HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-27 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting September 27, 2004
1. Affordable Housing (Alma Substation – Below Market Rate (BMR)
Program Study Update) ..................................................................164
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. .................................164
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................165
1. Ordinance 4840 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2004-05 to provide an
Additional Appropriation of $206,150 for Anticipated Increased
Contract Costs for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on the Stanford/Mayfield Development Agreement and
Associated Legal Services” ..............................................................165
2. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment Ordinance for Outside
Legal Counsel Services and for Authorization to Amend Existing Contract with the Strombotne Law Firm ............................................166
3. Palo Alto Shuttle-Approval of Contract Extension No. 9 and Increase in
the Expenditure Limit of the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration
Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ..................166
4. Amendment No. Four to Employment Agreement Between the City of
Palo Alto and Lance Bayer ...............................................................166
5. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing
Corporation (PAHC) and PAHC Apartments, Inc. in the Amount of
$113,672 for Funds Allocated During Fiscal-Year 2003/04 under the
Community Development Block Grant Program (Second Agreement) ....166
6. Public Hearing - The City of Palo Alto will Consider a Request by Court
House Plaza Company for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
Light Industrial to Mixed Use, and a Rezone from the Existing GM(B)
District to a Planned Community to Allow the Construction of a Four
Story Building to Include 45,115 Square Feet for Research and
Development Space and 2000 Square Feet of Retail on the Ground
Floor and 211,167 Square Feet for Three Level Residential Apartments Totaling 177 Units, Plus a Subterranean Parking Garage and Related
Site Improvements Including the Proposed Vacation and Landscaping
09/27/04 98-162
of the Adjacent Section of Page Mill Road (195 Page Mill Road and
2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, and 2901 Park Boulevard). Environmental
Assessment: Staff will Develop the Initial Study and Subsequent
Environmental Documents in Compliance with CEQA Regulations. ........166
7. Public Hearing: The Palo Alto City Council will Discuss Possible
Changes to Homer Avenue and High Street to Accommodate
Eastbound Bicycle Egress from the New Undercrossing of the Caltrain
Tracks at Alma Street and Homer Avenue. Alternatives Included: (1)
Conversion of Homer Between Alma and High, and High Between
Forest and Channing, from One-Way to Two-Way Travel; (2)
Installation of Contraflow Bike Lane on Homer Between Alma and High,
and Conversion of High Between Forest and Channing from One-Way
to Two-Way Travel; and (3) Retain Existing Lane Configuration on
Homer and High, and Accommodate Bicyclists on Alma Through
Manipulation of Traffic Signal Timing. ...............................................178
8. City Auditor’s FY 2004-05 Work Plan .................................................186
9. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Beecham and Council Member Kishimoto
regarding a request to staff to forward letter to the Valley
Transportation Authority Regarding Long-Term Capital Investment
Program ........................................................................................188
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................189
10. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation ............................189
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ......................189
09/27/04 98-163
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman arrived at 6:05 p.m., Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton arrived at 6:05 p.m., Mossar, Ojakian STUDY SESSION 1. Affordable Housing (Alma Substation – Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Study Update)
Linda Mandolini, the Executive Director of Eden Housing, gave a short
presentation regarding the preliminary work that has been completed
regarding housing development options for the Alma Substation site. She described the three development options studied, including seniors, Single
Room Occupancy (SRO) and workforce housing, as well as the benefits and
constraints for each option. The Council comments focused on parking
requirements and parking provisions for the project and on the varying
options. Most of the Council Members indicated preference for workforce
housing on the site; however, given the site's constraints, senior housing
was also a viable alternative. Most of the Council Members emphasized
future public parking at the adjacent 800 High Street site should not be used
to provide parking for the project.
Kate Funk and Debbie Kern from Keyser Marston Associates briefly explained the Below Market Rate (BMR) Program study that had just begun which would evaluate additional opportunities for producing and retaining affordable housing, as well as address potential improvements to administrative procedures. The Council Members described specific issues that the study should address including restrictions on income limits for BMR owners, identifying reasons for owners selling units, evaluating the appreciation formula and identifying methods of limiting BMR Program administration costs. No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
09/27/04 98-164
Regular Meeting September 27, 2004 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Joy Ogawa spoke regarding police and fire services.
Jeff Rensch, 741 Chimalus Drive, spoke regarding affordable housing.
Sally Probst spoke regarding her gratitude that Palo Alto was continuing to
look at affordable housing, and she hoped funding could be found for
workforce housing.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 432, spoke regarding affordable housing, funding
sources, and public parking.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding noise.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in Item No. 1 due
to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford
University.
Council Member Cordell stated she would not participate in Item No. 1 due
to a conflict of interest because she was employed by Stanford University.
Council Member Freeman registered a no vote on Item Nos. 1 and 4.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burch moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-5.
LEGISLATIVE
1. Ordinance 4840 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2004-05 to provide an
Additional Appropriation of $206,150 for Anticipated Increased
Contract Costs for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on the Stanford/Mayfield Development Agreement and Associated Legal Services” (Continued from 9/20/04)
09/27/04 98-165
2. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment Ordinance for Outside
Legal Counsel Services and for Authorization to Amend Existing
Contract with the Strombotne Law Firm
Ordinance 4841 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2004-05 to provide an
Additional Appropriation of $150,000 for Legal Contract Assistance”
ADMINISTRATIVE
3. Palo Alto Shuttle-Approval of Contract Extension No. 9 and Increase in
the Expenditure Limit of the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration
Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
4. Amendment No. Four to Employment Agreement Between the City of
Palo Alto and Lance Bayer
5. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing
Corporation (PAHC) and PAHC Apartments, Inc. in the Amount of
$113,672 for Funds Allocated During Fiscal-Year 2003/04 under the
Community Development Block Grant Program (Second Agreement)
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2, 3, and 5.
MOTION PASSED 6-1 for Item No. 1, Freeman no, Cordell, Mossar not
participating.
