HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-07 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 7, 2005
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................434
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................................434
1. Approval of Contract with TruGreen LandCare ....................................434
2. Public Hearing: Considering Revisions to the Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) Ordinance for City-Owned Properties, and Revisions to
the Downtown CD Zone Ordinance to Increase Residential Density
Limits ...........................................................................................434
3. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2003-04 ....................444
4. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Burch and Council Member Freeman re:
Police Review Body .........................................................................447
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................451
5. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION ............451
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m .......................452
02/07/05 98-433
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Morton, Ojakian
ABSENT: Mossar
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jim Dinkey spoke regarding BART steam power.
Don Letcher, 788 N. Rengstorff, Mountain View, spoke regarding the
Mayfield Mall/Hewlett Packard site.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding flood control and San
Francisquito Creek.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve
the minutes of January 10 and 18, 2005, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to
approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
ADMINISTRATIVE
1. Approval of Contract with TruGreen LandCare in an Amount not to
Exceed $325,000 for the 2004-2005 Tree Maintenance Project
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Public Hearing: Considering Revisions to the Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) Ordinance for City-Owned Properties, and Revisions to the
Downtown CD Zone Ordinance to Increase Residential Density Limits. 1)
Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Code, Chapters 18.87, 18.49 and 18.32.
The Proposed Zone Changes Would Allow Eligible City-Owned Historic
Properties (Category 1 or Category 2) Located in Any Zone District to be
02/07/05 98-434
“Sender Sites” Under the TDR Ordinance, Transferring Historic or Seismic
Rehabilitation Floor Area Bonuses from these Sites to Eligible “Receiver”
Sites Located in the Downtown CD Zone District; and Modify the Procedures
and Requirements for Granting Floor Area Bonuses. Proposed Changes to
Chapter 18.49 also Would Modify Site Development Requirements, and
Replace Maximum Residential Density Limit with a Required Maximum
Average Unit Size, for Residential and Mixed-Use Projects Located in the CD
Zone District to Encourage Use of TDR to Provide Housing Units. The
Residential Density on a Mixed Use or Residential Site Would be Limited by
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Site Development Requirements, Parking
Requirements, and Comprehensive Plan Density Limits. 2) Provide Direction
to Staff Regarding Possible Changes to Chapter 18.87.040 and 18.87.055 to
Increase the Maximum Parking Exemption for Bonus Floor Area from 5,000
Square Feet to 10,000 Square Feet, and to Reduce the Required Distance
Between TDR “Receiver” Sites and Residentially Zoned Property.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie gave an
overview of recommendations regarding the approval of zoning changes
recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
outlined in staff report CMR:108:05, as follows: 1) to allow the Transfer of
Development Right program (TDR) that applied to privately owned buildings
to extend to City-owned historic buildings; 2) to make minor changes to the
review process for the historic rehabilitation bonus floor area program; and
3) to allow interim use of Commercial Downtown District (CD) of residential
density employed in the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) 2 Coordinated Area Plan and for Council to discuss the direction of whether staff should explore
further changes to the parking exemption and location of receiver sites. He
gave an overview of the TDR components outlined in the Ordinance. In
addition, he said staff was seeking direction to increase the maximum
allowable parking exemption of floor area from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet
and whether the distance requirement for receiver sites in the Downtown
area could be changed from 150 feet from residentially zoned area located
across a public street.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Pat Burt gave an overview on the
P&TC Report, as outlined in staff report CMR:108:05.
Mayor Burch declared the Public Hearing open at 7:29 p.m.
