HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-01 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting March 1, 1999 1. Art Center Tour........................................88-68 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m..............88-68 1. Appointment to Utility Advisory Commission.............88-69 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................88-69 2. Proposed Implementation Plan for Direct Access for Gas Utility Customers..............................................88-70 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator.......................88-70 4. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation.....88-70 5. Recommendations to Proceed with Conceptual Designs, Cost Estimation, and Environmental Assessments for Potential Sites for a Public Safety Building...........................88-70 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........88-86 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to Closed Session.......................................................88-86 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.......88-86
03/01/99 88-67
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 6 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL MEETING 1. Art Center Tour No action taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
03/01/99 88-68
Regular Meeting March 1, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment to Utility Advisory Commission Council Member Kniss said the City was fortunate to have people willing to serve on boards and commissions. She would vote for Rick Ferguson who had applied in the past. Jerry Meek indicated the type of service the City could receive from the business community. She hoped he would consider applying again if he was not appointed that evening. The appointment to the Utility Advisory Commission (UAC) was an important one. Council Member Rosenbaum supported Jerry Meek because he represented a different constituency. He was the first representative to apply from a large company and would bring a different perspective to the UAC. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR RICHARD (RICK) FERGUSON: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR GERALD (JERRY) MEEK: Rosenbaum VOTING FOR DAVID MORMAN: VOTING FOR CHARLES POWARS: City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Richard (Rick) Ferguson received eight votes and was appointed to the Utility Advisory Commission on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Sylvia J. Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, spoke regarding Stanford Cancer Center & Urban Ministry. Terry A. Trumbull, Chairman, County Planning Commission, 1011 Lincoln Avenue, spoke regarding Stanford Land Use Plan. Pat Dimack, 711 Garland Avenue, spoke regarding Palo Alto Art Center and presented a check in the amount of $20,000 to the City.
03/01/99 88-69
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding mid-town. Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, spoke regarding Urban Ministry and Palo Alto funding. Susan Kirk, 102 Forest Avenue, Santa Cruz, spoke regarding Juana Briones home. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding fiscal responsibility. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 2. 2. Proposed Implementation Plan for Direct Access for Gas Utility Customers - Refer to Finance Committee MOTION PASSED: 9-0. CLOSED SESSION 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva) Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs Association Agency Negotiator: City Manager and Jay Rounds Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 4. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Christine Chang v. City of Palo Alto SCC# CV766379 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 5. Recommendations to Proceed with Conceptual Designs, Cost Estimation, and Environmental Assessments for Potential Sites for a Public Safety Building
03/01/99 88-70
Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said, based upon information developed during the architectural program, staff was given a definitive projection of space needs for a Public Safety program. An initial site evaluation and selection was completed. City staff and the consultants narrowed down the list to four potential sites. Many questions and issues were associated with the sites. Examples of issues included traffic circulation, community environment impacts, parking availability, and feasibility of getting all the public safety programs onto the smaller sites. The additional tasks included in the first phase of the project were preliminary environmental assessments of the sites, development of conceptual cost estimates such as purchase cost of property, parking, utilities, infrastructure, siting requirements, and construction. The last item was conceptual drawings showing possible architectural features and operational layouts of the buildings. Also included with the staff report (CMR:151:99) was the final architectural program providing a detailed analysis of the projected space needs. Mayor Fazzino emphasized that the current proposal was to proceed with conceptual design, cost estimation, and preliminary environmental assessment on four potential sites. The Council was not being asked to select a site. Terry Shuchat, 737 Northampton Drive, owner of four buildings on California Avenue and representative of the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA), opposed the construction of a public safety building on Sherman Avenue, Lot C6. During his recent discussion with Ms. Johnson, she looked at the Sherman Avenue site as an ideal location for the new public safety building because it could lead to the revitalization of the California Avenue area. He considered the location to be the potential death of the business district. The California Avenue Business District was fortunate to have adequate parking consisting of street parking, off-street parking, and two parking structures, with the majority of the parking at street level. Parking consultants would confirm that shoppers preferred street-level parking to parking structures. The off-street parking lots were purchased in the early 1950s and 1960s by local property owners who had the vision to recognize that adequate parking was necessary in order for retail business to flourish. The City was considering eliminating the parking in order to construct the public safety building. If Lot C6 was selected as the site for a public safety building, 155 parking spaces would be lost. The City Transportation Division considered the area as fully utilized lots. The last time a parking structure was built in the California Avenue area, nine years of planning and one year of construction was required. During the construction period, the economic impact to the area was devastating. Several tenants moved out of his office buildings because of the noise associated with construction. Retail business was off in the area due to the loss of 92 parking spaces in the lot where the new structure was built. There was much congestion