MOTION PASSED 8-1 for Item No. 4, Freeman no.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. Public Hearing - The City of Palo Alto will Consider a Request by Court
House Plaza Company for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
Light Industrial to Mixed Use, and a Rezone from the Existing GM(B)
District to a Planned Community to Allow the Construction of a Four
Story Building to Include 45,115 Square Feet for Research and
Development Space and 2000 Square Feet of Retail on the Ground
Floor and 211,167 Square Feet for Three Level Residential Apartments
Totaling 177 Units, Plus a Subterranean Parking Garage and Related
Site Improvements Including the Proposed Vacation and Landscaping
of the Adjacent Section of Page Mill Road (195 Page Mill Road and
2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, and 2901 Park Boulevard). Environmental
Assessment: Staff will Develop the Initial Study and Subsequent
Environmental Documents in Compliance with CEQA Regulations.
(Continued from 9/20/04)
09/27/04 98-166
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said the
Planning staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) had
recommended the Council deny the proposed Comprehensive (Comp) Plan
Amendment and Planned Community (PC) Zone designation and project. In
doing so, the applicant would be able to resubmit a substantially revised
application and come into compliance with the City’s Comp Plan. The PC
process consisted of two steps: 1) the P&TC’s initial review, which provided a
broad oversight of major land use issues; and 2) a referral by the P&TC to
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for refinement of the architectural
design. In the present case, the P&TC was not able to find consistency with
the broader or general policies of the land use element of the Comp Plan.
Staff believed substantial modification to the plan was necessary in order to
achieve the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood as well as the
desire for a quality mixed-use and pedestrian environment.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the proposed project included a four-
story building approximately 51 feet in height with 45,000 square feet of
Research and Development (R&D) use, and 11,000 square feet of residential
use, which would include 177 residential units ranging in size from 660
square feet to 1,300 square feet in a mix of one and two bedroom units. In
addition, there would be 2,000 square feet of retail use and 392 parking
spaces of which 275 would be underground. The total Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
for the proposed site was 2.35 (258,282 square feet) of which 1.92 was for
proposed housing and .43 was for R&D uses. For comparative purposes, the
existing Comprehensive Land Use (CLU) designation and the General Manufacturing (GM) Zoning District would allow a FAR of 1.0, providing the
FAR of any nonresidential use did not exceed .50 (54,970 square feet) and
.50 FAR for residential uses further required to meet the RM-30 Zoning
District Development Standards. On the proposed site it would be
approximately 78 total units. The site was included in the Housing Element
on the housing inventory at a 40 units per acre density, which would yield
approximately 100 units on the 2.52 sized site. Approximately a year prior,
the P&TC reviewed and recommended approval of Comp Plan map
amendments for the site, which was Pedestrian/Transit-Oriented
development and would be at an RM-40 zone density. Attachment K to the
staff report (CMR:422:04) outlined an issue paper for a new zone district,
which was being considered as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU)
and discussed the characteristics of a new pedestrian/transit-oriented zone
district. It would include high-density housing and some allowance for retail
and support personal service uses. It did not include an allowance for R&D
uses. Staff’s recommendation for denial of the project primarily rested with
the land use mix and there was a large component of R&D use in an area,
which was within 1,600 feet of a transit station anticipated to be for
pedestrian/transit-oriented use. There were additional concerns raised by
09/27/04 98-167
the P&TC and members of the public, which included noise, traffic and
parking, and the visual impact and loss of views.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said the P&TC
recommended denial of the proposed project and referred to the list of
primary concerns on Page 8 of the staff report (CMR:422:04). The applicant
raised several policy issues, which needed to be resolved before any
development could be reviewed by the ARB. The policy questions included:
1) should the north side of Page Mill Road be vacated and developed as a
mall, and was a mall that doubled as an entrance to industrial use and
parking spaces a pedestrian mall; 2) what was the appropriate FAR for a
pedestrian/transit-oriented development; 3) should the first floor be all
industrial research; 4) what was the appropriate setback; 5) were the mix of
uses suggested by the developer acceptable; and 6) parking reduction. She
asked whether the site should be granted a 20 percent reduction for being
mixed use and a 20 percent reduction for being transit-oriented. The P&TC
felt the proposed project was too large for the site, was too close to the
street, lacked open space, and did not provide adequate public benefits. The
P&TC believed the building should not be developed as proposed.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing open at 7:40 p.m.
Harold Hohbach, Court House Plaza Company, said he believed the project
provided R&D and transit-oriented high density housing in an area that was
resistant to revitalization. He was shocked to hear of neighbors, who were not within a 300-foot radius of the project, expressing their concerns.
Scaling the project down would increase the losses to such a large negative
cash flow that the residential portion of the project would have to be
abandoned.
Richard Campbell, Hoover Associates, said his firm began working with Mr.
Hohbach on the proposed project in September 2003, and was impressed
and excited about the vision for the site. He narrated a slideshow
presentation that outlined some of the constraints, and opportunities and
challenges of the site. The site was presently occupied by a concrete building
followed by five metal buildings, which were all in poor condition and ready
for replacement. Mr. Campbell worked with acoustical engineers to address
the Caltrain noise issue. Design features were built into the project to create
a barrier along the Caltrain tracks to keep sound from entering into the
interior courtyard. The proposed project would be built adjacent to Agilent
Technologies, which had a building footprint of 79,200 square feet.
Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, spoke on behalf of the Midtown
residents and expressed her opposition to the project.
09/27/04 98-168
Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, said she did not believe the proposed
project provided a public benefit and asked the Council to deny it.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said he did not believe the proposed
project would be a suitable location for residential units because of noise and
air pollution.
David Shayer, 2502 Emerson Street, expressed his concern the proposed
project would act as a reflector and double the amount of noise he presently
received from Alma Street traffic and the Caltrain.
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, #2, asked the Council to remember
the GM(B) Zone provided an important service by retaining light industrial
small businesses of the type that were disappearing in Palo Alto. She urged
the Council to vote against the project.
Loren Brown, 334 Kingsley Avenue, believed there were a number of
benefits the project offered when considered in aggregate, which would
provide the Council with reasons to encourage its development. Park Plaza
would provide 177 residential units for Palo Alto, which was consistent with
City and State goals to increase the housing stock, and was in walking
distance to restaurants, a grocery store, retail establishments, and the
California Avenue Caltrain station. It was also located within a short distance
from Stanford Industrial Park and Stanford University. The distance from all
sides of Park Plaza to existing residential neighbors made the site unique in Palo Alto and a prime candidate for high-density development. He believed
greater leeway from normal zoning restrictions should be considered for the
site without significant impact to residential neighbors.
