HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-18 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting March 18, 2002
1. Proposal for Funding Future Storm Drain Improvements.........429
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m...................437
Regular Meeting..................................................438
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................438
1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation of Jim Harrington Upon His Retirement..............................................438
2. Selection of Candidates to Interview for Vacancies on the
Human Relations Commission..................................439
3. Intermodal Transit Center: Endorsement of Conceptual Plan and Authorization of Next Steps.............................439
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................448
4. Ordinance 4738 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 Authorizing Receipt of Public Library Fund Monies and an
Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $92,550 for Capital Improvement Project 10204, Library Master Plan”.....448
5. Ordinance 4739 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.06 to Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to New Construction or Replacement of Wood Burning Fireplaces and Appliances”......448
6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S9103617 Between the City
of Palo Alto and IMServ North American LLC in the Amount of
$20,000 for Daily Electric and Gas Interval Meter Data Acquisition, Validation, and Presentation...................448
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Co., Inc. in the Amount of $114,960 for the Sludge Pipe Hot Water Flushing System for the Water Quality
Control Plant (Wastewater Treatment Capital Improvement Program Project 8021).......................................448
03/18/02 427
8. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. CS124851 Between the City of Palo Alto and Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc., in the
Amount of $60,000 for Services to Facilitate Implementation of the Long-term Goals at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant...............................................448
9. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C2138656 Between the City of Palo Alto and Flynn & Associates for Electric Regulatory
and Technical Assistance in the Amount of $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and for $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2002-03.449
10. Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the First
District Court of Appeal in Harvest Church v. City of Concord (No. A096604).......................................449
THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. TO A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND RECONVENED AS THE CITY COUNCIL AT 10:05 P.M..................................449
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Downtown Parking Structures: Construction Parking Mitigation Measures.................................449
12A. CAO Committee re Policy and Procedures for Performance and Compensation Reviews of Council Appointed Officials.........457
12B. (Old Item No. 11) Finance Committee recommendation re City Manager’s Authority to Execute Open Purchase Contracts for Commodity Services..........................................457
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................458
13. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation........458
14. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation..................................................458
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m............459
03/18/02 428
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
1. Proposal for Funding Future Storm Drain Improvements
City Manager Frank Benest said approximately two years prior, the City went to the residential and commercial property owners
in Palo Alto and requested their support under the provisions of Proposition 218 for a fee increase for storm drains. The ballot measure was unsuccessful, with an approval rate of only 37 percent; however, recent polling indicated that storm drain improvements were important.
Senior Engineer Joe Teresi said the City’s storm drain capital
improvement, maintenance, and water quality protection programs were funded through the Storm Drainage Fund, an enterprise fund established by the Council in 1989. The storm drain was one of
the City’s six basic utilities along with water, gas, wastewater, electric, and refuses. The current fee was $4.25 per
month for a single-family residential parcel. Multi-family residential and commercial parcels were charged based on the amount of impervious area on each parcel. The fee had not been
raised since 1994. The present monthly rate was insufficient to cover the Storm Drainage Fund’s operating costs, and there was
currently no new funding available for capital improvements. The fiscal year 2001-02 budget had to include a subsidy of approximately $910,000 from the General Fund to cover Storm
Drainage Fund operating costs. He referred to a graph that showed where the existing revenues came from. It noted that the
General Fund was presently providing approximately one-third of the total revenues for the Storm Drainage Fund. It also showed the revenues generated from the user fees. Over half of the fees came from the non-residential sector. The City’s 1993 Storm Drain Master Plan identified approximately $72 million in
capital improvements that needed to replace deteriorated infrastructure or increase storm drain system capacity. In addition to the capital needs, there were needs for funding for
increased maintenance activities to continue the City’s participation in the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) as well as the mandated water quality protection programs. In November 1996, California voters passed Proposition 218, a Constitutional amendment that covered property-related fees, assessments, and taxes. The amendment dictated that the property-related fee could not be imposed or increased without
