Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-06 City Council Summary Minutes 06/06/94 73-58 Regular Meeting June 6, 1994 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................73-60 SPECIAL MEETINGS AND/OR CLOSED SESSIONS.....................73-60 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission...........73-60 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY...................................73-60 1. Resolutions of Appreciation to the Urban Design Committee .......................................................73-60 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................73-61 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 4 AND 11, 1994 ................73-62 CONSENT CALENDAR............................................73-62 3. Ordinance 4223 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.42 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Taxicabs....................73-62 4. Ordinance 4224 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 16.24.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Fences on University Avenue.................................................73-62 5. Ordinance 4225 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.10.040 and 18.71.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Driveway Access to Cottages in the `RE' and `OS' Zones.73-62 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................73-63 PUBLIC HEARINGS.............................................73-63 06/06/94 73-59 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropria-tion for Capital Improvement Project No. 19420, "Chuck Thompson Site Pool Removal"............................73-63 06/06/94 73-60 REPORTS OF OFFICIALS........................................73-74 7. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Metropolitan Fiber Systems of California, Inc. for Installation of Fiber Optic Cables.....................................73-74 8. Sublease and Rental Structure at the Cubberley Community Center and the Eleven Extended Day Care Sites..........73-79 COUNCIL MATTERS.............................................73-79 9. Council Members McCown, Andersen, Fazzino and Mayor Kniss re Request for Council Support for East Palo Alto's Designation as a Federal Enterprise Community..........73-79 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........73-79 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. in honor of "D-Day."...............................................73-79 06/06/94 73-61 06/06/94 73-62 06/06/94 73-63 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber (arrived at 6:08 p.m.), Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. SPECIAL MEETINGS AND/OR CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission No action taken. * * * * * Regular Meeting June 6, 1994 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 8:14 p.m.), Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolutions of Appreciation to the Urban Design Committee Mayor Kniss read the Resolutions expressing appreciation to members of the Urban Design Committee. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Resolutions. Resolution 7309 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Tony Carrasco for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" Resolution 7310 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Robert Frank for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" 06/06/94 73-64 Resolution 7311 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bruce Fukuji for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" 06/06/94 73-65 Resolution 7312 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Betty Meltzer for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" Resolution 7313 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to John Montgomery for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" Resolution 7314 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Roxy Rapp for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" Resolution 7315 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Linda Scott for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" Resolution 7316 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Shirley Wilson for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" Resolution 7317 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to David Zink-Brody for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Urban Design Committee" Shirley Wilson, Chairperson, Urban Design Committee, said the project had been strenuous but pleasurable. She felt more part of the community because of her participation on the Committee. It had been a privilege. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Linda Wahle, P. O. Box 470874, San Francisco, spoke regarding the fact that her eyeglasses had been stolen from Rinconada swimming pool and wanted to make a claim for the loss. Jim Wyman, 449 Cork Harbor Court, Redwood City, a Palo Alto employee and member of Local 715, spoke regarding an agency shop and management/union interests. 06/06/94 73-66 Sarah Tyree, 1901 Halford Avenue No. 86, Santa Clara, spoke regarding the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) contract. Angelo Lombardo, President, Palo Alto Stewards Council, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), 231 Alturas Avenue, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding the SEIU contract. Sandy Strehlou, Field Representative, Service Employees Interna- tional Union (SEIU), spoke regarding SEIU negotiations. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding "Who runs this town?" (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Eric Haut, 445 Milan Drive, San Jose, City Utilities Department employee, spoke regarding the SEIU contract. Ben Bailey, 323 Byron Street, spoke regarding Reserve Police Officer Ted Brassinga and World Cup Soccer. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding homelessness. Robert Monaghan, 2321 Hanover Street, spoke regarding United States banking. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 4 AND 11, 1994 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of April 4, 1994, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of April 11, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 5. 3. Ordinance 4223 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.42 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Taxicabs" (1st Reading 5/16/94, PASSED: 9-0) 4. Ordinance 4224 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 16.24.040 of the Palo Alto 06/06/94 73-67 Municipal Code Relating to Fences on University Avenue" (1st Reading 5/16/94, PASSED: 6-2, Andersen, Simitian "no," Schneider "not participating") 5. Ordinance 4225 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.10.040 and 18.71.