Sharon Lake, 270 Leland Avenue, said she believed it was important for the
City to get back to the basis of Silicon Valley and embrace the ability to get
R&D space, which was within walking distance of a Caltrain station and in an
area where people would want to live.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the staff report (CMR:422:04) indicated the
zone district provided an entitlement FAR of 1.0; however, he believed the ‘B
Suffix’ reduced the GM zone entitlement to either .5 residential or .5 non-
residential and prohibited addition.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the proposed project was too
large and should be denied.
Jeff Schwartz, 345 Sheridan Avenue, said he believed it was incumbent upon
the Council to think hard about why there was not more rental housing.
09/27/04 98-169
Phil Capin, 3958 Duncan Place, expressed his support for the project.
Jeffrey Jones, 318 Bryant Court, Chief Operating Officer for Reliant
Technologies, said Park Plaza was exactly what Palo Alto needed. The
proposed building was of a mixed-use nature and perfect for start-up
companies. He expressed his support for the project.
Jean Nuolandi, 577 Hawthorne Avenue, expressed his support for the
project.
Frank R. Robles, 3160 Emerson Street, expressed his support for the
project.
Pierre R. Schwob, 200 Sheridan Avenue, #402, expressed his support for
the project.
Heinz Semumm, 345 Sheridan Avenue, expressed his support for the
project.
Tom Fischer, 645 Channing Avenue, said the location for the project was
ideal for conversion and Palo Alto had a need for more housing. He
expressed his support for the project.
Marcus Wood, 196 Colorado Avenue, said he favored the project because it
met the goals of the City’s general plan, was mixed-use, provided for affordable housing, was on the rail line, would make retailers more viable,
and would increase the City’s tax base by replacing old antiquated buildings
with newer ones.
Len DeBenedictis, 153 California Avenue, said he lived and worked close to
the proposed project and believed it would create housing and the R&D
space. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the development.
Kathleen Alley, South Palo Alto California Avenue Area, said Park Plaza was
exactly what Palo Alto needed. It would create a balance between being a
bedroom community and a business. She expressed her support for the
project.
Charles Alley, South Palo Alto California Avenue, said the R&D component of
the project was extremely important. He urged the Council to vote in favor
of the development.
Dawnet Beverley, 200 Sheridan Avenue, expressed her support for the
project.
09/27/04 98-170
Michael Lyzwa, 144 Kingsley Avenue, said Mr. Hohbach was a true visionary
for Palo Alto, and expressed his support for the project.
Douglas Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue, said the issue was how much of an
exception to the Comp Plan and the Zoning Ordinance did the project entail.
He opposed the project and urged the Council to vote against its approval.
Sharon Rupp, 2901 Park Boulevard, said she was a business owner in Palo
Alto who employed approximately 25 people who could not afford to live in
Palo Alto. She favored the project as it could possibly provide people the
opportunity to live and work in Palo Alto.
Council Member Ojakian asked Ms. Rupp what type of business she had.
Ms. Rupp said it was Akins Collision Repair, which had been in Palo Alto since
1971.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, expressed his opposition to the project. He
said Palo Alto already had approximately 800,000 square feet of vacant R&D
space, which coincided with the 29 percent vacancy rate for offices. He did
not believe Palo Alto could afford to increase the density, traffic, and impact
on services from housing without destroying the community.
Brian Bayley, 2553 Emerson Street, expressed his opposition to the project.
Suzanne Bayley, 2553 Emerson Street, urged the Council to follow the staff
recommendation and deny the application. She felt the project was too big.
Hannah Cranch, 2520 Emerson Street, urged the Council to deny the
application.
Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, said Palo Alto had the opportunity to
have a rental housing project located on general industrial commercially
zoned land in an area where the opportunity would most likely not occur
again. She believed it was worth taking a look at, and recommended the
Council refer the matter to the ARB.
Council Member Mossar asked for clarification as to the availability of data
related to the project.
Ms. Jansen said she became involved in the project in March 2004, and her
thrust involved getting a complete application before the City, which meant
the handling of the following: 1) the soils and engineering reporting; 2) the
traffic impact analysis; 3) parking; and 4) the acoustical analysis. Those
09/27/04 98-171
reports were given to the City and had been reviewed several months prior
to the P&TC meeting.
Council Member Mossar clarified those documents had been completed by
the developer and submitted to City staff.
Ms. Jansen said that was correct.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:55 p.m.
Council Member Morton said the Council was reviewing a project, which had
been zoned for light industrial, but would come back as a mixed-use project.
He asked for clarification on whether staff had looked at converting some of
Stanford Industrial Park into housing.
Mr. Emslie said there was no inherent concern from staff’s prospective about
the mixed-use nature of the project. Residential space was the overriding
consideration the Comp Plan gave to the proposed site.
Council Member Morton clarified the mixed-use element was not a rejection
point, but rather residential would take a higher priority.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Morton asked whether the ARB could review projects where there were objections that related to mass, setbacks, and reflected noise.
Mr. Emslie said staff presented projects to the P&TC at the initial hearing as
a way to screen projects for basic compliance with land use policies. There
were times the P&TC asked the ARB to use their expertise on certain issues.
In the present case, the P&TC’s findings were based on a sufficient amount
of information, which supported their recommendation.
Council Member Morton said the City had, at one time, thought of acquiring
part of the land at Park Plaza for low-income housing. He sensed the cost of
the land, along with an inability to put together multi-parcels from different
owners, precluded the City from being able to move forward with a low-
income housing project on the site.
Mr. Emslie said he agreed with the statement.
MOTION: Council Member Morton, seconded by Burch, that the Council
forward the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review and
comments, go back to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
09/27/04 98-172
for their review and comments, and then for staff to return to the Council
with a recommendation.
Council Member Morton said he favored the project in concept, but felt it was
too big. He hoped those issues would be addressed when the item went
before the ARB.
Vice Mayor Burch asked whether the Council could take such action or did
they first have to deny the project.
Mr. Emslie said the Council had the right to refer the PC application to any
advisory body, including the ARB. Staff did not support that move because it
would take the project back through the original PC process, in which the
P&TC had already performed their responsibility of commenting on the
broader issues. Closure was needed in order for the applicant to bring back a
revised project and restart the process.
