpful at a later time. The ad hoc committee had a great
deal of work to do to ensure it provided the best information possible. PARC
as a whole had not discussed Sterling Canal.
Council Member Berman concurred with having a joint Study Session,
perhaps on a weekend at Foothills Park. PARC should be allowed time to ask
questions and Staff to find answers before a joint Study Session. Opening
the 7.7 acres to the public for unsupervised tours could raise some security
issues.
Mr. Anderson indicated Staff discussed the possibility of tours with Acterra.
Acterra would need time to secure the nursery from access by people and
deer. In addition, Mr. Arrillaga's property bordered the 7.7 acres and was
not secure. A large culvert on the property also needed to be fenced for
safety.
Council Member Berman suggested Staff consider a contract worker rather
than a full-time Staff member be present for tours. He inquired whether the
memorandum regarding dog parks would be provided to the Council.
Ms. Hetterly advised that detailed information would be provided to the
Council when PARC made a recommendation to the Council. Staff could
provide some information once public outreach was complete. Information
regarding dog parks was public record as it was discussed during PARC
meetings.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the 7.7 acres could be opened to
the public without first securing it.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 76
Mr. Anderson replied no. Ideally a ranger should be present to ensure the
public did not walk onto private property.
Council Member Scharff inquired about the length of time needed to secure
the property so that it could be open to the public generally.
Mr. Anderson indicated Acterra was financially challenged to secure the
nursery. Acterra also was concerned about installing fencing at its cost
without knowing the lease would be renewed and without knowing the
implications of development of the 7.7 acres.
Council Member Scharff requested an estimate of the cost to secure the
property.
Mr. Anderson guessed the cost to be approximately $10,000 without
knowing the level of security Acterra would want.
Council Member Scharff wished to open the property to the public as soon as
possible. $10,000 was a small amount of money to prevent opening the
parcel to the public.
Ms. Knopper explained that $10,000 would secure the nursery area only.
The culvert had to be secured as well.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether Staff had any sense of the total
amount needed in order to open the property to the public.
Mr. Anderson would need time to obtain an estimate.
Council Member Scharff requested a range of the cost.
Ms. Knopper reported that would be difficult to estimate, because the entire
back of the property was open. There was no natural transition from public
to private property. It would be difficult to estimate the cost without
determining the amount of fencing needed.
Ms. Hetterly asked if Council Member Scharff wanted to know the cost to
open the property to the public full-time or for a weekend of tours.
Council Member Scharff responded opening it full-time. Nine people touring
the property over four days was not an overwhelming response. Expending
funds to secure the property early in the process to allow public access could
be worthwhile. He inquired about the number of PARC ad hoc committees.
Ms. Hetterly answered at least seven.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 77
Mr. Lauing added 7 to 10.
Ms. Hetterly advised that ad hoc committees provided details and issues for
PARC discussion.
Council Member Scharff asked how many Commissioners served on an ad
hoc committee.
Ms. Hetterly replied typically two, sometimes three.
Council Member Scharff noted ad hoc committees attended a series of
meetings with Staff, and inquired about the amount of time an ad hoc
committee would spend on a topic.
Ms. Hetterly indicated the amount of time depended on the topic.
Council Member Scharff asked if the ad hoc committee reported to the full
PARC.
Ms. Hetterly responded yes.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether PARC then discussed the topic and
voted.
Ms. Hetterly explained that typically an ad hoc committee would prepare a
work plan and present it to the full PARC before beginning work.
Council Member Price felt interaction between PARC ad hoc committees and
Staff allowed more and better outcomes for the City.
Council Member Burt encouraged PARC to consider public participation in ad
hoc committee meetings. The Council could approve a CIP funding amount
without a list of programs to be funded. Perhaps the Council could require
Staff return at mid-year for approval of specific projects as determined after
Budget approval. If projects were not determined until mid-year, the
likelihood of spending those funds in the fiscal year were slim. The FY 2016
allocation should be realistic and contain only the amount Staff intended to
expend in FY 2016. Regarding Sterling Canal, he requested Staff via the
City Manager provide an additional evaluation of the Utilities Department's
need for the area. With respect to Council Member Schmid's comments
regarding canopy, North Palo Alto was an older community and had an older,
mature canopy. Opening the 7.7 acres over a weekend with ranger
supervision would be good. Opening it to the general public before a Master
Plan was developed and construction occurred was premature. The flat
portion of the 7.7 acres appeared to be closer to half the entire site than to
2 acres. Steelhead trout would not migrate upstream in Buckeye Creek.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 78
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services, reported the City had to obtain
a special permit prior to stocking Boronda Lake with fish, because the fish
could escape from Boronda Lake and get into the creek system.
Council Member Burt stated that was not the same issue as those fish could
escape to the creek system in the wet season. He did not believe steelhead
trout was an issue. Creating a riparian corridor that was a natural habitat
would be a valuable asset. The 7.7 acres could be a wonderful natural
meadowland. Hills on the property could be unusable for certain functions,
but they were good for trails. Any trails on the property should connect to
the existing trail system. He discouraged consideration of additional turf on
the property. He was interested in allowing public access in two phases with
near term enhancements to allow access to the public. He inquired whether
Staff discussed revegetating the area with Acterra.
Mr. Anderson answered yes. Acterra was excited about the possibilities.
Mayor Shepherd believed the community should be made aware of the
difficulty of making the 7.7 acres usable. She inquired whether PARC
needed assistance from the Finance Committee regarding timely execution
of things.
Mr. Lauing did not believe assistance was necessary.
James Keene, City Manager, noted the Council's comments often were
opinions or perspectives, but could become potential directives or requests
for additional information. Policy aspects also had to be considered. The
discussion was a good example of the need to formalize follow-up topics for
Staff and to resuscitate topics during the CIP or Budget process.
Herb Borock reminded the Council and PARC that a recent Capital
Improvement Program for Greer Park included placing additional fence posts
around the ball field for the possibility of completing fencing for a multiuse
area. Regarding the dog park memorandum not provided to the Council,
Staff should not decide what was presented to the Council from PARC. Any
report of PARC and/or an ad hoc committee should have been placed in the
packet.
Sea Reddy suggested the 7.7 acres be utilized as an open air concert venue.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 79
Special Orders of the Day
Mayor Shepherd reported Dan Dykwell passed away the previous Thursday.
Mr. Dykwell and his wife drew people together to build the community. She
listed his service to the community. A video of Mr. Dykwell taken during his
campaign for the City Council in 2009 was shown. She dedicated the
meeting to Mr. Dykwell.
Council took a break at 7:20 P.M. and returned at 7:35 P.M.