Historic Resources Board Member Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street,
said the idea of applying TDRs to City-owned historic property came from
members of the public. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) supported
extending the TDR program to provide additional funding for City resources
to restore historic properties. Most historic properties retained their integrity
if they were kept small and not built out to the limit. It was an incentive to
02/07/05 98-435
keep buildings in their historic configuration. The requirement of a historic
structure’s report was a vital piece of information on what was historic and
important to save on a building for construction, destruction, or repair
purposes. The HRB supported the idea of assuring the proceeds from the
TDR sales be used exclusively for historic rehabilitation of City-owned
historic buildings and whether something met the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation. Continued care would be made on a building
once money was spent on it. Rehabilitation plans must show materials used
and materials to be removed.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said an environmental review should be required
prior to approving a project because of parking impacts. The process did not
allow a way to address the issue on a project-by-project basis. The proposal
gave developers the ability to develop in the Downtown area without
providing parking. Council had the opportunity to make a decision in
determining the sender sites, but the real decision was on the receiver sites.
The Ordinance stated the City Manager could develop a process. The City
Manager lacked the authority to decide when the Council made decisions,
which could only be accomplished by an Ordinance. He suggested amending
the Ordinance so the decisions would come before the Council. Council
adopted a policy 20 years prior for leasing City lands and the fair price was
to be decided by Council. When portions of rights were sold, Council should
be the decision-maker, which should be stated in the Ordinance.
Mayor Burch declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:35 p.m.
Council Member Morton asked which buildings could be transferred in dollars
or in build-out terms. In regard to providing additional funding for historic
renovation on City-owned, but not City-operated parcels, such as the Roth
Building, the Museum of American Heritage Building, and the Lucie Stern
Sea Scout Building, did all buildings qualify or only the Roth Building where
historic renovations had not taken place. He asked if the Museum of
American Heritage Building would qualify since a non-profit group had
restored the property.
Mr. Emslie said a building would not qualify if improvements had already
been made to the building and could not be applied retroactively.
Council Member Morton queried in a case where no additional square footage
could be purchased or sold by the City, the City could not go back and try to
sell the Museum and use the profits to renovate the Sea Scout Building.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Morton asked how the sales value would be calculated for
02/07/05 98-436
the Roth Building.
Mr. Emslie referred him to the matrix (CMR:108:05 Attachment C) that
provided the estimate of potential seismic and historic bonus to each eligible
building. The Roth Building offered 4,250 square feet. He said a high
market value was $400 to $500 per square foot but it could be as low as
$100 per square foot.
Council Member Morton asked whether the property that sold the rights had
first rights on the monies or did staff determine where it was used.
Mr. Emslie said, by Ordinance, it must be pledged to the particular site even
if it was operated by a non-profit.
Council Member Morton asked why it required a protective covenant if it was
City-owned property.
Mr. Emslie said it was required for private buildings but all aspects of the
program apply equally to public buildings. It would be a covenant plus a
lease condition.
Council Member Morton asked in calculating parking, could the exemption of
the 5,000 square feet remain and “with staff’s recommendation and
Council’s approval, it could be increased to 10,000 square feet” be added,
and not leave it open to 10,000 square feet at staff’s discretion.
Mr. Emslie said staff was not recommending an increase. Staff would ask
Council if they were interested in pursuing and would return to Council with
more detailed analysis and options.
Council Member Morton asked what the dollar value was on an additional
5,000 square feet exception from parking.
Mr. Emslie said the in-lieu fee would be approximately $50,000. The parking
rate was four spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 20 spaces for the 5,000
square feet giving an approximate value of $1 million.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg referred to Section 8.32.090 (e) of the drafted
Ordinance regarding TDR sales and asked whether the Ordinance had
authority to delegate from City Council to the City Manager.
City Attorney Gary Baum said no. The Charter delegated control to the City
Manager on the accounts and funding once Council approved the budget.
Council Member Morton clarified it was a requirement that the City Manager
02/07/05 98-437
open a separate bank account and separate accounting.
Mr. Baum said that was correct, and expenditures could be focused on one
project.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked what the 47,834 figure represented at the
bottom of matrix (CMR:108:05 Attachment C) .
Mr. Emslie said it was the potential bonus square footage of everything on
the matrix including previously rehabilitated buildings.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg questioned why the large difference between 47,834
and 80,668.