Vice Mayor Burch asked whether staff preferred the Council deny the request
and let the applicant begin again with a new project.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Vice Mayor Burch withdrew his second.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, that the
Council forward the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for
review, then forward to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
for review, and return to the Council with a staff recommendation.
Council Member Mossar said she did not believe the P&TC had all the
information they needed when they recommended denial of the project. She
did not understand the criticism of the project not being transit-oriented
because it included R&D, yet the facility was near the California Avenue train
station. She said she could not recall any RM-40 projects built in the last 10
years, and asked whether it was a product of the community.
Mr. Emslie agreed a straight RM-40 project had not come to the City and
been approved.
Council Member Mossar said given the fact the City might also adopt some
RM-50 zoning, she was confused about staff’s suggestion to rezone the
property to RM-40 when they knew something else was on the horizon.
09/27/04 98-173
Mr. Emslie said the RM-40 had certain problems in terms of the Comp Plan’s
objectives. In order for a site to qualify for inclusion in meeting the City’s
housing obligations, it must be zoned exclusively for housing.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the project would count toward the
City’s housing goal if it were built as specified.
Mr. Emslie said yes it would.
Council Member Mossar clarified building housing on the site was beneficial
to the City; however, zoning was a technicality. Although it had been some
time since the Comp Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and the Citizen’s
Advisory Committee (CAC) had worked on the document, she recalled the
Comp Plan spoke encouragingly about opportunities for start-up businesses
and R&D. Their type of use was important in the community, there should be
protection for those that presently existed, and encouraged for the future.
She asked whether that was true.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Council Member Mossar asked whether it was also true the community had
embraced a more urban standard of projects built to the sidewalk in certain
locations.
Mr. Emslie said it had a lot to do with the scale and proportion of the building wall with the public space, the street and sidewalk. In this case,
staff believed the proportion was off and could benefit from a greater
setback.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the setback issue was one the ARB
would address.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Council Member Mossar said one of the things the Council needed to do was
take into account today’s needs, but also have some future vision. It was
important to recognize there was a segment of the population who wanted
the type of housing being proposed, wanted to live and work in the
community, who understood what R&D was, and were in the process of
building their lives and contributing to Palo Alto’s community and economy.
She was in favor of forwarding the applicant to the ARB for their input. She
did not believe the P&TC had any detailed information to weigh in on the
details.
09/27/04 98-174
Council Member Kishimoto asked for clarification on what the GM(B) zone
called for.
Ms. Grote said the GM(B) zone was intended to prohibit or limit uses that
were employee and traffic generating, as they were already heavily impacted
with either traffic or parking problems. It prohibited administrative and
general office uses, did not allow R&D, and required general business
services to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether an easement or right-of-way for
the railroad still existed.
Ms. Grote noted staff was not aware of an easement there; however, it could
be determined by a property survey.
Council Member Ojakian suggested staff look at the issue with the Fry’s
Electronics site from the mid-1990s, in which the P&TC removed that
designation.
City Attorney Gary Baum clarified the motion on the table directed the ARB
to hear the matter, followed by the P&TC, and then the Council.
Mayor Beecham said that was correct.
Mr. Emslie said he would strongly suggest the Council limit the ARB’s hearing so the project could come to a swifter resolution.
Mayor Beecham asked whether staff was recommending the ARB have only
one hearing on the issue.
Mr. Emslie said the ARB’s current practice, in response to the audit
recommendations, would allow one continuance for no more than 30 days
for the applicant to respond to concerns. He encouraged the Council to
maintain the policy.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT THE MAKER
AND SECONDER for the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to hold one
hearing on the matter with one continuance with the consent of the ARB and
staff.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, to approve the Planning and Transportation Commission and staff
recommendation to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Planned Community (PC) project without prejudice and to
allow the applicant the opportunity to submit a new application.
09/27/04 98-175
Council Member Kishimoto said the Comp Plan was a balance between Palo
Alto of the past and Palo Alto of the future. It outlined its vision for the Cal-
Ventura area, which should be a well-designed mixed-use district with
diverse land uses, two to three story buildings, and a network of pedestrian
-oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. Setback requirements
were in place for quality of life and environmental issues. She believed the
Council should not refer the matter to the ARB as it was not an aesthetic
architectural decision, but a fundamental land use decision.
Council Member Kleinberg concurred with Council Member Kishimoto. She
said there were three Comp Plan policies considered in conflict with the
project. In all aspects of the record, the project was incompatible. Staff
suggested if the Council referred the matter to the ARB it should come with
a directive to the applicant with development parameters such as, FAR,
massing, bulk parking, and neighborhood compatibility. She did not believe
the Council was ready to give definitive direction, and she urged her
colleagues not to send the item to the ARB.
Council Member Cordell expressed her support for the substitute motion. If
the Council wanted to be supportive of the efforts of the Planning staff to
spearhead the Palo Alto process, it was essential to follow staff’s
recommendations. She said if Mr. Moss was correct with the amount of
available R&D space in Palo Alto, there was no need for additional
development in that area. The project’s public benefit should not be
characterized as “blackmail”. When a zoning change was contemplated to create a PC, public benefit was a major factor. The language stated there
must be a substantial public benefit, of which the project had none.
Vice Mayor Burch expressed his support for the motion. He said it was the
right thing to do and sent a message the project needed to be smaller and
more compatible with the area.
Council Member Morton said the Comp Plan clearly called for mixed use and
the project area was right for it. He did not see how it would be more
efficient for the developer to go through the whole process again instead of
the Council providing him with a number of issues the ARB needed to
address.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether a zoning change was quasi-judicial.
Mr. Baum said normally a zoning change was not, but because it involved a
PC he believed it was.
Mayor Beecham said a PC was an ordinance and therefore legislative.
Mr. Baum said he stood corrected.
09/27/04 98-176
Council Member Ojakian said, for the record, he met with Carol Jansen and
Mr. Hohbach. He also spoke with Sheri Furman for a brief period. He asked
for clarification as to whether the Council had potentially looked at rental
housing in South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) II.
Mr. Emslie said yes. The SOFA II Plan provided prescriptive FARs, and the
Council gave some further allowance to 100 percent rental projects in the
allowance of FAR’s.
