HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 248-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
13
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE:MAY 21, 2007 CMR:248:07
SUBJECT:RESPONSE TO COUNCIL’S QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CITY’S
ACQUISITION OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT AT EL CAMINO PARK
FOR THE EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council review the response to Council’s questions and confirm its
March 5 direction to proceed with the E1 Camino Reservoir Project.
BACKGROUND
At the March 5, 2007 Council meeting, the Council certified the Environmental Impact Report
for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (Project) and completed the first reading of
five Park Improvement Ordinances (PIOs) for the park sites impacted by the Project. Council’s
motion included a requirement that an advisory vote be held at an upcoming election on the use
of the E1 Camino Park for the water storage project prior to the E1 Camino Park PIO taking effect
and a requirement that Council approve the property acquisition (of the appropriate rights) for
the E1 Camino Park Project site. In addition, Council requested that staff bring back information
on park development at E1 Camino Park prior to the second reading of the E1 Camino Park PIO.
Initially, Council requested information by April 9. However, insufficient information was
available at that time to respond to Council’s requests and staff asked for additional time to
collect data on the park development questions.
Two complicated legal issues have arisen as a result of Council questions. First, the acquisition
of real property, whether by easement, lease or purchase, requires that the City take specific
steps. These steps have not been initiated and will require negotiations with Stanford to
determine the nature of the acquisition. Second, the payment of funds from an Enterprise Fund
to the City or to Stanford is restricted by Proposition 218 and other laws. These questions do not
CMR:248:07 Page 1 of 3
~~swers and the responses in this memo are contingent~t~on thoe future twe of
rther, any transaction with Stanford and the ultimatetpl[~e~l ~I~~
~ire Council approval.C ty Manager’s Report
DISCUSSION
E1 Camino Park Land Acquisition
Several land transactions will occur as a consequence of building a reservoir beneath E1 Camino
Park: 1) payment for a permanent easement for the underground reservoir and associated well
and pump station facilities. (/May transaction with Stanford is subject to negotiation and Council
approval. The transaction described may be different from whatever agreement is ultimately
reached with Stanford.); 2) an in-kind replacement cost payment for the temporary disruption of
the use of the E1 Camino Park during Project constrnction; and 3) payment for the restoration of
E1 Camino Park after construction is complete.
1) Permanent Easement
The City will attempt to obtain a permanent easement for the reservoir from the land owner,
Stanford University. Currently, the City has a lease for E1 Camino Park that expires in the
year 2033. Land easement acquisition costs will be negotiated with Stanford University.
This process will be brought to Council for approval after the PIO has been approved and the
advisory vote is complete.
2) in-Kind Replacelnent Cost
Project construction wilt require closure of E1 Camino Park for up to two years. The Water
Fund will compensate the General Fund for the in-kind replacement cost of E1 Camino Park
during this period. The payment, prelilninarily estimated at approximately $2 million, will
be used to ensure that park activities which normally occur at E1 Camino Park can continue
to take place at other City parks while the Project is being constructed. The payment will be
used to upgrade other City park and athletic sites, such as the Cubberley Conmaunity Center,
so that those sites can accommodate the displaced activity from E1 Camino Park. The
funding required for the offsite facilities will be determined when plans are developed for the
construction of the reservoir. Estimating the required funding is dependant upon the length of
the construction period and the placement of the reservoir on the park site. These two factors
cannot be determined until the project engineering is completed.
3) E1 Camino Park Restoration
At the completion of construction, the Water Fund will restore the existing park facilities at
E1 Calnino Park. The preliminary estimate for restoration is between $2 and $2.5 million.