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Driveway Access to Cottages in the `RE' and `OS' Zones" (1st Reading 5/16/94, PASSED: 9-0) MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item Nos. 3 and 5, Simitian absent. MOTION PASSED 6-1, for Item No. 4, Andersen "no," Schneider "not participating," Simitian absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2, Retirement Plan Alternative for Hourly Employees, had been removed by staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 19420, "Chuck Thompson Site Pool Removal" Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland, said the proposals had been submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis facility located at 3005 Middlefield Road, along with the Proposal Committee's evaluation of the proposals. Staff recommended Council reject the proposals submitted in response to the RFP and direct staff to evaluate an alternate use and disposition. Staff also recommended Council approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to provide funds to remove the swimming pool at the site. On April 26, 1993, Council had approved an RFP for an option to lease the property and had directed staff to solicit proposals to obtain neighborhood input prior to returning to Council with a recommendation. The intent of the RFP was to solicit proposals for a long-term lease for the development and operation of a recreational facility with public benefit at no cost to the City. A staff committee evaluated the proposals based on the criteria included in the RFP and had solicited neighborhood input. The staff report (CMR:293:94) included comments from neighbors on the proposals and the staff committee's evaluation and recommendation that Council reject both proposals. The committee concluded that, although both proposals had many strengths and benefits, neither proposal responded fully to the intent of the RFP nor sufficiently fulfilled the public need 06/06/94 73-68 to justify its cost to the City or its impact to the neighbors. Since the RFP had not resulted in proposals which met the intent, the recommendation was that Council direct staff to reevaluate the site for other uses and provide staff with the criteria or parameters for alternate uses. In addition, because of the deteriorated condition of the existing pool and because no proposals had been received which included its use, staff recom-mended approval of a BAO in the amount of $30,000 for the removal of the existing pool on the site. Council Member McCown asked about the publication or announcement process which had been used in the RFP process to solicit propos-als. Ms. Freeland said advertisements had been placed in local newspa-pers and informational flyers had been mailed to everyone on the City's surplus property mailing list, anyone who had indicated an interest in the site, and all operators of similar facilities in the Bay Area. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Sheryl Keller, 642 Georgia Avenue, President, Community Skating, Inc., distributed information (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which was presented and spoke about the reasoning behind rejection of the proposal. The agenda item pertained to only one aspect of the proposal. All other aspects of the proposal had been rejected by City staff for reasons which her agency thought could be disputed. CSI was a nonprofit organization which had successfully operated the Winter Lodge Ice Skating Rink since 1985. The Tall Tree Award had been received by CSI for outstanding community service. In 1993, CSI submitted a proposal for the property and expected staff to recommend acceptance of the proposal. Phase I considered only the improvement of the property. CSI had committed $100,000 toward the upgrade of the facilities on the site. Phase II was contingent on the City's commitment to recreation and the need for recreation in the future. Phase I was not contingent on the City's response. CSI was confused about the staff recommendation to Council because the summary was positive. The reasons for the rejections included staff's assumption of no public need for such a facility, interpretation by staff that there was a cost to the City, particularly with regard to Phase I, and concern for potential impact to community and neighbors. The facts about public need included historic ice skating use of the property for 39 years, swimming at the location for 25 years, and a service to almost 80,000 residents of Palo Alto annually. Voter action was very important in the decisions regarding the property. In 1985, over 70 percent of Palo Alto voters had approved a parkland-for- parkland swap initiative. In 1990, Council directed staff to 06/06/94 73-69 prepare the RFP for long-term recreational use. CSI believed Council, in requesting the RFP, recognized the importance of recreational use of the property. In 1993, staff prepared the RFP for long-term recreational use of the property. CSI believed staff also felt a need for recreational use on the site. Jan van der Laan, 3090 Ross Road, Board Member of the Winter Lodge, said the objectives of the different phases included renovation of the existing tennis courts, completion of the shared parking area in front of the Winter Lodge, and operation and maintenance of the property. A map showed the area of the courts and existing pool, which no longer functioned. The tennis courts were in poor condition and would be upgraded. The former Shell station would become a parking lot. The cost impact to the City would be zero. CSI had committed $100,000 to Phase I, representing the entire estimated costs for reconstruction of the tennis courts and parking lot. Phase II involved development of a multipurpose recreational facility, which would be called the Midtown Recreational Center, and development of a program to operate and maintain the facili-ties. A conceptual plan included the addition of a swimming pool, designed specifically to facilitate teaching young children. The multipurpose gymnasium and cabanas were designed as mitigation against noises affecting neighbors. Because the property required additional parking, the number of tennis courts had been reduced. The plans for landscaping the front parking area had already passed the Architectural Review Board (ARB), contingent on the fact one- third of the cost would be assumed, which Winter Lodge would do. The cost impact to the City for Phase II was strictly contingent on whether the City was willing to support the recreational facility. The second aspect involved CSI's development of programs at no cost to the City. City staff and the review committee had asked whether or not CSI would consider operating the facility if Phase II were not considered. CSI had responded in the affirmative. With respect to the fee structure for the tennis courts, CSI believed the costs on Chart B in the staff report (CMR:293:94) were zero. Linda Stebbins Jensen, 241 Colorado Avenue, said CSI would have a positive impact on the community and neighbors. Annual use of the recreational facilities was approximately 75,000 to 80,000 members of the community. Improvement to the Property would generate even more use as a recreational gathering point. The Palo Alto Tennis Club (PATC) also supported more and improved tennis facilities in Midtown. Winter Lodge would carry the same noncompetitive, skill development programs which had made ice skating a popular activity. The property would become a year-round recreational facility. CSI agreed with City staff's statement in the staff report (CMR:293:94) that Phase I