Council Member Ojakian said he believed the Council reached a ceiling of 2.0
FAR and part of the process was an economic analysis.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Ojakian asked for clarification on whether the P&TC had
received enough information to render its decision and recommendation.
Commissioner Cassel said the P&TC believed they had enough information to
make the overall decision to bring the matter to the Council for a public
hearing and decision.
Council Member Ojakian asked Commissioner Cassel if her opinion had
changed after hearing what was presented that evening.
Commissioner Cassel said no.
Council Member Ojakian expressed his support for the substitute motion. He
said what occurred in SOFA II acted as a good yardstick for how to look at
rental housing, housing, and retail mixed uses.
Council Member Freeman expressed concern about the auto dealership that
abutted the property and was not sure the developer had negated any
negative effects on that property. She said although the Comp Plan could be
conflicting, there were more things out of balance than in balance. She
believed it was a good time to deliver a message to all applicants applying
for a development in Palo Alto, and that the Council was serious about the
use of the Comp Plan as a view into the community’s vision. The Council also
supported the streamlining process suggested by the City Auditor. She
expressed her support for the substitute motion.
Mayor Beecham said he believed the benefit of any project should be
inherent in the project. The applicant indicated the primary benefit of the
project was more housing. He appreciated the value of more housing and
the efforts of the applicant. Housing needed to be in proportion to the City’s
zoning laws and other issues. Although his colleagues suggested referring
09/27/04 98-177
the matter to the ARB for massing, the ARB could only assist in designing;
however, there was little that could be done when the massing was of its
size for the site. The Council had been supportive for housing in virtually
every case presented, but one could not make the argument every proposal
for housing was good. He expressed his support for the substitute motion.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Morton, Mossar no.
PUBLIC HEARING
7. Public Hearing: The Palo Alto City Council will Discuss Possible Changes to Homer Avenue and High Street to Accommodate
Eastbound Bicycle Egress from the New Undercrossing of the Caltrain
Tracks at Alma Street and Homer Avenue. Alternatives Included: (1)
Conversion of Homer Between Alma and High, and High Between
Forest and Channing, from One-Way to Two-Way Travel; (2)
Installation of Contraflow Bike Lane on Homer Between Alma and High,
and Conversion of High Between Forest and Channing from One-Way
to Two-Way Travel; and (3) Retain Existing Lane Configuration on
Homer and High, and Accommodate Bicyclists on Alma Through
Manipulation of Traffic Signal Timing.
Council Member Freeman would not participate in the item due to a conflict
of interest because she resided on Channing Avenue, one mile from the
location, and the character of the neighborhood may be affected according
to Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) statutes.
Associate Traffic Engineer David Stillman said the staff report (CMR:428:04)
recommended Council direct staff to implement traffic signal timing features
at the Homer Avenue/Alma Street intersection, and retain the existing lane
configurations along Homer Avenue and High Street following the opening of
the Caltrain Undercrossing (Tunnel). Presentl, Homer Avenue was a one-way
street in the westbound direction, and High Street was a one-way street in
the southbound direction until it reached Channing Avenue, at which time it
changed to a two-way street heading southward. Once the Tunnel opened,
there would be an exclusive bicycle/pedestrian (bike/ped) signal phase
added to the existing traffic signal at Homer Avenue/Alma Street, which
would allow bike/ped to cross Alma Street while all vehicles on the
approaches must come to a stop and would be precluded from turning right
on the red light. Accessing the Tunnel from the east in the westbound
direction was of no problem. Bicyclists would ride with the flow of traffic on
Homer Avenue until they reached the Tunnel. However, bicyclists who
wished to travel eastbound were faced with opposing traffic on Homer
Avenue and had no direct route to the downtown or the SOFA areas. Staff
looked at ways to accommodate the eastbound flow of bicycles. Staff
09/27/04 98-178
recommended the use of Alma Street by bicyclists traveling in the eastbound
direction through signal timing. At an average pace of 10 miles per hour, it
would take approximately 30 seconds for a bicyclist traveling eastbound to
turn left on Alma Street, then right on Forest Avenue to reach their
destination. Most of the eastbound bike/ped traffic at the Homer Avenue
intersection would turn left onto Alma Street, which would allow an
additional 10 seconds or so of relatively vehicle-free time in which bicyclists
could proceed northbound on Alma Street to Forest Avenue. The advantages
included: 1) it was a safe cost-effective solution; and 2) it achieved the
goals of providing a way for bicyclists to travel eastbound with minimum
impact to the roadway or to vehicles on the roadway. The disadvantages
included: 1) some bicyclists may still choose to use Homer Avenue to travel
eastbound; and 2) it did not provide for a convenient route for bicyclists
traveling southbound. Alternative No. 1 of the staff proposals would be to
convert the first block of Homer Avenue between High and Alma Streets and
the two blocks of High Street between Forest and Channing Avenues to a
two-way street. This would allow bicyclists traveling eastbound from the
Tunnel to proceed one block from Alma Street and turn left or right on High
Street and proceed onward. The disadvantage would result in significant
vehicle congestion on Homer Avenue because westbound travel would be
confined to a single lane, extending the typical queue during typical peak
hours one and two blocks long. This could severely impact businesses, such
as Whole Foods Market, and the operation of the midblock crosswalk at
Whole Foods. Vehicles who wished to avoid the long queue at Homer Avenue
may attempt to use Forest Avenue to turn onto High Street; however, that would present safety issues because the movement was unprotected since
Forest Avenue did not have a traffic signal. Alternative No. Two to the staff
proposal would provide a contraflow or eastbound bicycle lane in the single
block of Homer Avenue and convert two blocks of High Street to a two-way
street. Both westbound lanes of vehicle traffic would be maintained under
this alternative. The advantage over Alternative No. One was it provided a
direct route for bicyclists. The disadvantages included: 1) potential
bicycle/vehicle conflicts due to lack to driver expectation; 2) the loss of eight
on-street parking spaces; and 3) it imposed the same intimidating left turn
bicycle movement at the Homer Avenue/High Street intersection as the
previous alternative. Staff conducted several public outreach meetings on
the proposals where business owners and merchants, and the Palo Alto
Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) differed on the preferred
recommendation. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
voted 4-1 in favor of Alternative No. 2, the contraflow bike lane alternative,
and to move forward with a study on the full conversion of Homer and
Channing Avenues to two-way streets as a means to accommodate
bicyclists. At the present time, staff did not recommend pursuing the study
of the full two-way conversion of Homer and Channing Avenues. Such a
study would require a comprehensive traffic analysis, resolution of significant
09/27/04 98-179
issues with Whole Foods, Channing House, and a concensus of all SOFA area
neighborhood residents. Implementing staff’s recommendation only required
the manipulation of the traffic signal controller and added zero cost.