The restoration of the park will include: complete in-kind restoration of the soccer and
baseball fields, replacement of existing structures such as bleachers and backstops,
restoration of landscaping and parking lot replacement.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The perlnanent easement costs, in-kind replacement costs and the E1 Camino Park restoration
costs can be funded with revenue bond proceeds for the Project. The Water Fund will require an
increase in water rates in fiscal year 2008-09 in order to cover the increased costs of the revenue
CMR:248:07 Page 2 of 3
bonds. Proposition 218 requires that water ratepayers be given an opportunity to protest water
rate increases. Notice will be given to customers of a public hearing that will be held prior to any
water rate increases and informing them that they may protest water rate increases in writing. If
a majority of customers file a written protest,the proposed rate increases will not be imposed.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This Project will ensure that water is available during emergencies and plays a vital role in
developing emergency response plans. Emergency Plmming has been identified as one of
Council’s top four priorities. This Project also supports Comprehensive Plan Goal N-10,
Protection of Life and Property from Natural Hazards, Including Earthquake, Landslide,
Flooding, and Fire.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental hnpact Report (EIR) was prepared in accordance with CEQA for the Project.
City Council certified the EIR on March 5, 2007 and it is considered complete and adequate and
in compliance with CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
A: March 5, 2007 Council Meeting Minutes
PREPARED BY:JIM FLANIGAN, Project Engineer, WGWE
ROMEL ANTONIO, Sr. Proj ect Engineer, WGWE
GREG SCOBY, Acting WGW Engineering Manager
ROGER CWIAK, Acting Assistant Director of Utilities
Engineering
BILL FELLMAN, Manager Real Property
GREG BETTS, Acting Golf and Parks Division Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
VALE~ONG
Director of Utilities
CARL
D~
Services
RICI~ARD JAMES
Director of~;ervices
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMII HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:248:07 Page 3 of 3
A TTACHMENT A
Special Meeting
March 5, 2007
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:03 p.m.
Present:Barton, Beecham, Cordell, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Klein,
Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar
STUDY SESSION
1.Presentation of Preliminary Polling Results for Public Safety
Building and Libraries
The Council received a presentation from the polling consultant on the
results of a poll gauging community support for bond measures for a
public safety building, library improvements and a combination of the
two projects. The Council had an opportunity to question the consultant
on the results of the survey, and will return to the subject to provide
staff with direction on how to proceed on April 3, 2007.
No action required.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2.Proclamation for Proposal of Hepatitis B Awareness Week in Palo
Alto
Dolan Kim, Jr., Gunn High School student and Stanford Asian Center
Labor Youth Council representative, accepted the Proclamation. He said
the Proclamation would be the first step in promoting an awareness week
for future eradication of Hepatitis B.
Selection of Applicants to Interview for the Park and Recreation
Commission
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Barton, to
070305 1,
interview all seven candidates for the Parks and Recreation Commission.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
4.Selection of Applicants to Interview for
Commission
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Barton, to
interview all four candidates for the Human Relations Commission.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
the Human Relations
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Sabin, 533 Albert, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding a series of lectures
that Palo AItans for Government Effectiveness (PAGE) is sponsoring.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to adopt
the minutes of February 5, 2007, with changes as specified.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Morton stated he would not participate in Agenda Item
No. 6 due to a conflict of interest because of family stock holdings in
Comcast and AT&T.
Council Member Mossar stated she would vote no on Agenda Item No. 7.
Mayor Kishimoto stated she would vote no on Agenda Item No. 7.
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 5 through 9.
Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Changes to
Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Guidelines Update
Approval of a Utilities Fund Contract with West Valley Construction
Company, Inc. in the Amount of $2,462,081 for Installation of the
Utility Trench and Substructure, and Approval of the Specific
Supplementary Agreement for Joint Participation Installation of
Underground Facilities System Between City of Palo Alto, AT&T
070305 2
o
California and Comcast Corporation of California IX, Inc. for
Underground Utility District No. 41 Capital Improvement Program
Project - EL 03001
Resolution 8693 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section 1501 of the Merit System Rules and
Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between
the City of Palo Alto and Local 1319, International Association of
Fire Fighters (IAFF)"
o
Resolution 8694 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Fire Department
Personnel (IAFF) and Rescinding Resolution No. 8451"
ist Reading - Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section
2.23.050 of Chapter 2.23 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to Add the Subject of Recycled Water to the Purposes
and Duties of the Utilities Advisory Commission
Cancellation of April 2, 2007 Regular Council Meeting and Setting a
Special Meeting of April 3, 2007
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item nos. 5, 8 and 9.