03/01/99 88-71
associated with the general construction process. In addition to the 155 parking spaces that would be lost on Lot C6, 160 spaces would be lost where a new structure would be built at a later date. After the one year period of construction for a new parking structure, the businesses would be faced with at least 18 months of disruption and noise from the construction of the public safety building. The staff report (CMR:151:99) stated that if the owners of Site 4, the empty lots on Park Boulevard, had no interest in selling their properties, City staff would not pursue the lots as a potential site. The property and business owners in the California Avenue Business District did not want the public safety building built on their parking lots. He questioned why the City would not consider purchasing the Park Boulevard site through the process of eminent domain. The Park Boulevard site was away from the business district, did not have as many residential units located near it, and would not disrupt traffic and business during construction. Eliminating parking in the California Avenue area would lower property values, disrupt business, and make the area a less attractive location for retail and commercial business. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, urged the Council to keep the Downtown Library (the Library) in its present location. The Library site was not the place to put the master public safety facility. The Library was a beautiful building which harmonized well with the tree-lined neighborhood. He could not imagine a large, 3-4 story building on that lot. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) might state that the City give up culture and quality on the lot and replace it with utilitarian expediency. George Browning, 2081 Harvard Street, said more information needed to be generated prior to making any decisions. Jean Wilcox, 4005 Sutherland Drive, said, as a resident of south Palo Alto, the idea of locating the public safety building closer to her home seemed like a good idea. At the current time, police officers who patrolled south Palo Alto and returned to headquarters at the end of their shifts left a void of about 20 minutes. She spoke to two business owners on California Avenue who informed her they declined to sign a petition because they felt the added police presence would be a benefit to them. There were traffic and parking problems at all four of the suggested sites. Locating the building close to the Caltrain station was a good idea and would help reduce the number of vehicles. As a taxpayer, she was opposed to paying $15 million for an expensive piece of Palo Alto real estate. She suggested, if the Park Boulevard site was the
Council=s choice for the new public safety department, the valuable land on California Avenue be sold for commercial or residential development to raise the money to purchase the land on Park Boulevard or that type of land swap be made. Highly trained police officers headquartered in a more central location in Palo Alto would benefit the greatest number of people. Police officers
03/01/99 88-72
were good neighbors, and she would welcome them further south in Palo Alto. Elaine Meyer, University South Neighborhood Group, said the neighbors appreciated the police presence Downtown but also valued the Downtown Library. S. Rubinfien, 501 Kingsley Avenue, spoke about the protection of the Downtown Library and for the numerous residents living south of Forest who used the Downtown Library. The Library was used by people who read journals they could not subscribe to at home, people who planned trips through the Travel section, and mothers with babies in strollers. The Downtown Library was an oasis for reading and writing. The building was functional and served as a shield for the residential area from the built-up Downtown. A tall building would be an invasion on the south of Forest residential neighborhood. Joette Farrand, 724 Bryant Street, said her property shared the
Library=s back fence. She was concerned about the possibility that a new public safety building could literally be in her backyard. The Library was a one-story building compatible with the residential neighborhood and had housing on three of its four sides. Libraries were often in residential neighborhoods; public safety buildings were not. A public safety building would generate 24-hour lights, traffic, and noise. She heard the air conditioning and heating systems from City Hall and could imagine what the noise would be like from a four-story building. The size and mass of the building would create shadows in the afternoon, privacy would be limited, and property value would be decreased. The library was a buffer between the large, massive City Hall and the surrounding residential area. She did not understand why the City would consider demolishing the library and replacing it with a massive building. The Downtown Library had beautiful landscaping and old, mature trees, and to have the tall Redwood trees removed would be a sin. She understood that the Library site was small, and the proposed building would cover practically the entire lot which would mean the trees and vines would be removed. The existing City Hall complex physically and architecturally overwhelmed adjoining commercial businesses and residential uses. The building was out of character with the area. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, suggested the Council select three of the sites and exclude the Downtown Library. The library site was too small to accommodate the public safety building without overcrowding the entire area. He attended two of the public safety meetings on the topic, and thought about suggesting the City not do the expansion of the existing police station because of the complexity and expense. The City might want to consider that so the condemnation, if necessary, of the Park Boulevard site would look good in comparison. He disagreed with members of CAADA who said moving 100 people into a public safety building would damage their