Senior Planner Virginia Warheit clarified the figures included all buildings
eligible for both historic and seismic bonuses.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg clarified that approximately 80,000 square feet of
public buildings were eligible for potential development in the Downtown
area.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked whether any private buildings were eligible in
terms of square footage and TDRs.
Mr. Emslie said the program applied to private buildings, but he did not
know the approximate footage.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said she was not concerned about the actual footage
but wanted to get a sense of eligible private footage because: 1) there was
not a sense of potential build out in the Downtown area; and 2) if developers
wanted to make commercial office buildings, there was over 80,000 square
feet of new office building space without a companion amount of housing.
Mr. Emslie said the Downtown development could not exceed the cap of
approximately 275,000 square feet.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg raised concerns about unit size and how the cap on the
unit size was determined. She understood the desire to maximize the
number of units, but building several smaller units did not create a family-
friendly neighborhood with potential turnover instead of neighborhood
stability.
Mr. Emslie said the main effect proposed in the Ordinance was to address a
02/07/05 98-438
problem specific to developing sites smaller than 8,500 square feet or less
because the density application would apply. While there was a sufficient
amount of floor area eligible for the site, the density would require that
construction would go into one very large unit. In order to address the
Downtown zoning, it was suggested to bring in the SOFA formula to provide
more plentiful units.
Mr. Burt said there were a limited number of perspective receiver sites in the
Downtown area that could absorb TDRs and, although there was potential
for certain square footage, the sites did not exist as good candidates.
Ms. Warheit said in 1996, when the TDR program was established, there
were five or six times more receiver sites than sender sites. One
qualification was the site owner had to want to do something with the site.
Even if the site qualified, it did not mean it would become a receiver site. It
would become a sender site if the owner rehabilitated the building, which
generated the TDR. When adding all 18 buildings listed, the 80,000 square
foot figure was technically correct but, in reality, it was a meaningless
number.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg felt the parking study needed more review before
committing $40,000 toward the project. She preferred keeping the money
and restrictions and concurred with Council Member Morton’s request to not
extend the square footage to 10,000. She was not in favor of more office
space in the Downtown area. She suggested locking in TDR sales to
residential or perhaps a certain percent for residential or a mixed-use of retail downstairs and something else upstairs.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether every receiver site had a review
process.
Mr. Emslie said receiver sites would require following the City’s Architectural
Review Board (ARB) program. In most cases, an exterior change resulting
in square footage would require ARB approval. The ARB may not be
required if the change were not visible but, in most cases, visible work would
require ARB review, a public hearing, and could be appealed.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified that staff would agree that the two
criteria added by Council were part of the staff recommendation.
Mr. Emslie confirmed. Staff was suggesting the information be passed on to
the Zoning Code team, which would then go back to Council for
consideration after the Downtown analysis was completed.
Council Member Kishimoto said her concern was when the information was
passed on, that it would be clear the exploration was for properties that
02/07/05 98-439
were residential or lower Floor Area Ratio (FAR) than the adjacent sites.
Mr. Emslie said that would be the direction staff would pass on, and it would
be made clear to the zoning team so they would use it as the parameter in
developing options.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether it should be included in the
motion.
Mr. Emslie felt it would be good to include in the decision.
Council Member Kishimoto raised concern regarding process and expected
revenue. She referred to Ordinance, Section 2 (b) and asked should Council
look at bidding parameters or would Council need to approve acceptance of
the bid.
Real Property Manager Bill Fellman said staff proposed to use the same
process for selling property. A minimum bid would be set and return to
Council with a Request for Bid Proposal (RFP) for review. It would then be
advertised, and the sealed bids would qualify for oral bids, at which time the
highest bid would be brought back to Council for approval.
Council Member Kishimoto did not think that was written into the Ordinance.
Mr. Fellman said the Real Estate process was used in selling property.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether it was the process used by the
City Manager when establishing the formal bidding procedure.