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 6, Morton not participating.
MOTION PASSED 7-2 for Item No. 7, Kishimoto, Mossar no.
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Beecham, to
move Item No. 11 before Item No. 10 to become Item No. 9A.
MOTION PASSED 9-0
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
9A.(Old No. 11) Adopt Council "Top 4" Priorities and Milestones for
2007: Emergency Planning; Global Climate Change; Library
Plan/Public Safety Building; and Sustainable Budget
City Manager Benest said the "Top 4" priorities and milestones had been
identified and required Council approval to move forward in
accomplishing the priorities.
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Klein, to
070305 3
adopt the 2007 Council Top 4 Priorities and milestones as identified, with
a change in wording from "global climate change" to "climate protection"
and with one addition to Milestone No. 11, Transportation, to add the
following: (e) Explore joint alternative transportation projects.
Council Member Kleinberg asked for a definition of"sustainable budget."
Vice Mayor Klein said it meant having to establish and adopt a budget
process to include infrastructure, community, and City staffing needs in
order to keep the City in excellent condition for the next five to twenty
years.
Council Member Morton said the community was not clear on what was
being sustained. They were under the impression that balancing the
budget meant a decrease in services and social and community
programs were at risk of not getting funded.
Mayor Kishimoto asked to add "to explore joint alternative transportation
projects" to Milestone No. 11, Transportation.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.Public Hearinq: Consider certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) and approval of the Planning and
Transportation Commission’s recommendation on the preferred
sites for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, The
proposed project is to construct a new 2.5 million gallon storage
reservoir and pump station, construct up to three new groundwater
wells, rehabilitate up to five existing groundwater wells, and
expand the existing Mayfield pump station. The locations of the
preferred sites are: The reservoir, pump station and one well - El
Camino Park, 315 El Camino Real; a second well site at Eleanor
Pardee Park, 801 Center Drive; a third well site at the Community
Gardens behind the Main Library, 1213 Newell Road. The locations
of the five existing wells to be rehabilitated are: Hale Well - 999
Palo Alto Ave., Peers Park Well - 1899 Park Boulevard, Rinconada
Well - 1340 Hopkins Ave., Matadero Well - 635 Matadero Ave.,
Fernando Well - 410 Fernando Ave. The Mayfield Pump Station is
070305 4
at 1711 Stanford Avenue.
Council Member Cordell stated she would not participate in the item due
to a conflict of interest because she was employed by Stanford
University.
Vice Mayor Klein stated he would not participate in the item due to a
conflict of interest because his wife was employed by Stanford
University.
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in this item
due to a conflict of interest because she owned property within 500 feet
of Eleanor Pardee Park and, also, in Item No. 12 because of her work
with Joint Venture Silicon Network and stock ownership in Google.
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in this item due
to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford
University and, also in Item No. 12 because she is uncomfortable
participating on this issue due to ownership of telecommunications stock
in her mother-in-law’s Trust Fund.
Council Members Kleinberg and Mossar left the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
City Attorney Gary Baum clarified the City Charter required five votes to
pass resolutions and ordinances. Each vote needed to be unanimous on
this agenda item.
Acting Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering Roger Cwiak requested
the Council consider staff’s recommendations and to certify the adequacy
of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the Statement of
Overriding Considerations adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP) and EIR findings, to approve the preferred sites
of the project, to approve the park improvement ordinances (PIO) for the
five parks, and direct the City Attorney’s Office to develop language and
schedule an advisory ballot in November 2007. He gave a presentation
as outlined in staff report (CMR:161:07).
Mayor Kishimoto opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, stated he was not in favor of an
advisory vote. He referred to the City Charter, Article 8, paragraph 2,
that a binding vote was required. He said the staff report did not include
compensation to parklands for losses sustained due to the project. He
felt the Utility Department payments should be applied to the fund in
purchasing new parklands.
070305 5
Enid Pearson said she was not in favor of an advisory ballot measure and
asked the Council to comply with the Park Dedication Ordinance and to
not consider parklands as options for City projects.