Alternative No. 1 or 2 would cost approximately $10,000 to implement
signage and striping changes, which would be funded through the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Once the Tunnel opened, staff would study
bicycle behavior and return to Council with any necessary changes to ensure
the safety of the roadway users.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said the P&TC
discussed the three alternatives presented by City staff to provide
appropriate movement of bicycle traffic as it exited from the Homer Avenue
Undercrossing at Alma Street and Homer Avenue. The P&TC recommended a
contraflow lane be developed for bicycle movement from Alma to High
Streets with appropriate markings and signage; however, they also believed
it should be a temporary measure until the conversion of Homer and
Channing Avenues to two-way streets could be accomplished. The P&TC was
concerned about the loss of parking spaces for the businesses and would like
to see some accommodation made for that use. She noted both the
development of the underpass and making Homer and Channing Avenues
two-way streets were programs noted in the Comp Plan.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing open at 10:08 p.m.
John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, expressed his support for the contraflow bicycle lane. It would reduce conflicts with respect to longer routes, and
allow bicyclists to safely and conveniently re-enter traffic at either end of
Alma and High Streets.
Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, said he felt staff’s recommendation was
a good one to start with; however, if Homer Avenue converted to a two-way
street, the Whole Foods Market would have to close. Currently, Whole Foods
discreetly was delivered more than 30,000 items through the limited alley
staging area and by using one of the lanes on Homer Avenue’s one-way
street. When the City first attracted Whole Foods, it was a challenge for
them to go without loading docks, have remote parking across the street,
and yet the Council, at that time, felt it was an important use for downtown.
He implored the Council not to convert Homer and Channing Avenues to
two-way streets if they intended to keep Whole Foods Market downtown.
Edward Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, said he had been a bicyclist since
1959. He believed it made more sense for Channing and Homer Avenues to
be one-way streets when the Palo Alto Clinic was in operation. When the
Bicycle Plan was drawn up a few years ago, it was obvious Homer Avenue
09/27/04 98-180
had to become a two-way street because the underpass was placed inline
with it.
Norman Carroll, Emerson and University, said the contraflow lane and
converting High Street to two-way traffic was the best option, because it
only lost two blocks of the current one-way traffic. It would also change the
traffic flow in front of 800 High Street to become two-way, which would
allow easier access and exit from its parking garage.
Audrey Alonis, Parent-Teacher-Association (PTA) Traffic Safety
Representative of Palo Alto (Paly) High School, 2870 South Court, said the
Homer Avenue Undercrossing would be an opportunity for cyclists to go from
the downtown SOFA area to the Embarcadero Bike Path. She did believe the
egress on the Undercrossing must provide a designated bike lane for cyclists
as soon as they crossed Alma Street in the eastbound direction. She did not
concur with staff’s belief the majority of bicyclists would learn to use Alma
Street. She expressed her support for the P&TC reccomendation and urged
the Council to approve the solution with proper engineering to provide a
designated bike lane for eastbound bicycle egress from the Homer Avenue
Undercrossing.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Ms. Alonis was speaking on behalf
of the Paly High School PTA.
Ms. Alonis said it was her position, and it had not been formally endorsed by the Paly High School PTA.
Paul Goldstein, Chair of PABAC, 1024 Emerson Street, said the staff
recommendation was severely lacking in several important respects.
Accommodation of cyclists on Alma Street was poor and without other
enhancements, such as removing parking or installing a bicycle lane, the
street was dangerous, especially at peak hours. The staff recommendation
made no provision for cyclists headed southbound. In the short term, a
contraflow bike lane was the best solution for eastbound cyclists. These
types of lanes had been successfully installed in other cities and PABAC
believed they could work with City staff to address the safety concerns. The
Homer Tunnel was not planned in isolation. Both the Comp Plan and the
SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) envisioned Homer and Channing Avenues
as two-way streets. The recently adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP)
showed Homer Avenue as a proposed bicycle boulevard connecting SOFA
with points east. The Tunnel had the potential to provide a direct connection
between the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) campus, the Caltrain
Station, Palo Alto High School, Stanford University, SOFA, and downtown.
09/27/04 98-181
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, said she had lived on Homer Avenue for
the past 10 years and found the residential end of Homer Avenue to be a
virtual speedway with frequent traffic going the wrong way. She mentioned
the possibility of converting parking on Emerson Street at Homer Avenue to
delivery space, which would accommodate some of the needs for Whole
Foods Market and eliminate the need for double parking. The staff report did
not consider the following: 1) if the streets were converted to two-way, the
queues indicated at Homer Avenue and Alma Street would not be the same
because traffic would be redistributed; and 2) the only way for residents of
800 High Street to get into their building with the current street
configuration would be to cut through the Whole Foods parking lot. She
disagreed with staff and concurred with the recommendations of the P&TC.
Ole Christensen, 801 Alma Street, said he would like to see staff’s
recommendation implemented, which would change the traffic signal light
only until the 800 High Street project was completed. He currently had
difficulty receiving deliveries because of the construction in the alley. If
Homer Avenue became a two-way street or a bike lane was installed, he
would have no way to get any deliveries. He also suggested to leave the
Tunnel closed until after the completion of 800 High Street.
Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, #125, said the contraflow lane was doable,
and he believed safety should come first.
Mayor Beecham entered the testimony of Ellen Fletcher. She expressed her support for the recommendation of the P&TC.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Burch asked staff whether eastbound pedestrian traffic from the
Tunnel and across Alma Street would cross on both the southeast and
northeast corners.
Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Burch clarified they would be marked as pedestrian lanes with
sidewalks along Ole’s Auto Shop and the Bimmer’s Auto Shop.
Mr. Kott said yes.
Vice Mayor Burch asked for the width of the sidewalk adjacent to Ole’s Auto
Shop.