03/18/02 429
the approval of a majority of property owners. As a result, the City conducted a property owner election in September 2000,
seeking approval to increase the Storm Drainage Fee from its current level of $4.25 per month up to $9.00 per month. The measure required an affirmative response from a simple majority of those property owners who returned ballots. The ballot measure was unsuccessful, with an approval rate of only 37
percent. If that increase had been successful, it would have paid for $48 million or approximately two-thirds of the total projects that were identified in the Storm Drainage Master Plan,
and would have been implemented over a 30-year period. Although the Storm Drainage Fee election was unsuccessful, recent polling
by Evans/McDonough Company indicated that a large segment of the community believed that storm drain improvements were important. In the poll of 600 likely voters in Palo Alto, storm drains ranked second behind only the Emergency/911 Dispatch Center on the ranked list of nine unfunded infrastructure improvement
projects. The pollster also concluded from the results that “city voters were aware of and expressed concern about the
condition of storm drains.” Based on that feedback, staff continued to search for a viable mechanism to increase funding for storm drain improvements. Staff believed that, in contrast
to the staff-led outreach effort of 2000, the community would be more receptive to an inclusive, citizen-driven, grass roots
campaign. It would also be beneficial that the scope and size of the funding proposal be crafted to resonate with the majority of community members. Therefore, staff recommended forming a City
Manager appointed Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) consisting of community and neighborhood leaders, other involved stakeholders,
and a Council liaison to assist in the development of the plan to fund storm drain improvements. The BRC, working with staff from the Public Works and Administrative Services Departments,
and the City Manager’s Office, would make recommendations to the City Manager on the scope, size, and timing of the funding
proposal. Staff believed that the BRC should be comprised of members with a variety of backgrounds, areas of expertise, and perspectives in order to represent the diversity of the community. The BRC would then work with staff to develop a funding proposal for future storm drain improvements as well as
address the following issues: 1) the size, scope, and duration of Capital Improvement Program (CIP); 2) the scope of enhancements to storm drain maintenance and other program
elements; 3) the timing of a property-owner election; and 4) the amount of monthly Storm Drainage Fee. In addition, the Committee
would be asked to make recommendations on the following: 1) what type of “sunset clause” should be incorporated into the fee increase proposal and what would happen to the rate at “sunset”; 2) what was the appropriate fee escalation factor to apply to the proposed rate schedule; 3) should there be an independent
oversight body to periodically monitor the implementation of the
03/18/02 430
storm drain improvements and, if so, what group should assume that function; and 4) should storm drain improvements be funded
on a pay-as-you-go basis or through the sale of bonds. In terms of timing, the process was constrained by the elements of Proposition 218, which dictated such steps as written notification of property owners, followed by a 45-day noticing period. A protest hearing would then be held and if the majority
of the property owners objected to the fee increase, then the fee increase would die. If the protest hearing did not happen, then the Council would have the option of going forward with the
election. Proposition 218 also stated there needed to be a minimum of 45 days between the protest hearing and the election.
The election ballots would be conducted through the mail. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said selection of the members of the Blue Ribbon Committee was an important first step in the process of developing a successful funding proposal.
Staff would convene the committee in April 2002. The committee would meet with staff over a four to six month period to formulate the recommended plan for storm drain funding. Staff anticipated the BRC would be able to finish their work by late October 2002 and bring recommendations to the Finance Committee
in November 2002. Although the exact timing of a Storm Drainage Fee election would be subject to input from the BRC, staff
anticipated that an election would likely occur in early Spring 2003. Staff recommended moving forward to get the Council’s input and approval on the conceptual strategy and put the Blue
Ribbon Committee together to begin work on the Storm Drain proposal.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said his office was tracking the ongoing court case, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association vs. City
of Salinas that might have a direct bearing on whether the Storm Drainage Fee was subject to Proposition 218. The case was
currently in the appeal stage, with resolution expected in six to nine months. The outcome of that court case may simplify the process by which Council could increase the Storm Drainage Fee. Staff would continue to keep Council informed as these legal proceedings progress. He stated it was best for the Blue Ribbon
Committee not to be exposed to the difficulties of the open meeting law or the conflict of interest law. If staff wanted stakeholders to participate in the committee, they would likely
have a conflict of interest. He recommended that the Council not provide suggestions as to specific appointees, but rather review
the selection criterion in the staff report (CMR:175:02), and let the City Manager take on the task of finding persons that met those criteria.