Bill Phillips, Stanford University, spoke in support of the project
objectives and staff’s recommendation of the El Camino Park site for the
reservoir and well location, and opposed Stanford Shopping Center’s
North and South sites as alternative locations.
Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant Street, spoke on the capacity and availability
of water and was not convinced a large reservoir would provide the
capacity equal to tlhe cost. He asked the Council to review the
reservoir’s capacity, water availability, and cost in evaluating whether
the project was viable.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the removal or use of
parklands due to the City government’s failure to follow the rule of the
law.
Ellie Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde, was in favor of placing the reservoir
in the Stanford parking lot, which could be re-covered with concrete and
asphalt. She asked that land for open space, grass and trees, not be
used for the project.
Mayor Kishimoto closed the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Council Member Morton referred to the slide presentation and
whether the project was expected to supplement areas 1 and 3.
asked
Mr. Cwiak said the project would provide the same level of service
throughout Palo Alto and could pump water wherever it was needed.
Council Member Morton referred to the supplemental wells and asked
what site would be selected if the Community Center well were to go dry.
Mr. Cwiak said the Middlefield site would be the next alternate site.
Council Member Morton asked whether the property interest was to gain
ownership of the land or a lease requirement where the reservoir was
located.
Mr. Cwiak said it was to gain permanent easement for the life of the
facility to construct and maintain the reservoir.
070305 6
Council Member Morton asked if once the storage facility was built it
could not be taken away.
Mr. Baum said that was correct.
Council Member Morton stated concerns regarding surface rights versus
subsurface rights. He asked whether the dedication of parkland included
subsurface rights in. terms of conflicts between park usage and
emergency water supply usage.
Mr. Baum said the common understanding was the surface land would be
used and not subsurface rights. He clarified Article 8 stated "no land
heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purpose shall be sold or
otherwise disposed of nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued
except pursuant to major vote of the electorate." The surface land was
not being sold, abandoned or discontinued. Therefore, that provision of
the Charter did not apply. He was not aware of the subterranean portion
at El Camino Park being used for park use. The City was required to
pass a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO), which listed "no substantial
building, construction, reconstruction, or development upon or with
respect to any land so dedicated shall be made except pursuant to
ordinance subject to referendum." Staff recommended keeping the spirit
of the Charter and, with the Council’s direction, to place an advisory
measure on the ballot. A revised staff report explained two-thirds of the
property acquisition would be provided to the City as compensation for
temporary loss of the parkland, as well as long-term use of the
underlying land during the lease and construction period.
Council Member Morton asked whether an eight-hour water supply would
be sufficient and asked whether an incremental increase of 25 or 50
percent of water supply would be relatively cheaper.
Mr. Cwiak said the reservoir was designed to deliver eight hours of
maximum day use plus fire flow in each of the pressure zones. A system
to deliver that type of load through the wells would be capable of
supplying water for longer than eight hours. Pumping 1500 acre feet
per day from the wells represented a 30-day supply to Palo Alto during
an average winter day demand. The reservoir would pump approximately
5,000 gallons out per minute and the well would add an additional 1,000
gallons to the flow.
Council Member Barton asked whether the City compensated itself when
a park closed for replacing equipment.
070305 7
Mr. Baum said not to his knowledge.
Council Member Barton asked how much square footage of grass would
be replaced with reservoir material when the project was completed.
Mr. Cwiak said the project consisted of an access hatch to the reservoir
built under the surface with no recognizable difference to the current
appearance of the park. A piece of surface would be removed to gain
access and replaced after the work was completed.
Council Member Barton asked whether an advisory measure would set a
legal precedence for the future.
Mr. Baum said he did not believe it would. He was more concerned
about the Council placing it on the ballot as a mandatory matter and
setting a precedence of temporary construction to the park. It would be
a bad precedent if that type of use, activity, and construction revoked
Article 8.The Council could place an advisory measure on the ballot at
any time.