03/01/99 88-73
prosperity. He believed people would realize having public safety personnel there 24 hours per day would improve the business vitality of the area. He sympathized with the construction problems but noted there had been construction on California Avenue over the prior ten years, and California Avenue appeared to have survived. He agreed that people preferred parking at-grade, but people did use garages. The underground parking lot at City Hall was always busy. Ms. Johnson had stated at a previous Council meeting that if parking Lot C6 was used, a garage would be built to replace the parking spaces prior to construction of the public safety building. He suggested rebating part of the parking assessment to the merchants during the construction period, constructing additional spaces without assessing the business owners, or developing a shuttle system during the construction period. The California Avenue/Park Boulevard site was the best, and an in-depth investigation would be necessary. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, said the California Avenue area was a good location for the new public safety building. There were benefits to the area that would be drawn from having an increased police presence. Visibility of police officers in the area might help curb the absurd driving practices which occurred at the California Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. The Edge Nightclub on California Avenue often had undesirable behavior occurring, and frequency of police presence in the area might address the problem. Many of her neighbors would welcome a public safety building in the neighborhood. Council Member Kniss asked what the identification of a site did to the potential price of the lot. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said an appraisal was necessary prior to the City making an offer of property. The pricing would happen
independent of the City=s decision to proceed or not with the sites. The state courts protected property owners from activities that had a negative effect on value prior to acquisition. The owner of the property did not have the ability to unilaterally raise the price beyond what the property was worth. Council Member Kniss asked whether more cities had existing administration located next to safety departments. City Manager June Fleming said due to increased requirements of records maintenance, security, and privacy, many public safety and police and fire departments were finding that spaces built long ago no longer met standards. There was an increased activity of building facilities for both fire and police. The price of land in the area had caused a change in the former tradition of having civic administration and public safety together. The positive aspect of separating the buildings was the opportunity for community policing. The City was cautioned that community policing was a concept of how service was provided rather than a program.
03/01/99 88-74
The newer public safety buildings had space for community groups to meet with the police and understand the services. There were no problems in the cities that separated administration from public safety. Palo Alto needed to locate a public safety building in an area that would bring a positive influence. Ms. Johnson said several local cities had separated their administration and public safety buildings. Due to the fact that the majority of calls for service occurred in the Downtown area, a substation or some type of presence would be needed in the Downtown area, if the new facility was relocated to the California Avenue area. Council Member Kniss asked whether the change in location of a public safety facility affected perceptions or actual response times. Ms. Johnson said the location of a public safety building was not contingent necessarily on the location of the facility because officers routinely patrolled all parts of the City. The location had little bearing. One of the flaws identified with property on the east side of the freeway was the lack of accessibility to the major part of the City in the event of a flood or earthquake. Other sites in the south part of town were eliminated because of being too far from the Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center. Council Member Mossar said page 3 of the staff report (CMR:151:99) mentioned the City Council specifically excluded a site in the residential area. Her understanding was that the Downtown Library site was not a residence; however, the block was residential. She had difficulty construing the Library location as a nonresidential site. Ms. Fleming said the zoning for the Library was Public Facility (PF) and was zoned to accept a public safety building. There was much discussion when the Library was built. Originally the site was to be a multi-story building. She agreed that the Library was a perfect buffer for the residential area. Council Member Mossar clarified that interim parking arrangements would be considered in the selected area where the building might affect existing parking. Ms. Johnson said parking would be a big component in looking at any of the sites. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the section in staff report (CMR:151:99) referencing Site Four - 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard indicated if the owners did not express an interest in sale of the property, the
City would not proceed. She questioned staff=s position when the City had the power to convince an owner to sell.