Mr. Fellman said it was included in the report that went to the P&TC.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
recommendation to:
1. Approve the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code, Chapters
18.87, 18.49 and 18.32, to allow eligible City-owned historic
properties (Category 1 or Category 2), including historic
properties that are also seismic risk properties (Seismic Category
I, II, or III), located in any zone district to be “sender sites”
under the TDR ordinance, transferring historic or seismic
rehabilitation floor area bonuses from these sites to eligible
“receiver” sites located in the Downtown CD Zone District;
2. Modify the procedures and requirements for granting floor area
bonuses;
3. Modify the residential density and site development
02/07/05 98-440
requirements for residential mixed use projects located in the
CD-C zone district to facilitate use of TDR for residential use;
and
Modify Page 2 of the Ordinance to give direction to staff that the TDR bids
return to the Council when the Request for Proposal (RFP) is issued and bids
accepted, as per the City’s formal bidding procedures.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance Amending Title 18 [Zoning]
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Chapters 18.32 [Public
Facilities District Regulations], 18.49 [CD Commercial Downtown
District Regulations], and 18.87 [Transferable Developments Rights] to
Include Certain City-Owned Buildings as Sender Sites in the
Transferable Development Rights Program”
City Attorney Gary Baum suggested the bidding process be directed to staff
because it was a process to be adopted under the Code and not be codified.
It would mean amending the Ordinance each time a change was made.
Council Member Morton suggested adding the words “the City’s formal
bidding procedures” to clarify a bidding procedure was already in place and
must be followed.
Mr. Baum agreed.
Council Member Kishimoto accepted the change to the motion.
Council Member Beecham asked for a summary on the history of TDR sales
in Palo Alto.
Mr. Emslie said there were six sales since the program started ten years
prior.
Council Member Beecham said the program had been around awhile but with
moderate activity. The process enabled the City to take advantage of what
the private sector was able to use. There were several buildings up for
renovation, but the process was slow and did not happen regularly. It gave
the City flexibility and offered funds for renovations to be made by the
community. He asked Council Member Kishimoto what her intentions were
on the SOFA 2 mixed use standards and the 5,000 to 10,000 square foot
bonus and whether she was going to leave it to the Zoning Ordinance
Update (ZOU) process.
Council Member Kishimoto said she was going to table it and not make it a
part of the ZOU since it required $40,000.
02/07/05 98-441
Council Member Freeman asked which TDRs had been sold and where were
they located.
Ms. Warheit said she knew of three properties. The property located on
Emerson Street, which involved two historic buildings, and a new building on
the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street. All three buildings were
completed at the same time and involved bonus floor areas. TDR’s had been
sold from a Victorian house on Tasso Street, but she was unsure of where
they went or if they were built. A sandwich shop was restored in the SOFA
area where the TDR was transferred but not built. TDR’s did not have to be
built; they could be purchased with the intent of not using them and held for
resale.
Council Member Freeman raised concern on appearance. She said she
appreciated the donor site matrix but missed the identification of the
potential receiver sites and the owners of those sites. The CMR referenced
developers and property owners making suggestions. She wanted to know if
the suggestions were made at a noticed meeting where the public was
present and whether other meetings had taken place where issues were
brought up as proposals.
Mr. Emslie said data was collected from the stakeholders that involved
Downtown property owners with many suggestions that were not included.
The recommendation at the meeting was to determine if Council would be
interested in pursuing some suggestions.
Council Member Freeman said she wanted to see equality between TDR
beneficiaries and what the public received. She was told by the City
Attorney that there were no legal matters surrounding the issue, but she felt
there was the appearance of potential public exclusion if issues came up
before a public meeting. She raised concern regarding jobs-housing
imbalance and recognized the importance of affordable housing. She asked
if the SOFA 2 formula were used, what would be the maximum availability of
Below Market Rate (BMR) units versus expensive housing.
Mr. Emslie said the BMR requirement would apply to all projects over the
size threshold. If a project were large enough to include BMRs, 15 percent
would be set aside for low to moderate-income housing. The SOFA
requirement would make it possible to have more than one unit on a small
site. The SOFA 2 analysis revealed the possibility of building an upper-story
of two or three units above an existing commercial building. It would
provide incremental housing growth in areas with services and a pedestrian
and urban type of lifestyle. It addressed small units in a constrained
environment that added mixed-use to commercial buildings.