Planning & Transportation Commissioner Paula Sandas said the Planning
and Transportation Commission (P&TC) unanimously supported the
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The P&TC
recommended the Middlefield site as the first alternate site for a well
should the Eleanor Pardee Park not work. There was a need for a
¯ separate plan to conserve water in order to keep the reservoir and wells
as an emergency water supply. Measures should be enacted to conserve
water prior to using the wells and reservoir in an event of a fire or
drought situation. It was suggested to consider the project in tandem
with the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Center.
P&TC would have preferred staff to provide a value matrix to aid in
evaluating the pros and cons of each of the sites.
Council Member Drekmeier expressed concerns regarding the cost of the
project and the need for fire suppression at the Stanford Shopping
Center and the downtown area.
Mr. Cwiak said there was a need for fire suppression in the downtown
area and the area west of El Camino Real behind the Stanford Shopping
Center. The reservoir located at that site would provide fire suppression
water and the Mayfield reservoir would be used to push the water to
south Palo Alto to fight fires.
070305 8
Council Member Drekmeier asked what water supply would be used to
suppress a fire at the medical school on campus and in the County.
Mr. Cwiak said it would come from Stanford’s water supply. In a
procedural agreement, the water from the new reservoir would be used
to suppress fires in the hospital area, but in reality the fire department
would hook up to the closest fire hydrant.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the City could tap into
Stanford’s reservoir.
Mr. Cwiak said the option was discussed but an agreement could not be
reached. Stanford had a three-day water supply which was about two-
and-a-half hours of Palo AIto’s demand.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether Stanford had wells on campus
or depended on reservoir water for drinking and fire suppression.
Mr. Cwiak said Stanford had a combination of wells and reservoir.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether it was feasible to consider
Stanford’s water as a first resort for fire suppression and ground water
for consumption.
Mr. Cwiak said ground water could be used for daily use during an
emergency if water could not be supplied by the Hetchy-Hetchy. The
new well would deliver 1,000 gallons a minute necessary to supply the
normal water needs in the City’s pressure area behind Stanford Shopping
Center.
Council Member Drekmeier asked if the Stanford reservoir did not have
to supply drinking water would the water supply be sufficient to fight
fires in the Stanford area and the area being served by the new
reservoir.
Mr. Cwiak said it would be sufficient if there were no emergencies.
Council Member Morton asked whether the City gained sales tax from the
Stanford Shopping Center.
Mr. Benest said unlike the campus property and the medical center,
which belonged to Santa Clara County, sales tax was derived from the
Stanford Shopping Center because it was within the corporate
boundaries of Palo Alto.
070305
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the El Camino Park easement
would be negotiated.
Mr. Baum said it was a protracted processes starting with a closed
session to discuss property acquisition and would return to the Council
during an open session. The intent would be to place the issue on the
ballot and acquisition would take place after the vote.
Council Member Drekmeier asked how the easement would be funded.
Mr. Cwiak said the easement would be purchased from the water funds
and debt funding would also be explored if the project were approved.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the water fund existed.
Mr. Cwiak said $8.5 million dollars was being proposed for the water
reserve fund.
Council Member Drekmeier said if citizen’s voted against the project, in
terms of advisory versus mandatory vote, what form would the project
be returned to the Council.
Mr. Baum said the property acquisition would need to be presented to
the Council. The Utility staff would provide a Request for Proposal (RFP),
which required Council approval and the contract would be awarded to a
vendor.
Council Member Beecham said Palo Alto had a unified system and could
not separate drinking water from fire suppression needs. Water usage
went through the same system. The State recommendation was for an
eight-hour water capacity for all water districts; however, Palo Alto
required significantly more for maximum daily use. He referred to Article
8 and requested clarification on the temporary discontinuance of use.
Mr. Baum said the Charter had no reference to temporary
discontinuance.
Council Member Beecham asked how temporary discontinuance be
interpreted if temporary use was not explicit.
Mr. Baum said in his opinion the lack of reference to temporary use of
the park meant it was not covered in the Charter provision. The PIO
provided another mechanism for public review and the Council would
070305 10
need to pass an ordinance, which would be subject to a referendum.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the City Attorney believed it
was affordable if parkland was temporarily lost during construction.
Mr. Baum said yes.