03/01/99 88-75
Ms. Fleming said staff did not want to be presumptuous and recommend going forward without getting an indication from the Council whether or not that was a path for staff to explore. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified the staff wanted direction from the Council prior to exploring the Park Boulevard property. Ms. Fleming said staff was given strong indication that the property owner was not interested. She presumed the Council would not want to take that direction. Mr. Calonne said the City would quickly face an environmental quagmire if the Council did not consider a number of sites. The Council was well advised not to define any restrictions on the sites they wanted to move forward with. Vice Mayor Wheeler noted that each recommended site had a different set of constraints which carried implications for the timing of the ability to construct. She asked whether the Council would receive time lines along with the feasibility study. Ms. Fleming said the Council would receive time lines. The project would take years to construct. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked how the architectural program under consideration was ultimately derived. Wants and needs were identified, and she questioned whether the product before the
Council represented the Αwish list≅ or went through a refinement to attempt to cost contain the building. Mr. Michael Ross, Program Architect for the project, said the methodology for arriving at the figures in the architectural program was based on a program request prepared by his company and the Police Facilities Programming Consultants, Roth & Sheppard Architects from Denver, Colorado. The combined team expertise had planned, designed, and constructed approximately 50 police stations in the western United States. The firms worked with departmental representatives and line personnel on the programming requirements for workload, staffing space, and functional requirements. The Fire Administration and Police Department worked with severe facility deficiencies: overcrowding, separate locations within the city, and unsafe buildings in the event of major disasters. Other programs in the state were comparable to Palo Alto in terms of average amount of square footage per staff. Palo Alto needed to increase areas for property and evidence storage, crime lab, and other specialized law enforcement spaces. Costs were interactive with the department and staff and were compared to national and state standards. Council Member Huber asked for an estimate of the cost of the private property on Park Avenue.
03/01/99 88-76
Ms. Johnson was quoted $1.7 million by the owner of the small portion of property. Council Member Huber asked what the impact was on the use of substations. Police Chief Dwyer said substation was a stronger term than he had in mind. The idea was for keeping a presence in the Downtown such as the bicycle officers and walking officers as well as using an area where the Watch Commander or other management personnel could be available for meetings. There would be a presence, but not a substation. Council Member Huber asked whether the community was too small to have a traditional substation. Mr. Dwyer said yes. Council Member Schneider asked whether there would be a change in the way police and fire operated with the potential of being located in the same building. Deputy Chief Operations Judy Jewell did not anticipate any vast change in operations. The Fire and Police Departments started joint training. Classes applicable to both departments would be conveniently held in a joint facility. There were interactions among the departments. Police personnel attended some of the same calls that Fire personnel responded to. The joint facility would enable both Departments to work together and review calls with the ability to better serve the public. Council Member Schneider noted that some fire and police personnel were crossed trained. She asked whether that was something Palo Alto would expect to see in the future. Ms. Fleming said staff considered the issue but saw no advantage to having a Safety Department. The Administration combination in the same facility allowed for economies and efficiencies of training and working together. Council Member Eakins assumed Ms. Johnson had talked to representatives of the Downtown as well as the California Avenue area. She was puzzled why the Downtown Chamber of Commerce expression was to keep the public safety offices Downtown and why what was good for the Downtown would not be good for California Avenue. Ms. Johnson said during individual conversations with Downtown business owners, the owners expressed the importance of police in the Downtown area to ensure the safety and protection of people who visited the Downtown area.