02/07/05 98-442
Council Member Freeman said she had been informed that mixed-use in
Europe was successful, but had experienced seeing mixed-use become a
blighted situation during economic depression.
Mr. Emslie said Palo Alto had proven to be a desirable Downtown area.
Judging the performance on residential properties, units had retained
extremely high values and quality was maintained for a long period of time.
Council Member Freeman asked if there were any limitations in selling a TDR
several times.
Mr. Emslie said TDRs could only be sold once after renovations were
completed on a building and it was for the life of the building.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the Council include allowing TDRs to be
transferred to smaller sites or areas where mixed-use would be appropriate.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the Council encourage TDRs be used for
housing on smaller sites, including the SOFA 2 mixed-use standards.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Morton moved to include that Council
explore the benefit to the City of increasing the maximum allowed parking
exemption for bonus floor area, under certain conditions, from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet with the understanding that the process will
include the requirement to be recommended by Council and a neighborhood
impact report.
Council Member Beecham asked what the cost and timeframe would be if
the amendment was included.
Mr. Emslie said the cost would be $40,000 for a parking analysis and the
additional work was included in staff’s work program, which would be
completed in the next 12 months.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
4 Determine whether staff should further explore possible changes to
Chapter 18.87.055, increasing the maximum allowed parking
exemption for bonus floor area, under certain conditions, from 5000
square feet to 10,000 square feet, as well as changes to Chapter
18.87.040 that reduce the required distance between certain TDR
“receiver” sites and residentially zoned property.
02/07/05 98-443
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Freeman no, Mossar absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
3. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2003-04
City Auditor Sharon Erickson gave a presentation of the Auditor’s Third
Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report. It provided
information on staffing, workload, results for each City department and their
five-year historical trend, comparison to other Cities and results of a citizen’s
survey. All informational data was outlined in the SEA Report FY 2003-04,
dated February 2005. A copy of the report could be obtained from the City
Auditor’s Office or from the City’s web at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/auditor/
reports.
Council Member Kishimoto said it was a fantastic report. It provided a
comprehensive view of the community and a good resource for the budget
process. It showed the City’s strengths, weaknesses, and comparisons of the
past five years. It projected the higher levels of activities and the use of
volunteers and outside leverage for fund-raising. She noted various
positions had been added throughout the years with the understanding they
would be cost-recovery positions.
Council Member Morton noted the amount spent for services, including the
high quality of education provided to the community, which was larger than that provided for libraries. He felt a need to focus on those numbers. He
spoke of operating transfers and accounting for capital projects. Inter-fund
transfers without the capital project funding were relatively small numbers.
It was important to remind the community that monies raised in the
community went back into the community. He noted staff increased in
some areas but, overall, the City had maintained a high level of service with
relatively small growth in staff in the last five years. The increase in
revenue generated by many of the departments was much larger than the
growth in expenditures.
Council Member Ojakian referred to page 2.6 of the Report and asked
whether the City was reimbursed for maintaining the 26 acres of Utility sites.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the City was reimbursed.
Council Member Ojakian said reimbursements should be shown. Under Fire
Safety and Disaster Preparedness Presentations on page 3.6 of the Report
he asked why the impact was the presentations.
Ms. Harrison said it created a greater awareness in the community. In the
event of an emergency, there would be a prepared infrastructure of
02/07/05 98-444
community members, who would be able to respond and lead others in the
response. The first level of response would be at the neighborhood level.
City Manager Benest said in the last five to seven years the increase in
spending was on libraries, traffic safety, planning, and disaster
preparedness. They were conscious decisions made for good reasons.
Council Member Ojakian referenced page 5.3 of the Report, and asked why
there was an increase in Planning Applications Completed and in the Average
Time for Completing Major Applications.
Ms. Harrison said it was based on the complexity of the application and
made reference to large projects that had taken place in the Stanford and
the SOFA areas.