Council Member Beecham said the project would be funded with the
water Utility fund. It would be paid back through water utility billing
process whether it was temporarily funded by a reserve or a bond. He
supported the motion as well as an advisory vote.
Mayor Kishimoto questioned if the ordinance would be subject to a
referendum.
Mr. Baum said yes.
Mayor Kishimoto asked whether timing would be an issue with an
advisory or mandatory vote or could the Council approve the ordinance
and wait for a referendum.
Mr. Baum said he would recommend the PIO be passed at this evening’s
meeting to move the program forward. He was not aware of any legal
criteria on timing to place the item on the ballot. Once an ordinance was
approved, there would be two readings with a 30-day waiting period.
The item could still go to the vote of the people.
Mayor Kishimoto asked whether the 130-foot height of buildings in the
Stanford expansion project would affect the fire suppression calculations.
Mr. Cwiak said the buildings would have pumps and sprinkler systems
inside the buildings. The fire requirement for the buildings would be less
than the existing older buildings in the pressure zone.
Mayor Kishimoto asked whether $8.2 million dollars was targeted toward
the Quimby Act or the Park fund.
Mr. Baum said the calculation was based on a tentative appraisal chart
and the value was based on a lease to expire in 2033. It would be a
policy decision on how funds would be distributed with legal limitations.
Mayor Kishimoto asked whether there was an issue on park uses.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said staff would need to research
070305 11
an answer before making a decision.
Mayor Kishimoto asked when the preliminary design would begin.
Mr. Cwiak said the design would begin after the vote was taken and an
interest expressed in the El Camino property. The timeline would work
with the November 2007 advisory vote with an interest by the first
quarter of 2008.
Mayor Kishimoto said the funding would come from the water rate
payers and she asked whether rate increases would be made directly to
the payers or if they required Council approval.
Special Counsel Amy Bartell said water rate increases were subject to a
majority protest decision and the rate payers would need to vote to
approve or disapprove the increase. A mailing would be sent to the
customers and a majority vote required eliminating the rate increase.
Mayor Kishimoto addressed Enid Pearson’s concern regarding the use of
parklands for the project. The purpose for the Park Dedication
Ordinance was to view arguments in using other properties for City
projects other than the parks. Property owners protested due to the
high cost of property, disruption, and to preclude future uses. It was
assumed El Camino Park would remain a park and to preclude future
uses was not reason aside from the disruption. Ms. Pearson worked hard
to pass the ordinance because there were no visible protestors, aside
from the taxpayers. Unused land invariably got targeted for
redevelopment.
i~lOTIOl~l: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Barton, to:
1)
2)
3)
5)
Adopt the resolution certifying the adequacy of the EIR with a
statement of overriding consideration, adopting the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan and adopting the EIR findings;
Adopt the Resolution approving the Project and designating the
sites for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project;
Approve Park Improvement Ordinances for El Camino, Eleanor
Pardee, Timothy Hopkins, Rinconada and Peers Parks;
Direct the City Attorney to return with language and suggested
dates for an advisory measure for approval of placement of the
reservoir underneath El Camino Park; and
Direct City Attorney and City Clerk to take appropriate steps to
place an advisory measure on the ballot for November 2007.
070305 12
Furthermore, passage of the park improvement ordinance for El Camino
Park construction would be contingent on Council approval of the
property acquisition of the appropriate rights to the area of the site and
contingent on the advisory vote of the people.
1St Reading - Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and
Adopting Plans for Improvements to Peers Park
1St Reading - Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and
Adopting Plans for Improvements to Rinconada Park
ist Reading - Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and
Adopting Plans for Improvements to Timothy Hopkins
Creekside Park
Is~ Reading - Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and
Adopting Plans for Improvements to Eleanor Pardee Park
is~ Reading - Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and
Adopting Plans for Improvements to El Camino Park
Resolution 8695 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage
Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and
Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations"
Resolution 8696 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Approving the Emergency Water Supply and Storage
Project to Construct a New 2.5 Million Gallon (MG) Storage
Reservoir and Associated Pump Station at El Camino Park;
Construct Three New Wells, at El Camino Park, Eleanor Pardee Park
and the Main Library/Community Gardens; Upgrade the Existing
Mayfield Pump Station; and Rehabilitate Five Existing City Wells:
Hale Well Site, Rinconada Park Well Site, Fernando Well Site, Peers
Park Well Site, and Matadero Well Site"
Ms. Harrison said staff would like to return to the Council the issue of
park development as opposed to the park rehabilitation and
improvement. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) had
discussed the opportunity for lighting and to upgrade the turf, which did
not fit under park development issues and asked to explore the choices
with the Mayor.