2. Partner Presentation Between the Palo Alto Library and Palo Alto Art
Center for Veteran Audiences.
Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director Community Services Department,
advised that the expressive arts and community-based programs for
veterans were very important. In honor of Veterans Day, the Palo Alto
Library and the Art Center collaborated on the Heart of a Soldier Program to
draw attention to the need for future programs and services.
Karen Kienzle, Manager Community Services Senior Programs, reported the
Palo Alto Art Center opened the Community Creates Exhibition in 2012. The
Community Creates Exhibition featured detailed portraits of local veterans
along with statements handwritten by each veteran about how their service
impacted them. In the summer of 2014, the Art Center set up a studio for a
ceramic artist/veteran who made more than 800 cups from clay and
engaged with the community. Many of the cups featured images and
objects related to the service of local veterans. The cups were displayed in
an exhibition and then distributed to community members. The exhibition
also featured a panel discussion with local veteran artists as well as a
workshop with Combat Paper.
Lorna Hastings, Palo Alto Library, indicated the Library applied for and
received a grant from Cal Humanities for a project on the theme of War
Comes Home. Programs included book discussions and civic conversations.
Special programming focused on veterans, such as a two-day photography
workshop called Heart of the Soldier. Heart of the Soldier was an exhibition
of photographs that spoke to veterans' experiences of service and return to
the community.
Council Member Price thanked the Art Center, Art Center Foundation, and
Library Staff for their innovative and creative work. Heart of the Soldier was
an exciting program.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 80
3. Appointment of Candidates to the Architectural Review Board, the
Historic Resources Board, and the Planning and Transportation
Commission.
Council Member Holman spoke with the City Attorney and City Clerk
previously regarding a change in appointment procedures for the Historic
Resources Board (HRB).
Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised that Council Member Holman questioned
whether the Council could hold a general discussion regarding the Council's
priorities and direction in making appointments or regarding specific
applications. Either was permissible under the Agenda Item. A Council
discussion and exchange of views was also permissible.
Council Member Holman indicated the Council could give the Clerk its ballots
for the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and Architectural
Review Board (ARB) or proceed with discussion of the HRB applicants.
Mayor Shepherd asked if Council Member Holman wished to speak to HRB
appointments.
Council Member Holman answered yes. While institutional memory was an
asset, there were times when refreshing a Board or Commission was
appropriate. Two HRB Board Members had served for 20 and 16 years
respectively. She supported Mr. Makinen and Ms. Wimmer for the HRB. Ms.
Wimmer was new to the HRB and should be given an opportunity to serve
the community. Mr. Makinen had a specific and broad application to fulfill
the obligations of the HRB as set out in the Municipal Code.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
XXX to vote on the current applicants and if four members are not voted in,
then direct Staff to reopen the application process for the remaining
openings on the Historic Resources Board.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Mayor Shepherd noted five votes for an applicant typically resulted in
seating of that applicant. She inquired whether Council Member Holman
proposed changing the procedure.
Council Member Holman suggested the Council vote on applicants or reopen
the application process. She did not wish to show a lack of support for all
the applicants.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 81
Mayor Shepherd asked if Council Member Holman proposed the Council vote
or discuss changing the process.
Council Member Holman did not wish to discourage current applicants by
reopening the application process without first demonstrating support for
them.
Council Member Burt felt voting on applicants and reopening the application
process would be confusing. In the past, the Council had interviewed
additional candidates and selected candidates from the original interviews;
therefore, he would not view reopening the application process as a
prejudgment of applicants. Experienced applicants had knowledge and
commitment; however, new candidates were beneficial.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to reopen the recruitment for the Historic Resources Board.
Council Member Schmid noted five candidates were available for four seats
on the HRB. Four of the five candidates were incumbents. The Council
should question the lack of applicants for the HRB in relation to the number
of candidates for other Boards and Commissions.
Council Member Klein would not support the Motion; although, he agreed
that turnover of Board and Commission membership was necessary at times.
The HRB likely had more years of service than any of the other Boards and
Commissions. Because of strict requirements for applicants, the HRB
typically did not field many candidates. Until the Council changed those
requirements, it should not assign fruitless work to Staff.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the City Clerk's Office did
anything different in soliciting applicants for the HRB than for the ARB or
P&TC.
Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk, responded no. The Clerk's Office conducted
outreach through newspapers, neighborhood associations, and other usual
methods.
Council Member Berman did not believe Staff outreach efforts affected the
number of applicants. He would not support the Motion.
Council Member Holman would support the Motion with the understanding
that it was not a rejection of all candidates. Qualifications for the HRB
ranged broadly from owning an historic home to experience and expertise in
history.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 82
Council Member Scharff would not support the Motion. Perhaps the Council
should refer term limits and requirements for Boards and Commissions to
the Policy and Services Committee. Length of service should be a policy
decision.
Council Member Price would not support the Motion. The HRB was
composed of talented and committed individuals.
Mayor Shepherd recalled that the Council recently revised the recruitment
process and applications for Boards and Commissions. She expressed
concern about changing the process without prior notice to candidates and
the public.
James Keene, City Manager, did not believe the Motion contained a time
limit. If the Motion passed, the Council should clearly state that HRB
incumbents would continue to serve.
MOTION FAILED: 3-5 Berman, Klein, Price, Shepherd, Scharff no, Kniss
absent
Vice Mayor Kniss attended via teleconference at 7:45 P.M.
First Round of voting for two positions on the Architectural Review Board
with terms ending October 31, 2017:
Voting For Catherine Ballantyne: Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Schmid,
Shepherd
Voting For Matthew Harris: Berman, Price, Scharff
Voting For Qiming Huang:
Voting For Kenneth Huo: Burt, Holman, Schmid
Voting For Kyu Young Kim: Berman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff
Voting For Flore Schmidt:
Voting For Richard Schoelerman: Shepherd
Voting For Mark Weiss:
Ms. Minor announced that Catherine Ballantyne with 6 votes was appointed
to the Architectural Review Board for three years, with a term ending on
October 31, 2017,
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 83
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Burt to reconsider the vote for the Architectural Review Board.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Council Member Burt voted with the
majority.
Council Member Burt did not believe the seconder to the Motion was
required to vote with the majority.
Ms. Stump reported Council Member Burt was correct. The initial Motion
must be made by someone who voted with the majority. The second could
be made by any Council Member.
MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Price no, Kniss absent
Second Round of voting for one position on the Architectural Review Board
with a term ending October 31, 2017:
Voting For Matthew Harris: Scharff, Shepherd
Voting For Qiming Huang:
Voting For Kenneth Huo: Burt, Holman, Schmid
Voting For Kyu Young Kim: Berman, Klein, Price
Voting For Flore Schmidt:
Voting For Richard Schoelerman:
Voting For Mark Weiss:
Ms. Minor announced that no candidate received the required five votes.
Third Round of voting for one position on the Architectural Review Board
with term ending October 31, 2017:
Voting For Matthew Harris: Shepherd
Voting For Qiming Huang:
Voting For Kenneth Huo: Burt, Holman, Schmid
Voting For Kyu Young Kim: Berman, Klein, Price, Scharff
Voting For Flore Schmidt:
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 84
Voting For Richard Schoelerman:
Voting For Mark Weiss:
Ms. Minor announced that no candidate received the required five votes.
Fourth Round of voting for one position on the Architectural Review Board
with term ending October 31, 2017:
Voting For Matthew Harris:
Voting For Qiming Huang:
Voting For Kenneth Huo: Burt, Holman, Schmid
Voting For Kyu Young Kim: Berman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Shepherd
Voting For Flore Schmidt:
Voting For Richard Schoelerman:
Voting For Mark Weiss:
Ms. Minor announced that Kyu Young Kim with 5 votes was appointed to the
Architectural Review Board for three years, with a term ending on October
31, 2017,
First Round of voting for four positions on the Historic Resources Board with
terms ending October 31 2017:
Voting For Martin Bernstein: Berman, Burt, Klein, Kniss, Price,
Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Voting For Roger Kohler: Berman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff,
Schmid, Shepherd
Voting For Michael Makinen: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss,
Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Voting For Iqbal Serang:
Voting For Margaret Wimmer: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss,
Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Ms. Minor announced that Martin Bernstein with 8 votes, Roger Kohler with 7
votes, Michael Makinen with 9 votes, and Margaret Wimmer with 9 votes
were each appointed to the Historic Resources Board for three years, with
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 85
terms ending on October 31, 2017.
First Round of voting for two positions on the Planning and Transportation
Commission with terms ending October 31, 2018:
Voting For Yekaterina Downing: Berman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff,
Shepherd
Voting For Claude Ezran:
Voting For Adrian Fine: Berman, Klein, Kniss, Price
Voting For Arthur Keller: Burt, Holman, Schmid
Voting For C. James Schmidt: Shepherd
Voting For Jeff Schneble:
Voting For Lyn Tillery:
Voting For Asher Waldfogel: Burt, Holman, Scharff, Schmid
Ms. Minor announced that Yekaterina Vershov Downing with 6 votes was
appointed to the Planning and Transportation Commission for four years,
with a term ending on October 31, 2018.
Second Round of voting for one position on the Planning and Transportation
Commission with a term ending October 31, 2018:
Voting For Claude Ezran:
Voting For Adrian Fine: Berman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Shepherd
Voting For Arthur Keller: Burt, Holman, Schmid
Voting For C. James Schmidt:
Voting For Jeff Schneble:
Voting For Lyn Tillery:
Voting For Asher Waldfogel: Scharff
Ms. Minor announced that Adrian Fine with 5 votes was appointed to the
Planning and Transportation Commission for four years, with a term ending
on October 31, 2018.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 86
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to
revote for Planning and Transportation Commission.
Council Member Burt felt it was incumbent upon the Council to follow its
rules. The procedure stated "shall" rather than "may."
MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Price no, Kniss absent
Third Round of voting for one position on the Planning and Transportation
Commission with a term ending October 31, 2018:
Voting For Claude Ezran:
Voting For Adrian Fine: Berman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Shepherd
Voting For Arthur Keller: Burt, Holman, Schmid
Voting For C. James Schmidt:
Voting For Jeff Schneble:
Voting For Lyn Tillery:
Voting For Asher Waldfogel:
Ms. Minor announced that Adrian Fine with 5 votes was appointed to the
Planning and Transportation Commission for four years, with a term ending
on October 31, 2018.
City Manager Comments
James Keene, City Manager, announced Palo Alto Firefighters would be
"filling the boot" to support local families with muscle disease on November
13 and 14, 2014. On November 11, 2014, a Personal Emergency
Preparedness and Crime Watch meeting was scheduled at 7:00 P.M. Palo
Alto remained at risk for flooding and other problems should winter storms
materialize. The second part of the Council discussion regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Update Process was rescheduled from November 17 to
December 15, 2014. Community meetings relating to transportation issues
were scheduled for November 12, 18, and 19, 2014. The City was hosting
an interactive ideas expo on November 18, 2014 at the Downtown Library.
On November 13, 2014, local officials and industry leaders would
commemorate completion of a new landfill gas-to-energy project in San
Joaquin County from which the City had contracted to purchase power. The
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board would honor Phillip
Bobel with the Dr. Wu Pollution Prevention Award on November 12, 2014.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 87
The new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center opened its doors to the
public on November 6, 2014.
Oral Communications
Harlan Pinto recalled on October 6, 2014 the Council approved an extension
of the no overnight parking regulations along University Avenue. Staff
prepared a petition that included only the north side of University Avenue
and specifically excluded the south side of University Avenue. The Council's
action on October 6 authorized the entirety of University Avenue. He
requested the Council clarify its action and instructions to Staff.
Roger Smith learned three things from the election cycle. First, many
homes in south Palo Alto did not have an address on the curb or house.
Second, he was disappointed with the less than 50 percent turnout at the
recent election. He encouraged the Council to limit public comment to 2
minutes rather than 3 minutes. He thanked the Council for placing the
measure to reduce the number of Council seats on the ballot.
Dr. Martell had requested a hearing with the City to clear herself of false
defamatory accusations. She requested the Council order the City
Attorney's Office to offer her a fair hearing or to dismiss the action. The City
Attorney's Office refused to suspend the imposed sentence pending the
outcome of the hearing. The City refused to give her a list of accusers and
witnesses and appointed a hearing officer hostile towards her.
Mike Francois remarked that the City probably had the highest teenage
suicide rate in the country based on wealth and education. Something had
to be done and done now.
Sea Reddy thanked veterans of Palo Alto for their service. The new library
was fantastic. The newly-elected Council Members should listen to public
comment and respect citizens' wishes. The Council needed to remodel and
update Cubberley Community Center.
Herb Borock noticed the bus stop across the street was replaced by a freight
loading zone. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) customer
service indicated the bus stop was supposed to be there. If a building owner
or developer needed a reserved parking space, he could pay a fee as listed
in the Municipal Fee Schedule for exclusive use of street parking.