03/01/99 88-77
Council Member Eakins understood that violent crime rates were down in Palo Alto, but space and personnel needs increased. She asked for an explanation for the increase. Ms. Johnson said currently violent crime rates had dropped across the country. Experts in the field predicted that the year 2000 would see increased economic violence and threat of domestic terrorism. Law enforcement was changing in the area of high-tech crimes. The complexity of the crimes would dictate the number of staff needed to investigate the crimes. Council Member Eakins asked whether the architect was going to design a building that would look distinguished enough to be worthy of Palo Alto. Mr. Ross wanted to be careful that the building was compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, was appropriate for its use, and was designed to elicit civic pride. During the conceptual design period, he would look at some of the possible solutions: massing, scale, height, and setbacks, which would help direct the architects toward a final architectural solution should a building be located on one of the sites. The design process was interactive and included information from a wide area such as the idiosyncrasies of the site, the neighboring context, and the programmatic requirements of the building and the users themselves. Council Member Rosenbaum noted that Task 1 of the Consultant Scope of Work, approved by the Finance Committee and Policy and Services (P&S) Committee, referred to alternatives to acquisition and full build-out of a new site and associated costs. He asked about the status of the tasks. Ms. Johnson said changes were made to the original Scope of Services when staff found it difficult to make determinations without a better idea of space needs. Staff identified duplication of efforts between the task and the original Scope of Services, Task 2, regarding site selection and evaluation. When meeting with
the Finance and P&S Committees, it was staff=s intent to combine the tasks. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether someone was going to look at Task 1. Ms. Johnson said when the consultants and architects looked at the individual pieces of property, they might determine, based on conceptual designs, that all elements included in the architectural program would not fit on the property. At that time, they would look at alternatives to address the elements that would not fit. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether staff would not proceed to Task 1 if the property were large enough to preclude the necessity for another site.
03/01/99 88-78
Ms. Johnson said if, from an operational, logistical, economic perspective, it made sense to keep the departments together as long as the property accommodated the facility, they would continue to look at the sites.
Council Member Rosenbaum did not believe that was the Council=s direction. Clearly, the Police and Fire Departments were interested in a new building. He asked who was looking over the shoulder of the Police and Fire Departments to make sure money was spent as efficiently as possible. Ms. Fleming said the ultimate responsibility was hers. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the City Manager received assistance from other departments. Ms. Fleming said she looked to the Administrative Services Department for financial assistance and the Public Works Department for construction assistance. Council Member Rosenbaum said the size of the building in 1977, based on the original consultant, was 50,000 square feet. He asked why the number was currently 68,000 square feet. Ms. Johnson said in 1977 there were not many comparisons of standards of other agencies and cities. The study was done quickly, and the estimates were preliminary. Mr. Ross said the two studies were compared in terms of where most of the growth was located. Much of the increase was located in the size of the dispatch and emergency operations centers. Slight modifications were made to the staff projections. Support facilities such as a property and evidence warehouse were increased in size. Slight increases were due to an increased circulation factor for the space necessary to communicate between different work stations and the open office areas. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:151:99), pages 56-57, and noted that objectives included: allow for five additional clerical positions in the next two years; provide work space for a future full-time budget analyst, data analyst, and possible assistant chief; and provide a workplace for a future full-time computer person. Presumably, space was being allotted for personnel. He asked whether it was likely that the positions would be filled. Ms. Fleming said the objectives were based on staff input but should not be interpreted as an agreement that she would add positions to any budget. The document before the Council was not a final product but what staff felt was sufficient information to provide to the Council. The Council should not feel they would get a request for a building that would house what was in the
03/01/99 88-79