Council Member Ojakian asked if it was possible to footnote one-time or
exceptional projects.
Ms. Erickson suggested using a measure to show the average time and show
the percentage achieved within a targeted timeframe, as footnotes.
Mr. Benest said Council had raised concerns regarding the time for
processing building permits. The data report indicated a great headway in
processing applications.
Ms. Erickson said there was a drastic reduction in the time for processing
building permits. More work needed to be done on the development review.
She felt it would be beneficial to take Council Member Ojakian’s footnote
suggestion and investigate what caused the numbers to increase, or to show
the complexity or verify whether the majority of applications were processed
timely.
Council Member Ojakian referenced page 7.9 of the Report, under Refuse
Fund, the operating revenue was running better than the operating expense.
He asked the reason for the change in the past three years.
Ms. Erickson said it was appropriate to run down the reserves if there was
more than what was needed.
Council Member Ojakian referenced page 9.3 of the Report, under General
Fund Reserve, he noted the dollar amount increase and asked what the cap
was.
Mr. Benest said Council policy was to maintain a reserve between 15 and 20
percent. The key indicator was at 18 ½ percent, which was a good place to
be, and it had been maintained at that percent even through very difficult
02/07/05 98-445
times.
Council Member Ojakian said he raised a question regarding the number of
computer workstations and asked if 978 new workstations had been
purchased.
Ms. Erickson said it was a total of workstations. Some employees did not
have workstations five years prior and had now been provided with one.
She added there were still a great number of employees, such as field crews
that still did not have a workstation.
Council Member Ojakian commended the Auditor for her fine work and asked
that the Report be continued.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said another way to look at the data was to project
ahead in terms of certain segments in the community that were not well
served. The numbers should tell where annual budget dollars were spent
and the direction the City was going. It was important to look at childcare
services, senior services, and affordable housing to determine which end of
the spectrum needed attention. She noted that 84 percent of the
community purchased from the Internet, and there was a need to recapture
local sales tax revenue. She raised concern regarding Citywide training
hours that was up almost 200 percent and whether it included temporary or
part-time employees.
Mr. Benest said there was more training required for full-time and regular
part-time staff and occasionally for hourly staff. There was mandated
training such as in sexual harassment, safety, police and fire. Many
employees received technical training and a range of discretionary training.
Ms. Erickson added there were significant training hours needed for the new
SAP Program.
Council Member Freeman asked for clarification on the percentage of home
recycling being down a point from the past year; however, the Auditor
provided a figure in her presentation that indicated Palo Alto was doing
better.
Ms. Erickson said her presentation figure reflected total tons.
Council Member Freeman raised concern of various characteristics in the
community. Overall appearance of Palo Alto was 86 percent; opportunities
to attend cultural events was 83 percent; openness and acceptance was
down to 73 percent, and she would like to see a percentage increase in
working with the government. She questioned the employee-training
budget.
02/07/05 98-446
Council Member Beecham said more focus was needed on the Streets
Reconstructive Expenditures, which was lower than other cities, and the
significant drop in the past year of residents dissatisfied with Storm Drains.
The expense on vehicle maintenance was higher than other cities. He asked
whether other cost benefits needed to be reviewed.
Ms. Erickson said added research may be required but other cities may be
using vehicles differently than Palo Alto.
Council Member Beecham noted Jobs/Housing imbalance being higher than
other cities. Compared to Mountain View, Palo Alto had twice as many jobs
per resident and noted Code Enforcement and Police operating expenses
were high.
Mayor Burch commended Ms. Erickson on the Report. It was an excellent
study and, since it was completed with questions used nationwide, it was a
good across-the-states comparison.
No action required.
COUNCIL MATTERS
4. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Burch and Council Member Freeman re:
Police Review Body
Mayor Burch read into the record the Colleague’s memo authored by Council
Member Freeman and himself.
Council Member Freeman said the intent of the memo was to allow
discussion on the topic. She felt it was a good idea to examine issues within
the Human Relation Commission (HRC). Approval of a Police Review Body
would allow the HRC to review, make comments, listen to the public, and
bring issues to Council for action.