03/18/02 431
Mr. Benest said if a positive result came from the City of Salinas court case, the work would still need to be done, and it
was better done with citizen involvement. Gretchen Emmons, 169 Walter Hays Drive, expressed appreciation to Public Works Director Glenn Roberts, Senior Engineer Joe Teresi, and other Public Works staff for addressing the ponding
problems in her neighborhood. Maggie Kane, 162 Walter Hays Drive, supported the proposed Storm
Drain improvements and encouraged the Council to consider it.
Mary Carlstead, 147 Walter Hays Drive, said the Storm Drain improvements should be taken out of the City’s infrastructure budget every year. She believed that the philosophy on how to fund the storm drains was wrong.
Jeffrey Shore, 1905 Edgewood Drive, said it would beneficial for the Blue Ribbon Committee to develop the proposal for the Storm Drainage Fee and then develop the communication for that proposal. He wondered why the storm drain improvements were not funded from the City’s Enterprise Fund.
Mary Carey Schaefer, 742 De Soto Drive, said the previous
election on storm drain improvements did not adequately clarify why the City’s General Fund could not fund those improvements.
Lorraine Brown, 170 Walter Hays Drive, thanked the Public Works staff for recommending a solution to fix the storm drain problem
on Walter Hays Drive. However, the problem was not just on her street but also in the City as a whole. Whenever there were heavy rains, it was impossible to drive on certain streets or
underpasses due to flooding. She supported the 2000 initiative, however it was structured in a way that voters had a hard time
voting for it. She hoped the Blue Ribbon Committee was comprised of persons with the financial expertise who could recommend a way for the storm drain funding to be structured so the voters could approve it.
George Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, said the fixed Storm Drain Fee was an unfair tax for property owners who did not contribute to the water runoff.
Diana Steeples, 3198 Ramona Street, said the Palo Alto League of
Women Voters supported the proposed storm drain funding. Tracy Hutchison, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, said she had already been in contact with the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager to provide them with the names of potential
candidates for the Blue Ribbon Committee.
03/18/02 432
Council Member Morton said he wanted to put a motion on the floor instead of having lengthy discussions followed by a rush
to the motion. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the conceptual strategy outlined in the staff report (CMR:175:02) for funding future storm drain improvements,
including the creation of a Blue Ribbon Committee to work with staff to develop a refined funding proposal and implementation strategy for storm drain improvements.
Council Member Morton said Palo Alto’s Storm Drain system was
from the 1950’s and the last upgrade was ten years prior. The City’s General Fund could not absorb the $50 - $75 million; therefore, the project needed to be taken on as a community. He shared the concern of the residents that the storm drain was happening after the expected Library Bond measure scheduled for
November 2002. He believed that unless the citizens were convinced that the City had taken care of the bond measure, any other community facility upgrades were at risk.
Council Member Beecham said it was essential to reintroduce the
proposed storm drain funding and to do it correctly. It was clear that the City had to find ways to get the community behind
the project, and for it to be lead by them. He urged the citizens at the meeting that evening who shared the value of the storm drain to communicate that value to their neighbors throughout the City.
Council Member Kishimoto suggested that staff translate the costs of the storm drain funding and the Library Bond measure to the average household. She also encouraged the City staff
through ordinances to maximize the amount of permeable space in developments.
Council Member Freeman said she recalled that the Storm Drainage
Fee was number one on the opinion poll instead of number two and asked for clarification. Mr. Benest said both the Emergency/911 Dispatch Center and the
Storm Drain improvements ranked at the top with plus or minus five percent. Council Member Freeman asked whether the one component of the disapproval of the previous storm drain initiative was the fact
that it was City-lead versus community driven.
Mr. Benest said there were so many criticisms that it was hard to tell; however, he believed the biggest issue was that it was a government-lead measure.