Mr. Stillman said it was approximately eight feet in width.
09/27/04 98-182
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burch moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve the
staff recommendation for the retention of the existing lane configurations
along Alma Street, Homer Avenue and High Street following the opening of
the Homer Undercrossing with signalization changes.
Vice Mayor Burch said he understood pedestrians could walk across the
street at the signal, and bicyclists could turn left at the signal, go up Alma
Street and then turn right on Forest Avenue. However, it seemed like a very
narrow window of opportunity and assumed the bicyclist was right at the
limit line waiting for the light to change. It did not take into account
bicyclists who were halfway down the Tunnel and did not get to the opening
until 10 seconds before the light changed. This would result in cyclists going
down Alma Street with automobiles right behind. He learned from the
Downtown North Traffic Calming trial to start small and then build up, have
bicyclists walk one block from Alma to High Streets, and then proceed
onward. It was too soon to contemplate changing Homer and Channing
Avenues to two-way streets, especially if it meant losing Whole Foods
Market.
Council Member Kleinberg asked for an explanation of the genesis,
motivation, and objective behind the Homer Avenue Undercrossing and the
PAMF project moving onto El Camino Real.
Mr. Kott said the key objective was to provide direct access from the new
PAMF site to the downtown area for cyclists and pedestrians with connections along the west side of the tracks, which the City did have in the
form of the Embarcadero Bridge Bike Path.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified the original motivation was to ensure the
convenience for persons at the PAMF to continue to come downtown and
shop, and help retail businesses.
Mr. Kott said that was one motivation. The Tunnel was intended to be a key
component of the Citywide system of bikeways, which was why it connected
to the Embarcadero Bridge Bike Path.
Council Member Kleinberg said more bicyclists than pedestrians would utilize
the Tunnel; however, students from Paly High School and people from the
PAMF could make use of the Tunnel during the same peak hours.
Mr. Kott said yes.
Council Member Kleinberg said she questioned a comment about bicyclists
mowing down the pedestrians.
09/27/04 98-183
Mr. Kott said if approximately 600 daily bike riders were spread out, there
would be a lot of gaps with different time dimensions.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the PTA groups were given the
opportunity to speak on the issue, and what process was used to contact
Palo Alto parents.
Mr. Kott said staff went to the local businesses, the PABAC Committee, and
the P&TC. They did not contact the PTA groups.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what was contemplated regarding delivery
space for Whole Foods Market and Ole’s Auto Shop. She expressed concern
about the lack of a bike lane, especially for students, in the first block of
Homer Avenue.
Mr. Kott said staff was reluctant to put a contraflow lane in a problematic
location from a safety standpoint. Staff had worked with Whole Foods Market
in the past to try and resolve the off-loading issue with respect to a two-way
street, but found it difficult because of the mid-block pedestrian crosswalk.
Council Member Kleinberg said the fact there were cautionary comments
about a contraflow lane in the first block of Homer Avenue led her to support
the P&TC’s recommendation. She concurred with Vice Mayor Burch to go
slow, see how the signalization worked, encourage safety outreach through
the PTA, and hope the approach was a safe one. She did not feel the project was at the point where there were discussions on making Homer Avenue a
two-way street. Whole Foods Market was an important asset for downtown
Palo Alto and all of the residents who lived nearby.
Council Member Morton asked whether there was any possibility of turning
the sidewalk on the south side of Homer Avenue into a contraflow lane for
bicyclists only.
Mr. Kott said it was a possibility; however, staff was concerned about cycling
on the sidewalk with respect to the driveway between Ole’s Auto Shop and
800 High Street.
Council Member Morton asked whether it would work better on the north
side of the street. He was opposed to using Alma Street to solve the
problem, and would not support the proposal.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by
Mossar, to approve the Planning and Transportation Commission
recommendation to implement a contraflow bicycle lane on Homer Avenue,
09/27/04 98-184
as described under the Board/Commission Review and Recommendation
section of CMR:428:04.
Resolution 8459 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Establishing an Eastbound Bike Lane on Homer Between Alma
Street and High Street, Establishing a no Parking Zone on Homer
Avenue Between Alma Street and High Street, and Converting High
Street to a Two-Way Street Between Forest Avenue and Channing
Avenue to Facilitate Bicycle Travel from the Homer Avenue
Undercrossing to the Downtown and South of Forest Areas”
Council Member Morton said he could not imagine a bicyclist on Alma Street
when the light changed having to peddle as fast as they could to either
Forest or Channing Avenues to get out of the way of traffic.
Council Member Mossar said, historically, when the Tunnel was first
contemplated, it was assumed Homer and Channing Avenues would be
converted to two-way streets. The SOFA Plan did not address the issue. If
her colleagues chose to approve staff’s recommendation, she hoped it would
include removal of the parking spaces on Alma Street and the creation of a
dedicated bike lane to protect the bicyclists. She understood the problem
Ole’s Auto Shop would have and suggested creating a space on Alma Street
as a loading and unloading point.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether a delivery zone space on Alma Street would be of benefit to Ole’s Auto Shop.
Mr. Kott said staff would be happy to provide that; however, they did not
believe it would work for Ole’s business.
Council Member Kishimoto said none of the three alternatives were ideal, but
any one of them would work. She expressed support for the substitute
motion because it was important to provide bicyclists a safe route on Homer
Avenue.
Council Member Ojakian expressed his opposition to the substitute motion.
The location of the Tunnel was determined because the City lost its second
largest employer in the downtown area and wanted to find a way to get
those people back into the downtown businesses without driving. As part of
the condition of the approval, the PAMF provided approximately $300,000.
In doing so, there needed to be a nexus, or a connection between what was
required of the business and what would be done with it. In the short term,
bicyclists may need to change their behavior in the section of Alma Street
and Homer Avenue, and then staff could re-address the issue after 800 High
Street was completed.
09/27/04 98-185
Vice Mayor Burch clarified when bicyclists came out of the Tunnel traveling
eastbound, they could turn left to Forest Avenue, turn right to Channing
Avenue, or keep straight. The motion did not specify which direction a
bicyclist could go, only that the traffic signal would be changed to allow
bicyclists and pedestrians to proceed to their destination.