Don Letcher, 788 North Rengstorff, Mountain View, said there was not a
place where Mountain View and Palo Alto citizens could go to complain about
inappropriate police actions and felt it was important to establish a review
board with power to discipline.
Mark Petersen-Perez wanted to see changes made in the Police Department.
An oversight commission entrusted with power to discipline officers would
help reduce corruption in the department.
Aram James spoke on the topic of police misconduct and expressed
disagreement on how police oversight issues were handled by City staff. He
02/07/05 98-447
said an oversight commission could review Police Department policies that
could result in wrongful convictions.
Christiane Cook, 1234 Emerson, was not in favor of having a review board
under HRC’s jurisdiction. Through past experience, she had found the HRC
to be inadequate and faced long delays in resolving a problem.
Richard Shapiro spoke of his arrest for public disturbance and how the law in
Santa Clara County mistreated him.
Shawna Wilson was in support of having the Police Review Board under the
HRC, but the decision would need to be made by Council. The HRC decided
to add a police subcommittee instead of a Police Liaison. She announced a
Community Police meeting would be held on February 23, 2005, from 7-9
p.m. at the Palo Alto Unitarian Church and urged the community to attend.
It would give citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the
Police Department.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the HRC had jurisdiction to act on human
relations matters when the HRC found a person or groups of persons, who
did not fully benefit from the Police Department services or were treated
unfairly. The HRC had the authority to recommend local legislation or other
actions to the Council relating to such matters. Citizens were looking for a
body with authority. Other communities had police review boards with
authority to act.
Brian Wax said he was not in support of a Police Review Board. He said the
number of errors committed by the Palo Alto Police Department resulting in
criminal complaints or violations of civil rights was minuscule and did not
merit having an oversight committee.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the number of formal complaints against
the Police Department during the past several years averaged 30 per year
for everything and excessive force and brutality was four or five per year.
The HRC reviewed police complaints, reported back to Council, and could be
instructed to return with results.
Council Member Freeman said there might be a small number of incidents
but only 7 percent of the population was in the category of Hispanic, Black
or African-American. There could be issues that needed review. With the
notion of openness in government and increased public scrutiny, a Police
Review Board would be a benefit to the community and the police force. It
was a way to examine a situation brought to Council by members of the
population. The HRC was asked to examine issues brought to the meeting
and return to Council with results. The results would not preclude the
02/07/05 98-448
Council from thinking of other options or listening to the public again with
other issues. It was a starting point and a way for the community to start a
civil open dialogue.
MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Burch, to ask the
City Manager to agendize discussion of the responsibilities of this review
body as soon as possible, after providing the Human Relations Commission
with an opportunity for its review and input.
Council Member Cordell stated she was aware of the City Auditor’s survey of
Palo Alto residents, which showed a high approval rate of the Police
Department. She did not dispute the survey results, but given the small
African-American and Latino population in Palo Alto, she felt only a few, if
any, participated in the survey. The number of contacts between Police and
African-Americans and Latinos was disproportionate to the numbers. She
supported the recommendation and looked forward to HRC’s feedback on the
proposal. She was not confident such a route was the way to go in getting
the results they were looking for, but it was a start. Her preference was to
create a position in the City for a police auditor, someone with experience in
law enforcement, legal training and independence. It would be a half-time
position, on a trial basis for one year and would perform oversight and
review of police conduct, similar to the auditor utilized by the City of San
Jose for their Police Department.
Council Member Morton did not support the recommendation. He said there was a need to examine issues and have a civil dialogue for openness. He did
not think there was a problem in the community on how people were
treated. The City had a mechanism to review police officer’s conduct. The
first line of the jurisdiction of the HRC stated it had, by City design and the
Charter, the discretion to act with respect to any human relations matter.
Anyone who wished to bring a complaint could file the complaint with the
HRC, which would intercede and conduct a review of the issue. Individuals
should bring their complaints before the HRC. By acting on the proposal, it
implied there was something wrong with the community and the policing.