070305 13
Council Member Beecham offered to work with the Mayor on the issue.
Mayor Kishimoto asked if it would be back in time for the 2nd reading of
the ordinance.
Ms. Harrison said it could be possible.
MOTION PASSED 5-0,Cordell,Kleinberg,Klein,Mossar not
participating.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
12.Request for Council Direction on Options Concerning Citywide
Ultra-High-Speed Broadband System Request for Proposal (RFP)
Responses
Council Member Kleinberg previously stated she would not participate in
the item due to ownership of holdings in telecommunications stock.
Council Member Mossar previously stated she would not participate in
the item due to ownership of telecommunications stock in her mother-in-
law’s Trust Fund.
Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats gave a presentation as
outlined in staff report CMR:157:07.
Council Member Morton stated he would not participate in the item due
to a conflict of interest because the family has holdings in Royal Bank.
Jeff Hoel, 731 Colorado Avenue, said the City was not in favor of the
Citywide Fiber to the Home (FTTH) system because it could not afford
the system. The Dynamic City proposal revealed the City could afford
the financing and the project would be completed within three months.
Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant, said half of the City was wired to accept the
system and needed to obtain regulatory permission from the City for the
special equipment.
Stephen Stuart, 2577 Park Boulevard, spoke in support of moving
forward with the system. He said the proposal presented a vision of an
environment for municipal delivery of services such as voice, video, and
data that would provide opportunities for innovation in connecting
community resources together. He was in favor of 180 Connect. He
070305 14
urged the Council to pursue discussions with 180 Connect and welcomed
the opportunity to participate in the process.
Andy Poggio, 2708 Gasper Court, addressed the following bid issues: 1)
to provide both bidders with issues regarding their proposals and to
provide the City with their best and final bid within 30 days; 2) to not
give up on a bond measure since it was the least expensive way to
finance long-term infrastructure; and 3) for the Council to organize a
knowledgeable group of citizens to compliment the City staff’s efforts to
help relieve workload.
Robert Moss, 4010 C)rme, said without access to a good, high quality
broadband, the community would suffer economically and socially. He
urged the Council to move forward with the project.
Michael Eager, 1960 Park Boulevard, said he wanted to see more public
involvement in the process. Dynamic City proposed the City develop a
municipal telecommunications service. 180 Connect proposed to build
and own a proprietary network and for the City to purchase the system
in 30 years. He had concerns if the City would not make the purchase
now he questioned whether the City’s successors would be willing to
make the purchase in 30 years. If the City wanted a telecommunications
system, the City would need to build and own the system.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the City should be in partnership with a
company that would provide the system the community had been
seeking the past 10 years. The RFP approach was too vague and too
broad to get responses on the type of system that would bring
subscribers to support the system. The community should be the
moving force but should not be left alone to decide on a project. The
Council would need to set the framework and make the decision.
Ellie Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde, supported the project and stated the
system should be built by the City and community and be City-owned. It
was a good source of City revenue and she urged the Council to move
forward on the project.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, said having the system in homes
contributed to reducing traffic in terms of telecommuting. He suggested
the Mayor appoint a Silver Ribbon Task Force consisting of
knowledgeable people in the community to come up with an ideal system
and to move forward with the project.
Council Member Beecham said Dynamic City did not meet the objectives
070305 15
in the RFP but 180 Connect’s proposal was encouraging. They could
build a system with minimal financial backing by the City. He suggested
further discussions with 180 Connect to clarify what they could do and
what was expected from City resources.
Vice Mayor Klein asked whether there had been discussions on how 180
Connect perceived the value of the City’s non-cash assets being
contributed.