Arthur Keller thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the
Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) for eight years. By not
being reappointed to the P&TC, he would have more time to campaign for
City Council should he choose to do so.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 88
Mayor Shepherd reported that telephonic attendance of Council Members
was permitted only in the event of an extraordinary event such as a medical,
family, or similar emergency requiring a Council Member's absence. She
inquired whether the telephonic vote impacted the Council's votes for Boards
and Commissions.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the City Attorney provided the
interpretation of the Council's rules.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, indicated the Mayor read the rule as printed.
She had not provided any advice or guidance as to how the rule should be
applied. She understood the rule had traditionally been applied first by the
Clerk in setting up the matter. That could be subject to a decision of the
Council as to how to interpret and apply its own rule. She was not aware of
specific facts concerning Vice Mayor Kniss' telephonic participation.
Council Member Klein asked who made the decision. Vice Mayor Kniss
obviously believed she was qualified to vote.
Mayor Shepherd advised that the Mayor had discretion. She chose to follow
Council policy and inquired of the Clerk whether there would be a change in
any of the appointments resulting from disqualification of Vice Mayor Kniss'
vote.
Council Member Klein asked the City Attorney if the Mayor had that
discretion.
Ms. Stump advised that the Council had a reconsideration provision that
allowed a member of the majority to ask that an item be reopened during
the same Council meeting. Her notes did not show whether that was the
case. Two appointments were made with five votes. She did not know
whether Mayor Shepherd was a member of the majority for those
appointments. If she understood correctly, the rule did not permit Vice
Mayor Kniss' telephonic participation. As was customary, the Mayor could
make a procedural interpretation in the first instance subject to a vote of the
majority of the Council if the Council disagreed with the Mayor's
interpretation.
Council Member Klein inquired whether Mayor Shepherd's Motion was made
as a Council Member rather than as Mayor.
Mayor Shepherd asked if her proposed action required a second.
Ms. Stump requested clarification of the Mayor's intention. Mayor Shepherd
had requested information from the City Clerk.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 89
Mayor Shepherd advised that she requested the Clerk determine if the Vice
Mayor's vote would affect the outcome of the Council's vote. She believed
removing Vice Mayor Kniss' vote from the Planning and Transportation
Commission would result in a change.
Ms. Stump reported that the Mayor raised two aspects. One was to reopen
some of the votes the Council made. If the Mayor was in the majority on
those items, she could request that be done. The second aspect was
whether Vice Mayor Kniss could participate by phone, which was an
interpretation of rules that the Mayor could make in the first instance subject
to a vote of the Council. Mayor Shepherd stated as a fact that the rule was
not followed. Ms. Stump felt that was an interpretation that could be made
by the body in terms of how to apply and interpret its rules.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether she should move for the Council to vote
as to whether the rule was followed and to reopen appointments.
Ms. Stump indicated the appointments should be reopened first. If the
Mayor was in the majority for those appointments, she could move to reopen
the appointments. Secondly, the Council should determine whether Vice
Mayor Kniss could participate.
Mayor Shepherd asked if she could determine whether Vice Mayor Kniss was
allowed to participate telephonically.
Ms. Stump advised that the Mayor could make an initial ruling; however, the
Council could overrule the Mayor's interpretation.
Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk, reported Kyu Young Kim for the Architectural
Review Board would have received four votes and Adrian Fine for the
Planning and Transportation Commission would have received four votes.
Minutes Approval
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to approve the Minutes of September 15 and 22, 2014
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-18.
4. Policy and Service Committee Recommendation to Release Agenda
Packets One Week Earlier and Make Other Conforming Changes.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 90
5. Finance Committee Recommendation that the City Council Approve
Design Guidelines for the 2014 Water Utility Drought Rate Cost of
Service Study.
6. Finance Committee Recommends Approval of Staff's Second Follow-up
Response to the Inventory Management Audit.
7. Resolution 9446 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Summarily Vacating Public Easement Which has been Relocated at
1050 Page Mill Road.”
8. Denial of a Historic Designation Request for the Palo Alto Little League
Site Located at 3672 Middlefield Road.
9. Resolution 9467 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Concurring with the City of Menlo Park for the Naming of the Mike
Harding Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge at San Mateo Drive (Menlo Park).”
10. Approval of Contract With Concern: EAP for the City of Palo Alto's
Employee Assistance Plan, in the Amount of $2,800.60 per Month for
up to Sixty Months for a Total Amount not to Exceed $168,036.
11. Approval of a Public-Private Partnership Agreement between the City
of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Players for the Cooperative Use of the
Lucie Stern Community Theatre.
12. Approval of the Renewal of a Public-Private Partnership Agreement
Between the City of Palo Alto and West Bay Opera for the Use of the
Lucie Stern Community Theatre.
13. Approval of a Three Year Contract with Downtown Streets, Inc. in a
Total Amount Not to Exceed $470,616 for Maintenance Services for the
City's Five Downtown Parking Garages, Downtown Sidewalks and
Alleys, Lytton and Cogswell Plazas, the Stanford/Palo Alto Playing
Fields, and the Old Community Garden, and Provide Outreach Case
Management Services to the Downtown Core with the Intent of Linking
Homeless Individuals to Community and Housing Services.
14. Approval of a Blanket Purchase Order with TMT Enterprises in an
Amount Not to Exceed $2,407,850 to be the Primary Supplier of New
Construction Materials and Haul Away of Construction Debris from the
Municipal Service Center to Off-Site Recycling and Disposal for the
Utilities, Community Services and Public Works Department for a
Three Year Period from October 27, 2014 through October 26, 2017.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 91
15. Approval of Contract No. C15153692 With RMC Water and
Environment in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $4,357,899 to Provide
Program Management Services for Projects Under the Long Range
Facilities Plan of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant – Capital
Improvement Program Project WQ-14001, and for Projects Under the
Organic Facilities Plan of the Palo Alto Landfill Project RF-11001.
16. Approval of Extension of the Trial Caltrain Go Pass Program for City
Employees and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5282
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto in the Amount of $80,280 for the 2015 Go Pass Program.”
17. Approval of Contract No. C15155378 With Carollo Engineers, P. C. in
the Total Amount Not to Exceed $291,335 to Provide Design Services
for Old Pumping Plant (OPP) Rehabilitation at Regional Water Quality
Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021.
18. Approval of the Submission of a National Endowment for the Arts Our
Town Grant Application.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
Action Items
19. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 9468 entitled “Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 2015-2023 Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan and Associated Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Program.”
Mayor Shepherd reported every city in California was required to have a
General Plan which the City entitled the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing
Element must be updated and approved. The Housing Element required the
adoption of zoning for the City's fair share of the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) assigned to Palo Alto by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG).