of the proposal would have a "relatively minor impact" on the neighbors. In the design of the Midtown Recreation Center 06/06/94 73-70 Phase II, neighbors had also been considered. Any construction would be mitigated by the Planning Department and ARB at the time of approval. The City had received 22 responses by letter and telephone, 19 of which were from condominium owners directly adjacent to the Winter Lodge. Only three letters had been received from other areas near the property. The ratio of letters to total population to be served was extremely small. She urged Council to keep in mind the large positive effect a Midtown recreation center would have for the larger community of Palo Alto. Brian George, 3501 Murdoch Drive, said CSI's proposal addressed and responded to the RFP. The entire proposal needed to be seriously considered. CSI was a group solely dedicated to recreation and felt strongly about the way in which the property should be used. In 1985, the citizens passed the initiative and mandated the property as a recreational park. Council had been directed to preserve the site for recreation. It was up to CSI and Council to ensure it occurred. Any change would influence the entire recreational life of the Midtown community for many years. It was Council's responsibility to ensure it was a balanced community by including all aspects of a quality lifestyle. There was a concern for more low-cost, high-density housing in Palo Alto, but there was also a need for quality recreation and parks. CSI urged Council to bring to completion the process which had begun in 1985. There was much potential in the CSI proposal, and difficulties could be worked out. Council Member Rosenbaum said Mr. George had referenced expecta-tions of the public when it had voted in 1985. The full text of the Ordinance had been distributed, the first "whereas" of which said, "the purposes of said exchange would be: 1) to acquire the Middlefield Road property as a site for community ice skating and other appropriate uses; 2) to provide adequate planning for the ultimate development of that site; and 3) to allow the continued use of the Winter Lodge ice skating facility." It was not obvious that any promise had been made for the 3.5 acres to be forever used for recreational purposes. Mr. George had referenced words in the Ordinance concerning an exchange of land where the golf course had been located to parkland in the Midtown area. There was also reference to recreation in the Ordinance. Karla Nguyen, 3069 Middlefield Road, No. 203, requested Council follow staff's recommendations to deny use permits to both the PATC and CSI. She queried why the Council would want to rush into a ten-year lease on one of the few remaining developable sites in Palo Alto owned by the City. A consultation with the City Attorney to determine alternative best and highest uses for the property was in order. Public pool use had declined in Palo Alto for the past 06/06/94 73-71 few years. In 1993, two community pools had closed early due to lack of use. Within one-half mile from the CSI and PATC proposals, the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) planned to construct a lap pool and another pool for instructions, swimming lessons, and the developmentally disabled. Additionally, the outdoor noise generated by another outdoor pool would be more than the neighbor- hood could bear. There had been noise complaints against the managers and operators of Winter Lodge for over six years. Communication should be encouraged between businesses and resi- dents. Any major changes should respect neighborhood concerns for noise, litter, parking, and the environment in general. Residents would be willing to assist the City in exploring alternative uses such as a unit for developmentally disabled or an additional community garden. Council should reject the CSI and PATC land use proposals. Genevieve Dean, 3077 Middlefield Road, No. 201, said earmuffs had to be worn in her own home for nine months out of the year. She was unaware of a working relationship between CSI and the neighbors. The staff report (CMR:293:94) spelled out many more less specific reasons for not developing the tennis courts and swimming pool. Council should identify a use for the site that was appropriate to a residential neighborhood and to authorize funds to fill in the swimming pool. William Rosenberg, 820 Bruce Drive, former President of CSI and currently on the Board of Directors of CSI, said ten years before, when Measures A and B had been formulated and brought to a community vote, a community center adjacent to the property was being destroyed and condominiums were being built with the City's approval for zoning variances that allowed construction close to the fence line, which created a confrontational environment. As a result, for the past six or seven years, there had been continued controversy. Additional housing would only create more controversy. It should be done in a way which preserved the existing land as a buffer between the Winter Lodge and residents. Tennis courts were a good recreational use. Jeff Garaventa, 3077 Middlefield Road, concurred with Ms. Nguyen's comments. The construction of a pool at the YMCA would make it unwise for the City to proceed with a pool. Staff should be commended on its report, and Council should follow staff's recommendation. Michele Simon, 3077 Middlefield Road, No. 102, Treasurer of the Middlefield Road Homeowners Association, agreed with the preceding comments of Ms. Nguyen and Mr. Garaventa and the comment about not increasing the controversy. As a new resident of Palo Alto, she was astonished and disappointed at the idea of placing in a very 06/06/94 73-72 dense residential neighborhood an even more densely packed public facility. The Winter Lodge provided an important, well-loved service to the community of Palo Alto that she did not want to obstruct. She thanked staff for its very thoughtful evaluation of the issues involved. It was a complex problem with which the staff report dealt effectively. Joan McDonnell, 1018 Los Robles, had lived in Palo Alto since 1957. She voted for the passage of the parkland-for-parkland initiative of the Middlefield Road site which over 70 percent of Palo Alto voters supported. Parkland was a precious commodity and an asset which should be preserved for generations to come. Voters had entrusted the City to honor the votes and follow the intent of Measures A and B. Measure B had specifically indicated the land would be for recreational use. Voters expected the City to be careful custodians of public land for its children's children to enjoy as well as for itself. City staff was considering uses for the site other than recreation, e.g., more housing. She queried whether the complaints of a few vocal condominium owners would drown out the voices of the voters of the City of Palo Alto in 1985. The real villain was the City for allowing condominiums to be built. Council Member Fazzino said two speakers had raised the issue of the condominiums and asked the City Attorney or the Planning Department whether variances had been associated with the develop- ment. He believed zoning had already allowed such a condominium development at the site. It was important for the historic record to understand the exact situation at the time. He recalled voting against it but also recalled it would have been difficult for a majority of Council to deny the application for the development given the fact that the zoning already in place allowed housing. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which spoke on behalf of residents against the continued management of the property by CSI. She suggested a different proposal for the property, i.e., indoor recreation, a café or lounge for community meetings, or a neighborhood center for adults, and the tennis courts could be moved to Hoover Park. John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, gave specifics concerning the noise problem. Ten years before there had been a problem with tennis instructors at the Chuck Thompson Tennis Club drinking alcohol late at night on the tennis courts, which had been quickly remedied and not repeated. Similar problems under the current management had not resulted in the same assumed responsibility. Rollerblade hockey was a big problem on the tennis courts as it occurred late at night or early in the morning. Tennis early in the morning produced noise. The provision for trees in the diagram 06/06/94 73-73 was not included in the area between his residence and the tennis courts. Noise from the rink was an intermittent problem. Chuck Bradley, 2957 Waverley Street, was a 29-year resident of Palo Alto, had headed up the Winter Lodge Committee for the Palo Alto Tennis Club, and had authored the proposal which the City had received. Confusion existed between the RFP and the staff report (CMR:293:94). The RFP had been very clear about using the property for a swim and tennis facility only. The RFP had indicated the courts were currently being used for tennis. The RFP encouraged the use of tennis and/or swimming for instruction, which had been included in the PATC's proposal. There was a need for tennis services in Palo Alto. The staff report changed the zoning from low-density multiple-family residential to public facilities. The staff report also recommended the site be used for uses other than swimming and tennis. PATC believed tennis was the best use in view of the problems and concerns by neighbors. Vadim Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, No. 204, said the addition of a swimming pool in the property would add to the already exacerbat-ed noise situation which existed for the neighbors. Noise from the Winter Lodge had been a problem for many years. Despite sugges- tions, letters, and numerous complaints, all efforts had failed. City staff had made efforts to reduce noise in other areas of the City and asked that the Council adopt the staff recommendation. Kay Carey, 4160 Old Trace Road, President of the PATC, said the PATC was concerned about the possible loss of four additional tennis courts in the City. The staff report (CMR:293:94) indicated there was insufficient demand in Palo Alto for tennis; however, interest in tennis had grown. Palo Alto had always endorsed a policy which encouraged people to play tennis. Organized recre- ational use and more people coming into the sport put new demand on City courts. PATC had budgeted $50,000 to make four playable courts under the City's inventory and control and had already set aside $15,000 in the last two years. PATC could match the total cost of Phase I, contributing up to one-half of the cost of the lighting. Tennis courts were less burdensome on a neighborhood than a swimming pool. Council Member Rosenbaum said one of the weaknesses of the PATC proposal was the request for the City to put up the majority of the money. He asked whether discussions had occurred with the 700-member organization about the possibility of funding the total capital improvement for rebuilding the four courts. Ms. Carey said the total capital improvement had to be defined. She had begun with the idea of resurfacing at $50,000, moving into the next phase of lighting, then adding more courts. At an initial $50,000 outlay, PATC had already indicated a willingness to 06/06/94 73-74 contribute $15,000. From discussions with members of the board, it was reasonably foreseeable the contribution would be closer to $25,000 within another 12 months. PATC had not embarked upon a fund-raising campaign to fund the entire $50,000 project. Several members expressed interest in making tax deductible donations through a tennis trust. The idea had not been circulated since PATC had been unable to make the promise that the City had a dedicated recreational facility to which people could contribute. Council Member McCown asked whether there had been any discussions between the PATC and CSI, which had also proposed a tennis component for the site. Ms. Carey said initial discussions had occurred between PATC and CSI at the time of the RFP. It had been difficult to arrive at a common plan at the time because CSI had not determined the highest and best use of the facility. Since the report had been issued, PATC and CSI were in agreement concerning the four existing tennis courts. Since CSI had offered a capital contribution, it would be wise to have discussions between the two groups. Mayor Kniss asked how many total courts existed in Palo Alto. Ms. Carey said there were 42 courts in Palo Alto which were used a great deal, but the actual inventory was approximately 50. She was unclear whether there were some courts which required upgrading in order to be put into playable condition. The $25,000 to the City for the restoration of the four courts was incredibly inexpensive because the cost could run $30,000 per tennis court or higher. Mayor Kniss confirmed the courts were approximately 40 years old. Sam Sparck, 302 Poe Street, had been in favor of preserving the Winter Lodge as a recreational asset to the City as a fine place for children and young people in 1985. The benefits anticipated in keeping the Winter Lodge alive had come to pass. Winter Lodge wished to expand its recreational program on land which the former City Council had zoned for parkland. The expanded program would benefit Palo Altans of all ages, especially the young. Other factors to consider included the cost to the City to develop the site, noise which affected residential neighbors, and the possibil-ity of rezoning the land for housing. The Winter Lodge was a proven organization and an asset to the City. The proposed expansion could be staged over time to spread the costs over future City budgets, and the management of the site would be taken care of well without City involvement. The noise was also a real and serious factor to consider but should not be used as a reason to veto the proposed expansion. With chosen hours of operation and controlled access to the facility, sound-absorbent landscaping, careful citing of new facilities to minimize exposure, architectur- 06/06/94 73-75 al planning, and effective noise barriers, the real objection to noise could be overcome. The alternative possible use of the land for housing was favorable, and the deficit in housing needed to be addressed. The decision of the former City Council should not be reversed. The staff recommendations should be rejected. Weyyi Wang, 3054 Price Court, said his house was located 50 yards from the property. In the evenings, especially on the weekends, it was difficult to sleep. The proposed pool would be only 10 yards from his residence. He strongly supported the staff recommendation to reject the CSI proposal. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, founding member of the trust for Community Skating, Inc., Board Member of Community Skating Inc., and current President of the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, was profoundly disappointed in the proposal found in the staff report (CMR:293:94) and read a letter to that effect (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Stephanie Downey, 14330 De Bell Drive, Los Altos Hills, had skated at the Winter Lodge since second grade, and although many com- plaints were received from the neighbors, the Winter Lodge did its best to keep the noise level down. Overhead loudspeakers were not used and no music was played before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. New housing next to the Winter Lodge would add to the problem, and more neighbors would complain about children and adults having a good time skating at the Winter Lodge. RECESS: 9:15 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. Margaret Zuanich, 4025 Laguna Avenue, lived in Palo Alto since the 1960s. She supported the people who had operated the Winter Lodge. She had personally watched them work with the community and the neighbors. She supported the proposal and hoped the staff recommendation would be rejected. Mike Cobb, 3863 Dixon Place, recalled that in the early 1980s the issue dealt with the amortization of the Chuck Thompson site, the opposition to building condominiums, and communitywide opposition to losing the Winter Lodge. The family that owned the property wanted to develop the property, and the only way that could be accomplished was to find some other commercial land. The City did a land swap, and it was taken to the voters. The discourse of the campaign was simple--to save the Winter Lodge and do a land swap. That was the promise made to the voters. The voters cast their votes based on that understanding. If the City decided to reject the recreational uses and put residential use on the property, it would be contrary to what the voters understood was before them. The Winter Lodge had been there long before the condominiums. The 06/06/94 73-76 noise from a residential use next to the Winter Lodge might create a self-fulfilling prophecy and make it harder to maintain the promise made to the voters. He reminded the Council that it was supposed to be a one-to-one land swap. He suggested that if the Council decided to change its decision, it should go back to voters and give the voters a chance to change their decision as well. Margaret Zuanich, 4025 Laguna Avenue, said Council Member Fazzino wanted to clearly understand the community's perception. He asked whether there was any question that the entire site on Middlefield Road was to be used for recreational purposes. Mr. Cobb recalled that the discourse of the campaign and relevant discussions was that the site should be used for recreational purposes only. There was significant opposition in the Midtown community to having further condominium development on the site. There had always been some issue with people living immediately adjacent to the site with respect to tennis court usage. There was never any question that any part of the site would be built for condominiums. The whole idea was to swap dedicated parkland for other dedicated parkland to be used for recreation, which had been the general theme of the campaign and what voters generally understood, even though the technical language in the measure was not the same. Council Member Fazzino said the language showed Council split on the issue at the time and asked why several members of Council had opposed both measures. Mr. Cobb said former Council Member Renzel would say that giving up any park land in the Baylands, which was what the area was perceived to be, was a complete affront to the environmental community. It was a split Council vote, but Council was often split. The community's desires had been fairly clear. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the purpose of the exchange was to acquire the Middlefield Road property as a site for community ice skating and other appropriate uses. The agenda item that evening was about removal of a swimming pool on the site and nothing about RFPs. He hoped when Council made a decision, the agenda item would truly reflect the intent per the Brown Act Open Meeting Law. The language had been drafted and passed by the voters to limit recreational uses to the ice skating rink, to give the Council the widest possible latitude for future uses of the site, and to make the measure simple in order to place it on the ballot. The proponents of the measure had anticipated that if the Chuck Thompson site had been included in the measure, it would have been defeated. The language adding the specific purpose appeared on page 5828 of the May 29, 1985, Council Minutes. Former Vice 06/06/94 73-77 Mayor Cobb had indicated the "purpose of the ordinance was to try to eliminate confusion at the polls." The idea was to limit recre-ational uses to the ice skating rink in order to adopt the ordinance and the exchange. Housing on the adjoining site met the zoning with no variances required. The City gave up dedicated parkland, not a recreational use, in exchange for property. There had been some concern expressed in the community for the provision of housing sites for developmentally disabled. The site had been considered for such housing, but the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had been concerned about whether or not the noise level was too high. He had previously suggested consolidating commercial uses in Midtown to provide more housing using the commercial sites vacated for RM-15. Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, No. 101, lived in the condominiums adjacent to Winter Lodge for six years. During the nine months of Winter Lodge winter activities, the windows had to be closed. If a swimming pool and additional tennis courts were operated in the summer, residents would be unable to block the noise by closing windows. There were sufficient tennis courts and several swimming pools in the community. The Chuck Thompson site was not appropriate since there were neighbors a short distance away. There would be additional problems with the lighting in the parking lots for night activities. There was a severe parking problem because there were 24 units but only 22 outside parking spaces, and often there was no available street parking. She requested Council to accept the staff recommendation. Carolyn George, 3501 Murdock Drive, said there had always been swimming, skating, and tennis at the Winter Lodge; and the public had always associated the facility with recreation. Further activities at the Winter Lodge brought life and people back into Midtown. Winter Lodge was a clean facility on the inside and outside. The Eichler Swim Club was a good example of a swimming