Mr. Yeats said the City had not entered into formal negotiations since it
was a Request for Proposal (RFP). 180 Connect was aware of the City’s
dark fiber system and its usage. He did not think the City could turn the
system over to a third party because of long-term contract agreement in
usage. The City was dependent on the dark fiber network for their
Computer Aided Dispatching (CAD), the Fire Ringdown systems and all
Citywide communications.
Vice Mayor Klein asked staff to find out what percentage of the system
the City would own in exchange for the non-cash assets and what did
"percentage ownership" mean. He was in favor of having citizens advise
staff in negotiations with 180 Connect. He asked what the process would
be in appointing a committee.
Mr. Baum said a committee could be appointed by the Mayor to advise
staff but not the Council. It could not be a standing committee and
would not be expected to meet for more than six months. The City
Attorney’s Office advised that committee members were subject to
completing a Conflict of Interest Form 700.
Vice Mayor Klein asked whether the committee could advise the Council
as well as staff.
Mr. Baum said a committee giving advice to the Council would need to
be a Brown Act, Standing Committee.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Beecham, to direct
staff to pursue discussions with 180 Connect.
Council Member Cordell said the Council was trustee for the City.
Signing a contract with 180 Connect meant committing the General Fund
Reserves to back a bond for the project. Utility revenue could not be
legally used. The project was not a core government service and not
one of the "Top 4" Priorities. The City had taken on several other
commitments as well as having to find monies for the libraries and for a
070305 16
new Public-Safety Building. She strongly opposed doing business with
180 Connect due to their involvement in a discrimination lawsuit and
failing to disclose the issue on their own. She did not support the motion
and urged Council to terminate the process.
Council Member Beecham clarified there was no mention in the proposal
of having to issue a bond.
Council Member Cordell asked where the funds would come from if the
Council were to move forward with the project.
Council Member Beecham said the 180 Connect proposal indicated they
would provide most of the financing. The City had non-cash assets in
the ground that could be marketed better than the City. He envisioned a
vendor coming in but not physically having control over the system
because of essential elements to the City’s security operations.
Mayor Kishimoto said the project fit the Council’s priorities in terms of
economic development and sustainable budget. It was a major step to
ensure Palo AIto’s leading edge status for the future. She was in favor of
the 180 Connect proposal and supported the motion.
MOTIOl~l I~/~S~;ED 5-1 Cordell no, Kleinberg, Morton, and Mossar not
participating.
Mr. Benest said the project was very intensive and would demand a
great deal of staff time and involvement. He would ask staff to. come
back to the Council to identify what needed to be postponed in order to
move the project forward.
COUNCIL COMMENTS,
CONFERENCES
ANNOUNCEMENTS,AND REPORTS FROM
Council Member Drekmeier reported he attended the Lower Peninsula
Flood Control Commission meeting and was advised there would be
dredging of San Francisquito Creek down creek from Highway 101 and
there would be an installation of a water shark upstream, which would
help prevent back-up of debris in the Creek.
Mayor Kishimoto reported on the following: 1) attendance at a ribbon
cutting celebration of the reopening of the Bike Station; 2) attendance at
a ribbon cutting at the gateway building of Arastradero Reserve; 3)
noted that Item No. 5, LEAP, represented many great things and she
congratulated staff; and 4) the next Brown Bag is scheduled for April 5
070305 17
at lunch time regarding Stanford’s Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program. She requested a status report on the downtown
homeless situation.
Mr. Benest advised an interdepartmental working group had been
developed to deal with various aspects of the homeless problem.A
report would be provided next month.
CLOSED SESSION
Adjourned to Closed Session at 9:56 pm.
13.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: Anacelia Fernandes De Queiroz v. Walter Edward Petelle,
City of Palo Alto, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court No.:
106CV055951
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
14.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: Casey O’Neill v. City of Palo Alto, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, Case No.: C05-04515-JW
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
Mayor Kishimoto announced there was no reportable action taken in the
Closed Session meetings.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 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
070305 18
listen to during regular office hours.
070305 19