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment, hoped
the Council would hold the Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution to adopt
the Housing Element Update.
Tim Wong, Senior Planner, reported the Housing Element was one of seven
mandated elements of a General Plan, and the only element requiring State
certification. The deadline for updating the Housing Element was the end of
January 2015. The Housing Element should be updated every eight years.
The current eight-year cycle was 2015-2023.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 92
The Housing Element addressed housing needs for very-low income, low
income, moderate income, and above-moderate income households. If the
City did not obtain a certified Housing Element, it would be vulnerable to
legal challenges and would not be eligible for State transportation and
housing funds. Certification of a Housing Element would be required by the
State whether or not the City participated in ABAG. Staff held extensive
public outreach through the Housing Element Community Panel, two housing
affordability workshops, an online housing questionnaire, and a website
dedicated to the Housing Element Update. The City was not required to
construct housing mandated by RHNA; however, the City was required to
plan to accommodate the RHNA amount. For 2015-2023, the City was
required to accommodate 1,988 housing units. Over the previous 25 years,
the City had constructed 58 percent of its RHNA amount. The State
generally required a 10-percent surplus of the allocation; therefore, Staff
had to identify sites to accommodate 2,188 units. The City could carry over
units from the 2007-2014 cycle of approximately 1,400 units. Entitled
housing projects totaled 440 units. Thus, the unmet need was 369 units.
On June 2, 2014, the Council recommended Staff utilize four tiers to identify
sites for 369 units. Staff identified existing units at Colorado Park, second
units, units at the Fry's site, and at sites on San Antonio Avenue. The
Council directed Staff to include a statement that the City would continue to
review housing sites for more transit-rich sites. Staff submitted to the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) a
draft Housing Element. The draft Housing Element included two new
Housing Programs: Program 2.2.5 was the statement directed by Council
and Program 3.1.14 concerned sharing of housing. In reviewing the draft
Housing Element, HCD was concerned that the number of small sites
contained in the Housing Element would decrease opportunities for housing
development. As a result, Staff negotiated Program 2.1.9 which allowed
incentives for lot consolidation for 100 percent affordable housing
development. In addition, HCD expressed concern about the use of
"assess," "consider," and "explore" within the Housing Programs. HCD
wanted additional commitment from the City; therefore, Staff included
language of "adopt as appropriate" in many Housing Programs. HCD also
expressed a desire for the City to implement some programs sooner rather
than later. While HCD reviewed the draft Housing Element, the Community
Panel and Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) proposed additional
programs such as a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD)
overlay in the University Avenue/Downtown area; allowances for horizontal
mixed use for extremely small parcels; a local parking database; and specific
plans for Downtown, El Camino Real, and California Avenue. On
September 5, 2014, HCD issued a letter stating that the City's draft Housing
Element with proposed revisions complied statutorily with State Housing
Element Law.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 93
The draft Housing Element as revised was circulated on September 18,
2014. The 30-day review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
began August 29 and ended September 30, 2014. No rezoning was required
for any of the sites contained in the housing inventory. On October 1, 2014,
the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommended adoption
of the draft Housing Element. On October 9, 2014, the RHMC also
recommended approval with some revisions. Those revisions were included
in the Staff Report and, if approved, would be incorporated into the Public
Hearing draft. On October 30, 2014, the Community Panel also
recommended approval of the Public Hearing draft but without revisions
proposed by the RHMC.
Ms. Gitelman clarified that the Resolution prepared for Council included
revisions recommended by the RHMC.
Council Member Schmid, Chair of the Regional Housing Mandate Committee,
advised that the RHMC received valuable input from the Community Panel,
housing advocates, the public, and HCD. Because the Council approved the
2006-2014 Housing Element in 2013, many sites identified in that Housing
Element had not been utilized and were eligible to be carried over to the
2015-2023 Housing Element. Staff identified sites zoned for housing;
therefore, rezoning was not necessary. In June 2014, the Council directed
inclusion of the statement that the City would continue to review sites for
denser housing. The draft Housing Element responded to the mandate given
the City at the end of 2013. The RHMC proposed additional changes, which
the Community Panel did not approve. First, the RHMC proposed changing
"amend the Zoning Code" to "consider amending the Zoning Code" to specify
minimum density. Secondly, the RHMC proposed deleting setback
modifications as one of six examples from Program H2.1.9. Thirdly, the
RHMC proposed adding "There is concern that the commercial developers
are not paying an equitable share."
Public Hearing opened at 9:11 P.M.
Phyllis Cassel, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, supported the City's
efforts to provide more diverse and affordable housing for all income groups
and was pleased with the draft Housing Element. Housing sites were not
always located within walking distance to transit and services; however, the
Council had recognized the need to identify promising sites in such areas.
Public Hearing closed at 9:13 P.M.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 94
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to adopt the Resolution adopting: 1) the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, 2) the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 3) the
Revised 2015-2023 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft as the
Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Scharff explained that the Housing Element was different
from other elements of the Comprehensive Plan in that it had to be approved
by a regulatory agency. The RHMC reviewed the draft Housing Element line-
by-line and debated each change. He urged the Council to approve the draft
Housing Element as revised.
Council Member Price would reluctantly support the Motion. The Housing
Element met only the minimum requirements. The community questionnaire
revealed the continuing need for more diverse and more affordable housing.
She had supported utilizing more tiers of housing in order to have a robust
and forward-thinking Housing Element. Tiers 4 and 5 proposed housing in
conjunction with surface parking lots, which she felt was needed.
Council Member Berman noted more work was needed. He looked forward
to future dialogs regarding redistributing housing sites from south Palo Alto.
Community needs and preferences for housing were changing.
Council Member Burt reiterated that the City was required by law to prepare
a Housing Element and to obtain certification of its compliance with law. The
critical consequence for not having a certified Housing Element was the
potential for litigation, which could result in the loss of local control of zoning
and land-use decisions. The City was not required to construct housing
proposed in the Housing Element, but to zone for housing.
Council Member Holman urged Staff to explore existing units at Colorado
Park for the Housing Element. Identifying existing units was difficult.
Including these units in the Housing Element saved them for the next
several years.
Mayor Shepherd objected to the Housing Element method of designing the
community. State mandates often were not logical and removed autonomy
from the community. She would reluctantly support the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 95
20. Approval of Letter of Intent for Construction and Operation of the New
Junior Museum and Zoo Building by the Friends of the Junior Museum
and Zoo in 2019.
Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director Community Services Department,
advised that approximately 150,000 people visited the Junior Museum and
Zoo (JMZ) annually, of which one-quarter were residents of Palo Alto and
three-quarters visited more than once per year. JMZ could be found in
many local elementary schools and provided approximately 15,000 hours of
hands-on lessons. JMZ employed 6 full-time Staff and 30 part-time Staff.
Since 1997, studies had determined the building needed major renovation.
The key point of the Letter of Intent (LOI) was the City and Friends of the
Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends) wished to cooperate in rebuilding the JMZ
facility and in operating it for 40 years after construction. Staff
recommended the next 12 months be spent in negotiating an agreement for
the design, construction, operation, and management of the JMZ. Staff
requested Council input regarding the six negotiating principles.
Aletha Coleman, Chair of the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo,
understood the Friends were requesting permission to work with Staff
regarding rebuilding JMZ.
Dan Garber recalled the Friends first began discussing ways to improve and
replace JMZ around 1996. Staff strongly supported and worked with Friends
to improve JMZ. He strongly desired a Friends partnership with the City.
Council Member Berman served as Council liaison to JMZ. The Friends had a
plan for improving JMZ, and he hoped those plans progressed.
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Mayor Shepherd to
adopt Staff recommendations to: 1) approve a Letter of Intent by which the
City and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) will
collaborate to develop agreements for the building of a new and enhanced
Junior Museum and Zoo facility, and the operation of the new facility for up
to 40 years. Approval of the guiding negotiation principles, noted below:
1. Delineate methods for appropriate public and City input to programs
and services;
2. Oversight and cooperation of the construction project;
3. Establish a long-term structure for financial and programmatic
oversight of the operations;
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 96
4. Stabilize and reduce long-term the City’s financial support for the JMZ’s
operation;
5. Outline the possible transition of the operation of the facility to the City
at time of lease expiration; and
6. Endeavor to complete negotiations within 12 months.
Council Member Berman felt JMZ was an asset for residents as well as the
regional community. The community had changed, and JMZ attempted to
follow suit. However, a new facility was needed for JMZ to continue serving
the community.
Council Member Burt indicated the LOI was a good example of a public-
private partnership opportunity that leveraged resources. Since 1996, JMZ
had gone through a rebirth, and a partnership would allow the facility to
catch up with programs. Many non-residents contributed time and money to
JMZ.
Council Member Schmid was pleased the proposal included the potential for
the Friends to provide a major capital investment as well as assume
operating costs. JMZ's school program was beneficial to Palo Alto's school
children. He inquired whether a new facility would impinge on Rinconada
Park.
Ms. Coleman reported JMZ currently impinged slightly on Rinconada Park.
JMZ was part of the Rinconada Park Master Plan. The Friends hoped to have
a slightly larger footprint in order to accommodate current programs.
Council Member Schmid assumed any issues would be presented to the
Council.
Ms. Coleman worked closely with Staff to ensure Friends' plans did not
conflict with Rinconada Park and its Master Plan.
Ms. Halpern advised that Staff would present to the Council in a few weeks
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Rinconada Park and the
expansion of JMZ.
Council Member Price expressed concern that the negotiation guiding
principles were a combination of action items and goals. Other guiding
principles developed by the Council were very different from the negotiation
guiding principles.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 97
Walter Rossmann, Director of Office of Management and Budget, reported
the intent of the negotiation guiding principles was to provide the Council
with a sense of the types of conversations to be held between Staff and the
Friends.
Council Member Price requested further clarification.
Mr. Rossmann explained that Staff may need to return to the Council in
Closed Session to address contract terms. The negotiation guiding principles
were designed to provide a sense of the kinds of negotiations Staff planned
to have with the Friends. As the JMZ evolved, it was important for the City
to have a continued relationship and an established structure with the
Friends.
Council Member Holman referenced the LOI regarding access to and non-
exclusive use and possession of the construction site and regarding a Park
Improvement Ordinance for any portion of the project to be constructed
within Rinconada Park. The project was being planned in coordination with
the Rinconada Park Master Plan, but that did not address building on
dedicated parkland. She did not understand how a Park Improvement
Ordinance could incorporate a new structure being built on dedicated
parkland.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, understood the structure would fit within the
type of permissible activity that worked as a park or recreation facility. It
would be a park-related structure. The Council authorized many park
structures through a Park Improvement Ordinance.
Council Member Holman requested Staff provide clear language on that issue
when information was provided to the Council in the future.
James Keene, City Manager, would do so.
Council Member Scharff shared Council Member Price's concerns regarding
the negotiation guiding principles. He inquired whether one point of
negotiation was the City's input into the programs offered by JMZ.
Ms. Coleman reported the purpose of the LOI was to allow the Friends to
speak with Staff on a formal basis.
Council Member Scharff wanted to understand the reasons for including
negotiation guiding principles.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 98
Council Member Burt recused himself from the item as his residence was
located within 500 feet of the Junior Museum and Zoo. He rescinded his
second to the Motion.
Council Member Scharff asked if Staff would negotiate the amount of input
the City and the Friends would have into programs.
Mr. Rossmann replied yes. Negotiations would also include the type of
interaction the City and the Friends would have over the following 40 years.
Ms. Halpern added that negotiations would shape the public-private
partnership.
Council Member Scharff believed the topic would be more of a discussion
rather than a guiding principle. The Council would not direct Staff regarding
the amount of input the City would have.
Mr. Keene concurred. The balance of input would be expressed in an
agreement.
Council Member Scharff stated the guiding principles were not really guiding
principles.
Ms. Halpern advised that the guiding principles were key discussion points.
Council Member Scharff felt the guiding principle to stabilize and reduce
long-term the City's financial support was a direction and a guiding principle
rather than a discussion point. He had concerns about that, because the
City's contribution seemed stable.
Mr. Rossmann explained that the City's budgeted amount for JMZ was
increasing annually due to benefits costs for JMZ Staff.
Council Member Scharff indicated the City's budget for JMZ was stable in
that Staff costs for JMZ increased at the same rate as Staff costs for other
departments. The statement seemed to imply there was some other issue.
Ms. Halpern reported the guiding principle was included to indicate the City's
benefit was reduced long-term financial support.
Council Member Scharff questioned whether it was necessary to include that
guiding principle. The financial support guiding principle appeared to be
directional. If it was not meant to be directional, then it should be deleted
or revised to "balance long-term costs and financial support versus
programs." He did not want to be prescriptive without understanding the
tradeoffs.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 99
Mr. Keene advised that the overall perspective for the points was to
acknowledge that the JMZ would be turned over to another group who would
operate it on behalf of the City. The City should protect its interest in JMZ.