documentation presented to the Council. The staff would help her make decisions, and she would visit other sites, meet with the Chief and Assistant Chief, and meet with other departments prior to advising the Council how many people would be housed in the building. Council Member Rosenbaum said unbeknownst to most of the public and judging from the newspaper, staff was unwilling to acknowledge the project would require general obligation bonds and a two-thirds vote of the public. He did not have the feeling the project was subjected to the type of scrutiny that it might be. The staff report (CMR:422:98) entitled Integration of New and Existing Infrastructure Needs spoke of general obligation bonds and the possible size of the additional property tax on houses of different values. He questioned the time line. The pertinent paragraph
stated, ΑAfter staff receives feedback from the Finance Committee
and the Council on staff=s recommended prioritized General Fund projects, staff believes the next steps would include staff bringing back to the Finance Committee in approximately March 1999 a specific recommendation on a financing plan and a rough timetable
for key decision points...≅ He asked about the status. Ms. Fleming said the time line had slipped and the date was no longer March 1999. She had to check with Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats and get back to the Council with a better date. The final project would have greater scrutiny. Council Member Ojakian said Mr. Ross had a rough idea of what was needed. He asked for a general idea if a building was constructed at the Downtown library location, noting that a building would envelope the whole site. Mr. Ross said a building at the Downtown Library site would be built to the lot lines. There would have to be essential set backs to allow access to subterrain parking and other subgrade areas. A tall building, three to four stories, would be built on the site. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the El Camino triangle site, without the restaurants, would be a workable site for a structure. Mr. Ross said a public safety building could be built on the site, but there were mitigating measures. The site was odd shaped and would require removal of several private businesses and purchase of the land. Input was received from the community that the sites closer to the southern border were less desirable.
Council Member Ojakian asked what was meant by Αless desirable.≅ Mr. Ross said the idea was to centralize the building so there would be equal response times from the headquarters building out
03/01/99 88-80
into the community. The further south the location, the less centralized it was. Council Member Ojakian said people expressed concern about several of the proposed sites. He asked whether the list was the most exhaustive even if staff were to spend more time looking at sites. Mr. Ross said other sites could be identified and reviewed. Approximately 13 sites were looked at, 10 of which were documented in the staff report (CMR:151:99). There were private sites along El Camino such as car agencies that might be able to be purchased. One ideal site was the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, but the site was not available. Council Member Ojakian said Mr. Shuchat alluded to the fact that to displace the number of parking spaces in the California Avenue area would have an impact. There was discussion about the conceptual design of a structure to meet the needs of the people who were in it. He asked whether the impact on businesses was known if a structure was placed in a certain area or at what stage would it be discussed. Ms. Johnson asked whether Council Member Ojakian was referring to the economic impact of the area. Council Member Ojakian said that was correct. Ms. Johnson said the economic impacts would be looked at as part of the next steps. Council Member Ojakian asked how adamant the owners of the Park Boulevard site were about not selling the property. Ms. Johnson said she spoke with an agent of the property who said that over the prior years a number of developers had expressed interest in purchasing the property. Staff had not talked to the property owners. Mayor Fazzino referred to the Stanford site listed in the attachment to the staff report (CMR:151:99) under the constraints
column, ΑAfter initial site analysis, meetings with Stanford resulted in a determination that use of any Stanford lands is not
feasible.≅ The site appeared to be a perfect site for many reasons: central location, major arterials, and near California Avenue. He argued that the City had influence over Stanford with respect to its own land use policies and asked to what degree had staff pursued the Stanford Land. Ms. Fleming said staff went as far as it could and received a negative response. As an appointed official, she could go no further.
03/01/99 88-81
Mayor Fazzino asked whether the City Manager believed, setting aside the issue of what Stanford wanted, the site was potentially an ideal site for a public safety building given the criteria contained in the staff report (CMR:151:99). Ms. Fleming said the Stanford land would be a viable site and could accomodate a public safety building for the City of Palo Alto. She was not sure that an ideal site existed.