Council Member Cordell said in her observation vehicles did not adhere to
the 25 mile per hour speed limit, but traveled at a faster speed. She hoped
staff would consider a bike lane on Alma Street, as Council Member Mossar
previously mentioned. She also asked for staff to closely monitor the timing
of the traffic signal. Perhaps 20 seconds was not enough time. She
expressed her support for main motion.
Council Member Morton said he would be more comfortable with the main
motion if the Council were to revisit the issue after 800 High Street was
completed.
Mayor Beecham expressed his opposition to the substitute motion.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-5, Kishimoto, Morton, Mossar yes,
Freeman not participating.
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER
AND SECONDER that Council would revisit the issue after 800 High Street
is completed to review other options.
Council Member Kleinberg said she hoped the staff would work with the Paly
High School PTA to make sure the Tunnel was safe for the students.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether taking out parking spaces on Alma
Street was a viable option.
Mr. Kott said staff was reluctant to remove parking in the downtown area,
but they would take a look at it.
Council Member Mossar said it was an irresponsible act for the Council not to
make sure bicyclists had a safe and protected travel lane on Alma Street,
and she could not support the motion.
MOTION PASSED 6-2, Morton, Mossar no, Freeman not participating
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
8. City Auditor’s FY 2004-05 Work Plan
09/27/04 98-186
City Auditor Sharon Erickson said the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
required her to submit an annual Audit Plan for the Council’s review and
approval. The Finance Committee reviewed the proposed Audit Plan at its
meeting of July 2004. In response to the Finance Committee’s comments,
the priority order on some of the projects had been revised. The proposed
audit of streets and wastewater treatment was moved onto the active list.
Questions were raised at the Committee level about the audit coverage
related to the City’s contracting practices and staffing. An audit of contract
contingencies was in process and was expected to be presented in November
2004. The proposed Work Plan included three audits related to staffing: 1)
worker’s compensation; 2) Community Services’ Department (CSD) class
programs and staffing; and 3) CSD’s Parks Maintenance Contracting and
staffing. Other projects presently in process included the external financial
audit, the ongoing review of SAP controls, and ongoing revenue audits. Staff
was also working on a review of the Environmental Services proposal and an
audit of the cable franchise and related fees. During the coming year, the
Audit staff would be undertaking a triennial peer review, as required by
government auditing standards, would issue the third annual Service Efforts
and Accomplishments Report with results of the National Citizen’s Survey,
and then would move on to the two CSD audits previously discussed, as well
as an audit of the police property room, and the street maintenance repair
and reconstruction. As time permitted, staff would conduct other audits to
include: 1) a proposed series of audits on the City’s entrepreneurial
programs; and 2) an audit of the Wastewater Treatment Fund. The Work
Plan included more items than staff could realistically accomplish during the remaining fiscal year. Some of the items would be carried over, which was
normal with the types of long-term projects they had. She asked the Council
to accept the Auditor’s Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2004-05.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
the City Auditor’s Fiscal Year 2004-05 Work Plan.
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in the portion of the
item regarding Comcast due to a conflict of interest because she had family
holdings in telecommunications stock. She asked whether it was possible to
look at the ability to make sure park maintenance by City staff, as opposed
to contractors, enabled the City to be more readily in compliance with the
environmental policies.
Ms. Erickson said yes.
Council Member Morton asked if by merely accepting the Work Plan, which
included audits of Comcast and other contractors for which some members
of the Council might hold stocks, would not constitute a conflict of interest.
09/27/04 98-187
City Attorney Gary Baum suggested dividing it into two votes.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burch moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to approve the
City Auditor’s 2004-05 Work Plan.
Council Member Morton stated he would not participate in the portion of the
item regarding Comcast due to a conflict of interest because he had family
holdings in telecommunications stock.
Council Member Ojakian stated he would not participate in the portion of the
item regarding Comcast due to a conflict of interest because he had family
holdings in telecommunications stock.
Council Member Freeman expressed her support for the motion, and
understood the City Auditor’s workload. She believed it was important to get
a handle on staffing or at least have the ability to clearly communicate the
rationale for higher than average ratio of staff to residents. She also hoped
staff continued with an audit of the Code to allow an open and inclusive
government of contracting practices and to eliminate sole sourcing.
Vice Mayor Burch asked whether the comments of Council Member Freeman
would come under Council Comments, or whether it was a directive to the
City Auditor.
Mayor Beecham said Council Member Freeman did not give staff a directive,
nor did she make any additions to the motion. She just expressed her
opinions.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
COUNCIL MATTERS
9. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Beecham and Council Member Kishimoto
regarding a request to staff to forward letter to the Valley
Transportation Authority Regarding Long-Term Capital Investment
Program
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to ask the Mayor
to execute the letter to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of
Directors.
Council Member Mossar expressed her opposition to support the motion. She
said the letter had asked for process and not for result, and it would be
09/27/04 98-188
better served to ask for result. She believed a community-wide workshop
was not the vehicle to effectively illicit consensus responses. In her opinion,
the County already knew what the priority transportation needs were. They
had already been identified, incorporated into the Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) Plan, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTC’s)
future plans. The problem was there was not a plan to implement them and
the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) project was the key. She understood the
spirit of the letter was to try to move Palo Alto forward in helping the VTA,
Santa Clara County, and the region solve transportation problems in a
realistic way; however, she did not see how asking for the long-term capital
investment program was the answer.
Council Member Kishimoto said the letter suggested Palo Alto was ready to
cooperate with VTA on innovative, cost-effective solutions for the entire
County.
MOTION PASSED 8-1, Mossar no.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Freeman noted on Sunday, October 3, 2004, at 2 p.m. that
Council Members Kishimoto, Burch, and herself would be available at Piazzas
to comment on issues from the public.
Council Member Ojakian noted Saturday, October 9, 2004, was “Public Art
Day,” which would start on the City Hall Plaza at 10 a.m.
Council Member Kleinberg noted her support for Proposition 71 regarding
California Stem Cell research.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. to a Closed Session.
10. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
Subject: In re Enron Corp., Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern
District of New York; Case No.: 01-16034(AJG) Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters anticipated
litigation, as described in Agenda Item No. 10.
Mayor Beecham announced there was no reportable action taken.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
09/27/04 98-189
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.
09/27/04 98-190