03/18/02 433
Council Member Freeman asked how would a City Manager appointment to the BRC not create the same situation to the
community of being City-lead versus community-lead, and who would make the decision as to the individual character traits of the committee members as outlined on page 3 of 5 in the staff report (CMR:175:02).
Mr. Benest said the BRC would be comprised of members of the community who were assertive and not lead around by the City Manager. In addition, the group would be well advised to have
public meetings for public input. The BRC’s recommendations would then be based on outreach and input. It was important that
the BRC be diverse, offer a variety of perspectives, and reach out to the community. Council Member Freeman asked whether it was reasonable for the Council to supply a group of names, have the City Manager look
at the criteria, and ensure that at least one of those persons was selected from each Council Member. Mayor Ojakian asked the City Attorney whether the Council could provide input without violating the Brown Act.
Mr. Benest said staff’s original suggestion was to obtain input
from the Council; however, there were some problems in doing that.
Mr. Calonne said the problem staff had hoped to avoid was open and public meetings. There was difficulty with noticing those
meetings, having them in publicly accessible venues, and limiting the discussion to what was on the agenda. It was constraining for a group of volunteers to accomplish that
without sufficient staff reports. If the Council desired to suggest appointments, it would create a Brown Act legislative
body. Likewise, if the Council did suggest the appointments there was a greater risk of exposing the committee to conflict of interest law, which was unfair to do to volunteers. Council Member Freeman clarified that the Council could not
suggest appointments and still have the City Manager make the selection.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. It would convert the appointments into formal action of the Council.
Mayor Ojakian clarified that if the Council chose to suggest appointments, then the motion would be amended, and the appointment process would go through the various details as outlined by the City Attorney.
03/18/02 434
Mr. Calonne said that was his advice. AMENDMENT: Council Member Freeman moved that the Blue Ribbon Committee have periodic public meetings and the City Manager appointed Blue Ribbon Committee be equitably filled with members both “pro” and “con” for storm drains. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Mr. Benest said it was the City Manager’s intention to
periodically have public meetings and select a diversified group of persons, including those who were detractors of the previous
measure. Council Member Freeman said the City Manager’s comments were not what her motion said.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff was committed to repairing specific storm drains that needed immediate attention. Mr. Benest said that was an issue for the BRC. They would have to decide if the project was necessary, advisable, and in the
best interest of the community.
Council Member Kleinberg asked about the issue of fairness of taxing all property owners, meaning the single-family residents, regardless of the amount of their runoff.
Mr. Benest said everyone in the community benefited from first-
rate storm drain systems regardless of anyone’s impervious area. Therefore, everyone should contribute.
Council Member Kleinberg said in the defeated initiative the increase for the single-family resident was from $4.25 per month
to $9.00 per month, but that would only pay for $45 million of the Storm Drain Improvement Plan. She asked whether the Blue Ribbon Committee would address how much money would be asked of the community.
Mr. Benest said staff made a determination and recommendation during the previous measure, that given the pay-as-you-go strategy, $9.00 per month was just about what should be
recommended to the citizens. The BRC might come with a totally different recommendation.
Council Member Kleinberg endorsed the process and hoped it was done quickly so the storm drains could be fixed.
03/18/02 435
Council Member Lytle was confused as to why staff would not want the BRC to be subject to open meetings regarding the development
of their recommendations. AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved that the motion include Council Member Freeman’s amendment that Council Members recommend citizens to the committee and that the Blue Ribbon
Committee are subject to Brown Act. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Vice Mayor Mossar supported the main motion and was pleased by
the process and how it was laid out. She was disappointed that the storm drain issue was not the first item the City was asking
the public to rally supportively. She said the one thing missing from the staff report (CMR:175:02) and from the discussion that evening, was that fixing storm drains was not the solution to
the City’s flooding problems. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the conceptual strategy outlined in the staff report (CMR: 175:02) for funding future storm drain
improvements, including the creation of a Blue Ribbon Committee to work with staff to develop a refined funding proposal and
implementation strategy for storm drain improvements. Further, to add that the City Manager Appointed Blue Ribbon Committee have periodic public meetings, have representatives from key voter groups, both pro and con, and primary and secondary beneficiaries of storm drains.