Council Member Huber said Stanford land was not within Palo Alto=s jurisdiction. He was not sure the City had the ability to condemn any of their land. Mr. Calonne was unsure whether or not the intersection was in Palo
Alto=s jurisdiction.
Mayor Fazzino believed the land was within Palo Alto=s jurisdiction which would give the City the right to take legal action to pursue the alternative if the Council chose to do so. Mr. Calonne said yes. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, that the Council proceed with conceptual designs, cost estimation and environmental assessments on the following four potential sites for a public safety building: Site One: Existing Police Building Site Two: Downtown Library Site, 270 Forest Avenue Site Three: City Parking Lot 6, 251 Sherman Site Four: 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard Vice Mayor Wheeler said there were pros and cons to all the sites, and each one presented a unique set of circumstances. She agreed
with the City Manager=s comments that there was not an ideal site in the community. There was a need to look at the range of choices. It was worth moving to the next step to look at each of the sites presented. Council Member Kniss recalled the Finance Committee recommendation that the Council revisit the Finance Committee recommendations. She suggested eliminating the Downtown Library site noting that, as was stated by a member of the public, the area was a buffer into the Downtown residential area. The site was surrounded on three sides by residential, and there was no public support for the public safety facility at that site. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mossar, to eliminate the Downtown Library site.
03/01/99 88-82
Council Member Mossar said the property was zoned PF to accommodate a library but not a 68,000 square-foot building on the site. It would be an unfortunate mistake to proceed as though the PF zoning would legitimately allow such a large building. For that reason, she enthusiastically supported the amendment. Council Member Ojakian said it was premature to look at the Library site given the fact the Council had a draft Master Plan before it.
Mr. Ross= comment was fair and accurate in that the type of mass and scale that would be required on the site would not be desirable. Vice Mayor Wheeler was cognizant of the constraints of the Library site. The site was the least favorable for all the reasons stated by her colleagues and members of the audience. To the extent there likely to be a constituency that believed the public safety building should be located Downtown, the Library site along with the Civic Center site should be compared. Looking at the economics and logistics of developing the Civic Center site would be a shock. The options for the Downtown site were limited. She shared her colleagues concerns about the ability to place a building on the Library site that would meet the needs of staff as well as the needs of the residential neighbors. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-1, Wheeler Αno.≅ AMENDMENT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to include for exploration Site Six, the northwest corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. Council Member Mossar said she would not participate due to a conflict of interest with Stanford University. Mayor Fazzino believed the site was Palo Alto land. Mr. Calonne said the site was Stanford University land. The same issue came up with Hewlett Packard. He had not analyzed potential impacts on Hewlett Packard holdings at the Wilson Sonsini location. It was an issue, and he was unclear how to advise Council Member Mossar. Council Member Mossar said she would leave the meeting during discussion of the amendment. Council Member Kniss was unsure if the Council was simply exploring a site, that the proximity of the site was such that she should excuse herself. Mr. Calonne said it was not his job to tell Council Member Kniss whether or not she had to recuse herself, but she was exposing herself to the risk of participating in a decision in which she knew she had a financial interest.