He did not feel it was necessary to create another level of bureaucracy to
handle what he did not believe the majority of the community members felt
was a problem.
Council Member Kishimoto said since the issue had been brought out in the
community, there was a need for discussion. There could be nothing behind
them, but there might be constructive reforms that could be made. She
referred to a February 2005 report: “Review of National Police Oversight
Models for the Eugene Police Commission”, which she found useful, and
could help Palo Alto avoid repeating research performed by Eugene, Oregon.
She urged her colleagues, staff, and the HRC to look at it since it covered
02/07/05 98-449
Commission goals, functions, and policy areas for review. The City of
Eugene had contracted an auditor to review closed internal investigations.
She supported the recommendation.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether a Charter Amendment was required
to establish an oversight committee.
City Attorney Baum said according to the City Charter, the jurisdiction in
control of the Police Department was directly under the City Manager.
Creating an oversight committee would require a Charter Amendment,
numerous changes to the Municipal Code, and would not comply with the
City Manager’s form of government. It was creating a different structure for
the City.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether an internal auditor/investigator
would be compatible with the City Charter and City Manager’s duty.
Mr. Baum said he needed to study the issue. It would depend on how it was
set up and to whom the appointing authority was and whether it could
possibly be accomplished with or without a Charter Amendment. There were
limitations upon what any body, except for the Police Chief and City
Manager, had on the officer’s individual privacy rights, freedom, and the
officer’s bill of rights.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether there was an issue regarding examining and airing complaints with the HRC since it had been going on for
such a long period of time: What authority did the HRC have; did Council
expect anything back from the HRC; and did they need to act on them.
Mr. Baum said the HRC was vested with some inherent authority to do what
had already been suggested. The situation set up in the memo was a Police
Review Body. The HRC and Council could not be an oversight body. The
HRC was a delegating body from Council and an advisory body to Council. It
was legal and acceptable in the current framework.
Council Member Ojakian said the memo was a good message and a positive
approach and he supported the recommendation.
Council Member Beecham said he believed the City’s Police Department
worked well for the vast majority of the citizens. He was in support of
bringing the item to the HRC.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg supported the motion. She said the point for
discussion was whether reliable facts could come from a natural source to
set records straight about whether a problem exists. By law, the HRC had
02/07/05 98-450
the discretion to act in matters where people were treated differently or
unfair. They could facilitate the resolution of problems or improve conditions
by using encouragement, persuasion and mediation, but they did not have
authority. The law would need to change in order to get something done if
something was uncovered beyond what the Police Department or City
Manager had uncovered. There was a perception, a public relations problem
in the general public’s minds, and a real problem in the minds of some
people in the community. The HRC was extremely well intentioned with
many skills, but she felt a need for more authority for a body that could be
called into action.
Mayor Burch said accusations needed to be taken seriously. He felt the
purpose of the memo was to state the need for a review board and the body
that needed to complete the review was the HRC. It was a serious issue
that needed to be addressed in a creative and open way. He supported the
motion with the understanding not everything could be done in the long run.
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Morton no, Mossar absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Morton applauded staff regarding opening the Downtown
Library on Saturdays.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg noted the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury was looking for volunteers to serve for 2005-06.
Council Member Freeman stated she had received the Palo Alto Downtown
Survey, which gave a sense of what was happening with retail.
Mayor Burch stated Council Member Mossar was not at the meeting because
she was representing the City in Washington D.C. He also noted she had
been appointed as Vice Chair to the National League of Cities Energy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Advocacy Committee.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to a Closed Session.
5. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: City of Palo Alto, a California chartered city vs. Robert T.
Chang, Judy W. Chang, Bancplus Mortgage Corp., a Texas corporation,
et al; Santa Clara County Superior Court No.: 104CV020516
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters regarding existing
02/07/05 98-451
litigation, as described in Agenda Item No. 5.
Mayor Burch announced there no reportable action was taken.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 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.
02/07/05 98-452