Staff wished to ensure the City had a continuing voice related to long-term
financial support of JMZ. The City could wish to contribute additional funding
or control costs in the future.
Council Member Scharff remarked that the language did not capture the
intent expressed by the City Manager.
Ms. Halpern suggested revising the language to "analyze the City's long-
term financial support for JMZ operations."
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change Item Number 3 in the Motion from
“Establish a long-term structure for financial and programmatic oversight of
the operations” to “Analyze the City's long-term financial support for JMZ
operations.”
Mr. Keene commented that an analysis could inform other language to be
included in a contract.
Council Member Klein explained that a Letter of Intent was not legally
binding on the City. Staff could negotiate any point, and the Council could
reject that point. He was comfortable with deleting all the negotiation
guiding principles. Trying to determine negotiating points prior to
negotiations was not a good use of the Council's time.
Mr. Keene suggested striking Staff's recommendation to seek the Council's
guidance and approval on the guiding negotiation principles. Staff's intent
was a public discussion with the Council to recognize implications of an
agreement.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to delete from the Motion- Approval of the guiding
negotiation principles, noted below::
1. Delineate methods for appropriate public and City input to programs
and services;
2. Oversight and cooperation of the construction project;
3. Establish a long-term structure for financial and programmatic
oversight of the operations;
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 100
4. Stabilize and reduce long-term the City’s financial support for the JMZ’s
operation;
5. Outline the possible transition of the operation of the facility to the City
at time of lease expiration; and
6. Endeavor to complete negotiations within 12 months.
Ms. Coleman introduced the Friends' Board Members present at the meeting.
Mayor Shepherd noted parking could be an issue at JMZ. She looked
forward to renovation of JMZ.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Burt not participating, Kniss absent
Mayor Shepherd performed the 10:00 check-in. Two items remained on the
Agenda, and she believed the Council could continue with those items.
Council Member Klein did not believe the Agenda could be completed prior to
11:30.
Mayor Shepherd noted Agenda Item Number 21 was removed from the
Consent Calendar at a previous Council meeting.
Mr. Keene remarked that the Council could complete the Agenda prior to
11:30.
21. Approval of a Two-Year Contract with Flint Strategies For a
Communications and Outreach Contract to Support the Our Palo Alto
Initiative and the Planning and Community Environment Department
at a Cost Not to Exceed $175,000 (Continued from October 27, 2014).
Mayor Shepherd recalled in February 2014 the Council approved the
conceptual framework for the Our Palo Alto initiative. Staff required
professional service to assist with and to build on outreach efforts. In June
2014, the Council approved funding for Our Palo Alto in the Fiscal Year 2015
Budget.
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment, reported
the contract term was two years. The consultant would assist Staff with
community engagement and communication efforts related to Our Palo Alto.
Our Palo Alto would only be successful if it contributed to increasing the
capacity of City Staff to engage in communication efforts as a regular part of
business. The consultant would assist with events and outreach related to
Our Palo Alto and would also grow Planning Department capacity to engage
the community in the regular course of business.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 101
Council Member Holman had inquired about the consultant's previous work
with the City. Staff responded that the consultant had not worked for the
City previously. She had inquired because the firm listed the City of Palo
Alto as a client. The Council had approved several contracts with other firms
to assist with the process of Our Palo Alto. She wanted to know if any of
those entities had worked with Flint Strategies previously and their
experiences with Flint Strategies.
Ms. Gitelman indicated the City had engaged one additional contractor to
assist with event planning related to Our Palo Alto. That contractor had not
worked with Flint Strategies to her knowledge. Other consultants hired for
the Comprehensive Plan Update and other specific projects fell under the
Our Palo Alto topic; however, she did not know if they had worked with Flint
Strategies. Ms. Gitelman had worked with Ms. Flint when she was employed
by another firm. Ms. Flint was a well-respect, competent contractor who
worked with other public agencies. Staff was confident Ms. Flint could
discharge the responsibilities included in the scope of work.
Council Member Holman had inquired whether the Leadership Group had any
role in identifying or selecting Flint Strategies. She was not questioning Flint
Strategies' abilities, but rather the City's procedures. She understood the
Leadership Group's function was to support public outreach and Flint
Strategies would be doing the same. Based on Staff's response, Flint
Strategies and the Leadership Group would not be communicating.
Ms. Gitelman explained that the Comprehensive Plan consultant was under
contract to perform community engagement and to work with the Leadership
Group as needed to engage the community in the Comprehensive Plan
Update. The Comprehensive Plan Update was only one aspect of the Our
Palo Alto initiative. Flint Strategies would be available to assist as needed.
Staff did not believe the Comprehensive Plan Update would be Flint
Strategies primary activity. Flint Strategies would be engaged in other
aspects of Our Palo Alto including workshop events and communication
related directly to the Planning Department. Staff sought resources to
support efforts under Our Palo Alto other than the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
Council Member Holman asked if Our Palo Alto included communications with
the public regarding Planning Department processes and initiatives.
James Keene, City Manager, advised that the framework of the Our Palo Alto
initiative had three conceptual components. The design component
concerned the Comprehensive Plan. The action component was different
initiatives related to parking.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 102
The ideas component was a much broader engagement and outreach effort.
The Our Palo Alto initiative, particularly the ideas component, needed more
support and effort but was still linked to other parts. The Planning
Department needed capacity building support through that process to
enhance their skills in engagement and outreach. The proposal seemed to
be a cost-effective means over two years to bring on Staff support to
enhance the broader abilities of Planning Staff.
Council Member Holman understood the ideas component was a part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Mr. Keene indicated the ideas component was a part of the Comprehensive
Plan Update, but it was also broader.
Council Member Holman had inquired about approval of the proposal in the
Staff Report of June 16, 2014. She read the Staff Report and did not find a
reference to the proposal. The proposal could be contained within the
exhibits, which were not available online, but it was not referenced in the
description or the Staff Report.
Ms. Gitelman reported the proposal was discussed at a Finance Committee
meeting. When the Budget was presented to the Council, the proposal was
identified as a project Staff was interested in undertaking.
Council Member Klein had expressed his concerns about outreach to areas of
the community that normally were not engaged. He was pleasantly
surprised that Staff sought professional assistance with that outreach. The
contract was listed as not to exceed $175,000; however, Staff did not
indicate the amount they realistically expected to spend. He requested a
budget and Flint Strategies' plans to perform outreach to those hard-to-
engage areas of the community.
Ms. Gitelman reiterated that the proposal was included in the Fiscal Year
2015 Budget.
Council Member Klein stated the Council could still scrutinize the proposal.