03/01/99 88-83
Council Member Kniss appreciated Mr. Calonne=s advise but chose to stay. Mr. Calonne said the City Council needed to be aware that Council
Member Kniss= action was risky. There was no analysis. In the
past, staff analyzed 395 Page Mill Road with respect to the Fry=s Electronics decision. He was unsure whether the site being discussed was the same. Mayor Fazzino did not believe the Council Members needed to recuse themselves. The situation was comparable to 395 Page Mill and
Fry=s which all the Council Members participated in several years prior. There was an extensive appraisal of that situation and based on that guidance, he felt comfortable participating. A site was not being selected; the Council was asking that a site be evaluated. Mr. Calonne said with the number of sites involved, it was not reasonably foreseeable that any one of the sites would be selected. The Council could go forward and the affected Council Members could make a decision about how they wanted to seek conflict of interest advice. Council Member Huber observed that the staff came to the Council with 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard and asked whether the Council was willing to consider using condemnation powers anywhere in the City of Palo Alto. If the Council was willing to look at Park Boulevard, the Council should then be willing to look at any piece of property within the City of Palo Alto as an optimum place to build a public safety building. There might be sites broader than the four listed in the staff report (CMR:151:99). Council Member Schneider was not comfortable with the issue of eminent domain except in the most dire circumstances. There were alternatives. Mayor Fazzino said the issue of condemnation was not before the Council that evening. He hoped the Council would not be in a position to use eminent domain or condemnation. He believed the proposed site at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road met the criteria for a public safety building. The site was centrally located, not immediately adjacent to neighborhoods, and located on major arterials. The Council received pressure from Stanford Research Park over prior years to provide a higher level of police and fire service. Given the fact there were limited sites
available, it was the Council=s responsibility to look at any site that made sense. The City would have to enter into serious negotiations with Stanford to see if the location would work. Stanford demonstrated a willingness in the past to work with the City to address critically important infrastructure and public
03/01/99 88-84
service issues. He was not convinced the issue was foreclosed from
Stanford=s perspective if the City decided to pursue the site. Council Member Rosenbaum opposed the amendment which, as a six-acre site, should be reserved for other uses. The cost of acquiring the site would make no sense, and the Council should not waste its time looking at it. Council Member Ojakian supported the amendment. The site had benefits. He agreed that the six acres was too large and suggested the land could be parceled and utilized by Stanford for maximum benefit. Council Member Schneider could accept the amendment without discussion of condemnation or eminent domain. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-2, Eakins, Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Mossar Αnot
participating.≅ Ms. Fleming wanted to make sure she and staff were clear on the main motion. She understood that the motion included revisiting the finances. She had the power to do that but might have to return to the Council with a contract amendment to do more financial analysis. Council Member Rosenbaum was interested in whether the Council wanted to return with Task 1 in the staff report (CMR:431:97):
ΑConsultant will meet with the working group including staff from Public Works and Administrative Services staff to identify creative and cost effective opportunities to deal with current site deficiencies. First deliverable will be a cost analysis of options of other than acquiring land and constructing a new full public
safety building.≅ He asked whether that was something staff was intending to do. Ms. Johnson said staff identified the current needs to take care of the deficiencies addressed. There were probably not many alternatives other than remodeling the current building, finding another site, or separating some elements of the public safety building. Mayor Fazzino asked whether Ms. Johnson could provide the Council with the type of financial analysis that Council Member Rosenbaum requested. Ms. Johnson said yes. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, that the Council proceed with conceptual designs, cost estimation and environmental assessments on the following potential sites for a public safety building, identifying the creative and cost effective
03/01/99 88-85
opportunities to deal with current site deficiencies and doing a cost analysis of the options. Site One: Existing Police Building Site Three: City Parking Lot 6, 251 Sherman Site Four: 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard Added Site: Page Mill and El Camino MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Fazzino thanked the staff for the excellent report and asked when the item might return to the Council. Ms. Fleming said the Council would probably review the item again in early fall. Council Member Mossar announced upon advice from City Attorney Ariel Calonne, that she should not have voted on the prior motion due to a potential conflict of interest. MOTION REVISITED: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the Council proceed with conceptual designs, cost estimation and environmental assessments on the following three potential sites for a public safety building, identifying the creative and cost effective opportunities to deal with current site deficiencies and doing a cost analysis of the options. Site One: Existing Police Building Site Three: City Parking Lot 6, 251 Sherman Site Four: 2747 and 2785 Park Boulevard MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to add a fourth site for consideration as a potential site for a public safety building at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. MOTION PASSED 6-2-1, Eakins, Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Mossar Αnot
participating.≅ COUNCIL MATTERS 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to Closed Session The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Conference with Labor Negotiator and Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 3 and 4.
03/01/99 88-86
Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 3 and 4. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 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.
03/01/99 88-87