pool in the midst of residential areas with nothing to buffer except a creek, yet neighbors did not complain. The Winter Lodge had been in existence when the condominiums had been purchased. Residents had made a decision to live in the condominiums. The Winter Lodge was historic. Everyone she spoke with at the time of the campaign was that the issue was parkland for parkland, which meant recreation whether it was formal or not. She supported reevaluation of staff's recommendation. Carol Achtman, 551 Hilbar Lane, had lived under the L-Train and understood what it was like to live with repetitive, uncontrolla-ble, and incessant noise. She had returned to participate in the programs, and the adult classes for skaters and community skating offered the community a unique asset. She hoped Council would 06/06/94 73-78 reject the staff recommendation and allow community skating to develop the recreational resources of the property. Robert Monaghan, 2321 Hanover Street, said noise was not a severe infringement upon consciousness but was an annoyance which might build up if unwelcome. There were certain acoustical materials which could sufficiently, physically reduce the noise aspect, rendering the problem to one of sociological noise rather than physical noise. Materials could insulate the area between the recreational and residential zones. If the noise aspect was set at a certain decibel level by Council, mechanisms could be installed with meters which would turn off the lights on the tennis courts if the noise rose above a certain level at certain hours. He wanted the Winter Lodge retained as recreational space. He encouraged maintaining the Winter Lodge skating, tennis courts, and a swimming pool to offer such recreation to the Midtown area. Diana Barnes, 2242 Wellesley Street, said Palo Alto was known for supporting its youth. She was a substitute teacher with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and a contract employee of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre. Schools had begun to provide less and less after-school sports, and keeping children in sports and recreation gave them a sense of belonging. Recreational facilities were necessary in Midtown to provide youth a team and a place to belong. She understood noise problems, living next door to a Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) center at College Terrace with no fence, no trees, etc., but she would trade the noise of a tennis game for a safer neighborhood. The facility should be kept available for children's recreation. Council should support Palo Alto's youth. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, had been saddened to see Hoover School turned into a housing development. Marilyn Eaton, 690 Hermosa Way, Menlo Park, had worked at the Winter Lodge for 24 years and had been part of the founding group. Much of the discussion centered around the problem of noise between neighbors and Winter Lodge. Winter Lodge attempted to address the noise problem. Condominium owners did not realize the extent to which things had been done to reduce the problems. Lighting and sound systems had been changed, and music could not be used at certain times at night. Music was necessary for skating, particularly because much of the program was developed around a show presented at the end of the year. If noise became a problem, the rink would have to be shut down because it could not exist without putting on shows. Any changes should be made with a goal of not exacerbating the noise problem. 06/06/94 73-79 City Manager June Fleming had conferred with the City Attorney after Mr. Borock had spoken and had carefully studied the published agenda and the title of the report. Staff recommended that since there was an inconsistency between the item on the agenda and the item which Council had heard, Council should cease further discussion of the item. The only aspect upon which Council could act was the request for appropriation for funding the pool work, which could also be delayed. Council should consider not taking any more public testimony and continue the item to the following week, at which time anyone who had not already spoken would be given an opportunity, and Council could continue the discussion and make a decision the following week. City Attorney Ariel Calonne agreed with Ms. Fleming. Council's responsibility was not to discuss, ask questions, or take action. The Council's discussion should be continued as well since the Brown Act made it clear Council was not to discuss anything not appearing on the agenda. The title of the May 26, 1994, staff report had not made it clear to the agenda. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 19420, "Chuck Thompson Site Pool Removal" to Monday, June 13, 1994, to notice the subject appropri-ately on the Council agenda and allow the continuation of public testimony to provide for any additional speakers who had not spoken on the item. Mayor Kniss asked about the legality of Council's asking questions of staff before the next meeting. Mr. Calonne said Council could contact staff with questions. Council Member McCown clarified that further public testimony would allow the opportunity for people who, because of the renoticing, might attend. Mayor Kniss said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked about the contact between members of the public and Council in the interim. Mr. Calonne said the reason for the public hearing was the Council's own leasing procedure was not a limitation on ex parte contact. Council Member McCown clarified questions of staff and other communications with the community were allowable. 06/06/94 73-80 Mr. Calonne replied yes. It was qualified by the need for Council to avoid reaching collective concurrence on the issue before the meeting. Mayor Kniss asked whether members of the public who had already spoken could speak again. Ms. Fleming replied no. Only people who had not spoken during the meeting that evening could speak at the next meeting. Mayor Kniss understood the item was being continued because it had been noticed and listed improperly on the agenda. Ms. Fleming said the title on the agenda was incorrect. Mayor Kniss queried the possibility of a misunderstanding with a member of the public who might want to speak at the next meeting. Mr. Calonne said Council did not have to afford people the opportunity to again speak, but it did need to afford the opportu- nity to people who had not spoken to address the new agenda title. Ms. Fleming said the rules were Council's and the application needed to be consistent. Council Member Andersen asked whether the item could be for a time certain. Ms. Fleming said the item would appear under Unfinished Business and would be the first item after the Consent Calendar. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. Ms. Fleming apologized to the public and Council for the staff error. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 7. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Metropolitan Fiber Systems of California, Inc. for Installation of Fiber Optic Cables City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Metropolitan Fiber Systems of California, Inc. (MFS) for the construction, installation, and maintenance of fiber optic cables and related facilities within the public right-of-way (the Agreement) contained some small but significant modifications since Council's previous review. It clarified the City's authority to 06/06/94 73-81 control the timing of fiber installation if it posed a problem for businesses and clarified the cost recovery provisions to assure the City would be in a 100 percent cost-recovery situation. Council Member Fazzino asked for clarification of the issue regarding space limitation on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:301:94), described as a "valid criterion." He wanted to be assured other companies, including the City and other public/pri-vate efforts in the area, would have the opportunity to gain access to the public right-of-way for the systems. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the issue of space limitations had begun originally with staff's concern regarding the utilization of the area between the curb lines beneath the pavement for the City's municipal utility purposes, e.g., gas, electric, water, and sewer lines. Staff had originally intended to require MFS and any other private utilities to locate facilities in an area which would not interfere with the municipal utilities. MFS had already anticipated such a measure, and the initial proposal was to install the cable in the sidewalk area by means of direct boring. It was a very amicable discussion in that regard. It would be staff's intent that it be established as a precedent for any other such cable installations in the future to follow the model. Council Member Fazzino clarified staff viewed it as a relatively minor impact on the public right-of-way and assured Council it would not prevent other systems or other efforts, either public or private, from installing cable. Mr. Roberts replied yes. Other similar systems could accomplish the same low-impact style if it so desired or was required to use the direct boring, which was the key. It would be necessary under similar installations. Council Member McCown asked about MFS's obligation under Section 7.1 of the Agreement concerning joint participation in the future with other permittees or cooperation with other permittees and whether there was any special relationship between MFS and the City in terms of the City as a potential user and subsequently future cooperation. Mr. Roberts said it was a prospective requirement and there were no other ongoing activities. The Agreement simply ensured that should any other activities come forward, the City would be able to require the coordination. Nothing was currently under way. As to the City's potential role, the City had reserved a number of rights in the Agreement contingent on Council's future actions in the study of its own communications utility. The Agreement was prospective; and if the Council desired to pursue the issue, the 06/06/94 73-82 City would have certain rights in acquiring the MFS system. There was nothing inherent in the Agreement which related to present activities, but all referenced future activities. Council Member McCown said there had been discussions concerning the possibility of the City's entering the fiber optics arena, and the General Manager of Cable Co-op had expressed interest in entering the fiber optic field. She asked what, if any, obligation MFS had under the Agreement to cooperate and what joint participa- tion cooperation meant in terms of MFS's obligation if Cable Co-op wanted to enter the field either separately or jointly with the City. Mr. Roberts said the Agreement dealt with the physical aspects of MFS's system, e.g., engineering plans, design, location, and coordination of construction activities. No one system's physical presence would be allowed to preclude an opportunity for another potential provider. Council Member McCown clarified if Cable Co-op wanted to enter under the same sidewalk and had a question about exactly where MFS's line was located, MFS would be obligated to provide the information to Cable Co-op. Mr. Roberts replied yes. Council Member Schneider asked whether the City had been approached by other fiber optic companies. Mr. Roberts said the City had received preliminary inquiries from three or four other companies, but no formal applications had been received. Council Member Schneider clarified the process had proceeded in the same manner as it had with MFS. Mr. Roberts replied yes. However, MFS had shown more interest and diligence throughout the process than any of the other companies which had approached the City. Council Member Schneider asked whether staff had any reason to believe any of the other companies would proceed. Mr. Roberts had no reason to believe the companies would not, but there was no evidence to show the companies would either. It was at each company's initiative. Council Member Andersen said Mr. Roberts' answer to Council Member McCown's question indicated there was absolutely no obligation on 06/06/94 73-83 the part of the applicant to assist in any cooperative manner with any other potential line, e.g., the City or Cable Co-op or any other company. MFS would allow a company to run another line, but there was no sharing of conduit, etc., unless rent was paid for the use of the actual services; when it said cooperative, if MFS said "no," there was nothing. Mr. Roberts said in terms of physical or fiscal cooperation, there was no obligation for MFS to provide any monetary or material assistance. The cooperation referenced in the Agreement was with regard to the coordination of location and technical information. It was not designed to require MFS to participate in a cooperative manner or yield the facility to another, except the City. Council Member Andersen had difficulty understanding the policy issue for the Council's decision. Mr. Roberts was unsure there was a policy decision. Council Member Andersen believed the issue was either to accept the Agreement or to go to litigation. Mr. Roberts believed Council Member Andersen's summary might be fair. The Agreement was a typical ministerial act on the part of staff to issue permits as companies were granted rights by the state to utilize the public right-of-way. Staff had initiated the Agreement with MFS to set a precedent and clarify certain issues which were precedent in nature, being the first fiber optic cable franchise in the City, and to get the information into the public forum before Council rather than having Council find out about it by having issued such a ministerial permit. Vice Mayor Simitian said the options were either to approve the Agreement, possibly go to litigation, or continue negotiations. The City had negotiated and was the middle ground of the continuum. Staff had indicated it had negotiated over a period of time and after having heard from Council, but if Council did not approve the Agreement and did not want to enter litigation, it could direct staff to request further negotiations. City Manager June Fleming explained that it had been her own decision to bring the Agreement before Council. Staff could have processed it as a street opening and had the Director of Public Works sign off on the Agreement, which she had the authority to allow. Since it was the first fiber optics proposal, it seemed wiser to allow Council the opportunity to review the Agreement. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, asked for clarification on the Scope of Permit on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:254:94) which read, "the 06/06/94 73-84 agreement grants MFS conditional permission to install fiber optic cables...for the purpose of offering certain video conferencing telecommunication services [including Community Antenna Television (CATV)]. If video programming or other video data services (including CATV) are added...." It sounded as though the City granted MFS the right to offer CATV services, which were video and in direct competition with Cable Co-op. If MFS did what the City allowed it to do, the City reserved the right to begin negotiating for certain things. It could be very detrimental to Cable Co-op and the community because it put Cable Co-op at a competitive disadvantage. The franchise agreement required Cable Co-op to do certain things, provide certain services, facilities, community benefits, etc. Another company doing what MFS was doing would not have such an obligation. Therefore, services could be offered in competition with Cable Co-op and, if competed vigorously enough, could make it extremely painful financially. Cable Co-op might need to return to renegotiate the franchise agreement since its obligations would be unfair in terms of the financial disadvantage. The City should allow MFS to offer only voice. If MFS offered anything other than voice, it should be subject to receiving a franchise. The Cable Act could be read as allowing cities to require franchises for anyone offering video service of any nature, whether video conferencing, etc. CATV would fall into such a category. He wanted to see the scope of permit modified so a franchise would be required under the circumstances of offering video. Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI) was actively pursuing a fiber cable completely around the Bay Area, including Palo Alto. Negotiations with TCI had been ongoing for six months. Cable Co-op's intent was to strike an agreement whereby Cable Co-op would have access to TCI's trunk, approximately 12 to 14 miles through the franchise territory, not all of which was in Palo Alto. Pacific Bell (PacBell) would probably also want to install fiber optics into the area, so there would be three fiber trunks through the franchise area and portions of Palo Alto. Cable Co-op had talked informally about negotiating access with MFS, but had not actually spoken with them, to determine whether MFS had extra capacity it wanted to lease to Cable Co-op. The City could ask that the cable be installed in such a way that excess capacity was available for City lease. A map of the area to be served showed the cable was directed almost entirely to the high volume, high density areas such as Stanford Research Park and adjacent businesses along the Bayshore Freeway. Such an operation would not serve residences, schools, most of the government facilities, whereas Cable Co-op would. Under the MFS layout, Cable Co-op would not be able to provide the same kind and level of services it desired in the entire community. It was a significant potential problem which Council should consider carefully and reserve capacity on the fiber for City purposes. 06/06/94 73-85 Council Member Andersen asked for the City Attorney's reaction to Mr. Moss's comments. Mr. Calonne said Section 1.19 defined telecommunication services for the purpose of the Agreement, limiting it to services which MFS or Oakbrook Fiber Systems was authorized under a March 22, 1989, Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Section 3.5 of the Agreement indicated that if the use of the facilities changed beyond what was allowed under the 1989 permit, the City, if the law allowed it, had the authority to regulate. Staff anticipated that if there were a situation wherein MFS wanted to enter video programming and the law authorized the City to so regulate, the Agreement preserved the City's ability to regulate. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, was against sidewalk boring because too much was spent on sidewalk maintenance in Palo Alto. The company boring the sidewalks should be responsible for a large portion of the cost of maintaining sidewalks. Council Member Wheeler said Mr. Moss had also raised the question of whether it was possible for the City to reach an agreement with MFS to reserve space in the conduit for other possible users. Mr. Roberts said staff had discussed the issue with representatives of MFS and explored the potential for a link between the Municipal Service Center (MSC) and the Civic Center complex. MFS was not interested in providing the City with a dedicated or reserved free fiber link and had been very strong in its reaction to the request. MFS indicated a willingness to take on the City as a customer at the lowest rate structure, comparable to any industry served. Staff, in trying to move the issue along, concluded it was the best it would be able to do under the circumstances and that MFS was not the primary obstacle to such a link; the issue of a future boring under Highway 101 to connect with the MSC was a bigger obstacle. If the City wished to reactivate the issue in the future, it could return to MFS to negotiate leasing a line at the commercial rates. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to: (1) authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Metropolitan Fiber Systems of California, Inc. for the installation of fiber optic cable in designated areas within the city limits of Palo Alto; and (2) authorize the City Manager to approve any amendments to the agreement. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Andersen "abstaining." 8. Sublease and Rental Structure at the Cubberley Community Center and the Eleven Extended Day Care Sites 06/06/94 73-86 MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to continue the item to the June 13, 1994, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Council Members McCown, Andersen, Fazzino and Mayor Kniss re Request for Council Support for East Palo Alto's Designation as a Federal Enterprise Community MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Resolution expressing support for the City of East Palo Alto's application for designation as a Federal Enterprise Community. Resolution 7318 entitled "Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Support for the City of East Palo Alto's Applica-tion for Designation as a Federal Enterprise Community" MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Kniss announced the Town Hall Gathering scheduled for Saturday, June 11, 1994, at 12 p.m. at Mitchell Park and commended the City Clerk for six months' work on the gathering. She also announced the Volunteer Recognition on Tuesday, June 7, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. at Lucie Stern. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. in honor of "D-Day." 06/06/94 73-87 ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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.