Ms. Gitelman indicated the contract would allow Staff to do task orders with
the contractor up to $175,000. Staff expected to spend $175,000 over two
years by inviting the contractor to assist with specific tasks. Many of those
tasks would not be related to the Comprehensive Plan Update.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 103
Council Member Klein wanted to reach out to specific areas of the
community because they did not engage in significant numbers regarding
any planning issues. He wanted to know the contractor's plans and to have
a sense of whether the City would receive value for its expenditure.
Ms. Gitelman stated Staff did not have the ability to draw on the resource at
the current time. If the City entered into the contract, it would have a
professional who was adept in communication concerning planning and
public agency issues, who had experience in a wide variety of communities,
and who would be on-call to assist Staff with event planning and outreach to
all segments of the community.
Mr. Keene commented that Staff needed more capacity in order to move to
the next level of outreach. The Council wanted specific details of outreach
plans. Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff needed capacity to design outreach.
Staff could develop their expectations for deploying work to the firm and
then return to the Council with that information. Staff needed capacity to
design the needed outreach. Before expending X amount of dollars, perhaps
Staff could return to the Council with a report identifying specific work.
Council Member Scharff could not determine the work to be performed by
the firm after reviewing the scope of services.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to not approve the two-year contract with Flint Strategies.
Council Member Scharff indicated the work to be performed was not clear.
There were no metrics to determine whether efforts were successful. The
City did not need to spend that amount of money.
Ms. Gitelman could present metrics to demonstrate how the contract had
been effective in helping Staff reach out to the community. The e-
newsletter required an incredible amount of Staff time to produce; time that
could be spent on other initiatives. The firm could assist Staff with the e-
newsletter. Staff could provide metrics of the number of people who clicked
on the e-newsletter and how deeply those people reviewed the projects in
the newsletter.
Council Member Scharff believed metrics should be provided before the
Council approved a contract. The proposal provided open-ended tasks for
the firm.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 104
Council Member Holman wanted to support Planning Staff; however, she was
challenged by the way the proposal was written. Metrics would be good, but
Staff needed some latitude to contact the firm for work. Outreach to the
community seemed to be too general.
Council Member Berman inquired whether Staff felt Ms. Flint would provide
competent, independent group facilitation.
Ms. Gitelman answered yes, that was one of Ms. Flint's skills.
Council Member Berman asked if Staff felt Ms. Flint had expertise in survey
design, implementation, and analysis in order to accurately understand
residents' opinions.
Ms. Gitelman had not worked with Ms. Flint directly regarding a residents'
survey; however, that was within her abilities.
Council Member Berman referred to an opinion/editorial article regarding
suggestions to improve input from stakeholder groups. The proposal could
better define tasks that would be given to the firm. The Council should not
expect Staff to have expertise in all areas. If the proposal was better
written, he would be more inclined to support it. If the Council did not
receive the feedback it requested, then it should give Staff some tools to
obtain the feedback it wanted. He would oppose the Motion.
Council Member Price would not support the Motion. Given the experience
of Staff with community outreach and contracts with consultants, Staff
should have greater flexibility to work with a consultant. If the Council did
not act, Staff would lose the cadence that had built over the course of the
work. She inquired whether Ms. Gitelman had previously worked with the
consultant and knew of other cities' experiences with the consultant.
Ms. Gitelman responded yes. The contract followed the regular procurement
process. Staff interviewed the proposed consultant and two other
consultants. Staff checked the consultants' references.
Council Member Price advised that in her experience performance measures
and criteria often were not embedded in a proposal. In a second round of
discussion, measures were refined. The Council approved the proposal in
the Budget; yet, when Staff provided additional information regarding the
scope of services, Council Members did not want to approve the expenditure.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 105
Council Member Schmid defined engagement as ideas, design, and action.
Good engagement came from good data. He questioned whether outreach
would be more effective if half the contract amount was spent on gathering
good data and making it available for engagement.
Ms. Gitelman felt the City had collected and had a great deal of data. The
Existing Conditions Report contained a tremendous amount of data about
which Staff had not engaged the community.
Council Member Schmid had attended Our Palo Alto meetings. Those
meetings did not begin with provocative data, which would create
disagreement and statements of alternative positions. A sophisticated,
active community would engage when data was available.
Ms. Gitelman recalled the first Our Palo Alto event regarding demographic
trends was well attended. Staff wanted more of those kinds of events.
Community momentum had slowed, perhaps because the Council decided to
consider short-term zoning changes in advance of the Comprehensive Plan
Update. Staff did not have the capacity to plan events around ideas and
data such as demographics and housing affordability on an ongoing basis
while performing day-to-day tasks as well as developing transportation,
parking, and Comprehensive Plan initiatives. The Council authorized a
consultant to assist with activities, and Staff proposed to do that. If the
Council did not wish to approve the consultant's contract, then Staff would
not have the ability to plan events around data as suggested.
Mayor Shepherd proposed tabling the item in the interest of time.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council
Member Berman to approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee
to execute contract C15154961 with Flint Strategies in an amount not to
exceed $175,000 for a two-year period to provide consulting services for
communication and outreach support for the Our Palo Alto initiative and the
Department of Planning & Community Environment. The City Manager is not
to expend more than $75,000 for the contract without returning to the
Council for approval, such approval request is to contain the appropriate
metrics showing whether or not the consultant's efforts have been
successful.
Council Member Klein advised that the Motion was recommended by the City
Manager and was reasonable. He would not be adverse to a different dollar
amount if a Council Member suggested one.
Council Member Berman concurred with Council Member Klein's comments.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 106
Council Member Burt believed metrics flowed from well-defined objectives.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND to add “well-defined objectives and metrics” after “… request
is to contain the appropriate”.
Council Member Burt felt Staff had provided a decent explanation for the
concept; however, the proposal did not contain sufficient information
regarding work resulting from the project. The Palo Alto community
expected and needed more and better engagement than the average
community. Engagement was two-way and meaningful dialog. He believed
that was the intent of the proposal.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
22. Review of City Hall Remodel Project (Continued From October 20,
2014).
Mayor Shepherd continued the item to the next Council meeting.
James Keene, City Manager, commented that continuing an item cost the
City money.
The City Council convened into the Closed Session at 10:52 P.M.
Closed Session
23. CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL
Potential Litigation Relating to the Mitchell Park Library
and Community Center Construction
Significant Exposure to Litigation: 1 Potential Case
Potential Initiation of Litigation: 1 Potential Case
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9
The City Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 11:40 P.M.
Mayor Shepherd announced there was no reportable action.
MINUTES
11/10/2014 116- 107
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 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.