Council Member Lytle asked Council Member Freeman whether the approval of the entire motion meant the Council was also
approving the provisions of the Brown Act.
Council Member Freeman said no. The City Manager would be able to make the appointments with two added criteria: 1) include
representatives from key voter groups, both pro and con, and) 2 primary and secondary beneficiaries of the storm drains.
03/18/02 436
Vice Mayor Mossar said she did not understand Council Member Freeman’s motion.
Council Member Freeman said primary beneficiaries were those property owners who experienced the last flood, and lived on, for example, Walter Hays, Ashby, and De Soto Drives. They had the most to benefit from the storm drain improvements. The
secondary beneficiaries involved the rest of the City who found it difficult to drive on certain streets and underpasses during heavy rains.
Vice Mayor Mossar said she would not support the motion because
the set of criteria listed on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:175:02) were the overriding criteria staff should follow. Council Member Morton asked why would staff set up a committee that could not do the job it was intended to do. The Blue Ribbon
Committee was to present to the community the need for storm drain improvements. He queried why the committee would include opponents of the measure. He opposed supporting the motion. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Council Member Freeman
meant not to include the criteria in the staff report (CMR:175:02) or was the motion additional criteria.
Council Member Freeman said it was in addition to the current criteria.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 5-4, Beecham, Burch, Morton, Mossar,
“no.” ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
03/18/02 437
Regular Meeting
March 18, 2002 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:17 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Walter Hays, 355 Parkside Drive, spoke regarding renewable energy report. Mayor Ojakian said the report Mr. Hays referred to was an information report and was not an item on the Council’s agenda.
David Cole, 766 Josina Avenue, spoke regarding renewable energy. Mayor Ojakian welcomed Lynn Torin’s adult DSL class to the Council meeting.
Carl Guardino, 132 Holly Court, spoke regarding Housing Trust of
Santa Clara County. Poncho Guevara, 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 710, San Jose,
spoke regarding Housing Trust of Santa Clara County.
Mayor Ojakian welcomed Mr. Guardino and Mr. Guevara to the Council meeting, and appreciated the work they do to promote affordable housing in Santa Clara County.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, spoke regarding 3261 Ash Street.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding 3261 Ash Street. Mayor Ojakian asked the City Manager whether it was possible to
provide the Council with an informational report regarding 3261 Ash Street.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation of Jim Harrington Upon His Retirement MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar, to
adopt the Resolution.
03/18/02 438
Resolution 8133 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation of Jim Harrington
Upon His Retirement” MOTION PASSED 9-0. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said Jim Harrington had a
hand in almost every development project within the City. He highlighted Mr. Harrington’s career with the City in such tasks as the Marsh Restoration project whereby he saved the City
$500,000, the Stanford project whereby he negotiated the first parcel map that Stanford submitted and the City approved. Most
recently, he was one of the persons to get the news racks in Downtown Palo Alto cleaned up, and have new ones installed. He thanked Mr. Harrington for all of his accomplishments. Mayor Ojakian appreciated Mr. Harrington’s positive nature,
warmth, and talent. He said Mr. Harrington would be missed.
Council Member Lytle said Mr. Harrington was hardworking, professional, ethical, caring, and someone who devoted himself to his assignments. He would be sorely missed by both his
department and throughout the City.
Jim Harrington said that in addition to the accomplishments mentioned by the Director of Public Works, he was responsible for bringing the public toilets to the City. He thanked the City
staff for the privilege of working with them and said he has enjoyed it thoroughly.
2. Selection of Candidates to Interview for Vacancies on the Human Relations Commission
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Kishimoto,
to interview all eight of the applicants for the Human Relations Commission. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 3. Intermodal Transit Center: Endorsement of Conceptual Plan
and Authorization of Next Steps
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land use matters.
03/18/02 439
Vice Mayor Mossar stated she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed
by Stanford University. Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center (PAITC) Conceptual Plan and Feasibility Study comprised the design development of ideas
first discussed at the Dream Team community workshop in 1993. The PAITC conceptual plan consisted of both transportation elements and community amenities. Transportation elements
included expanded rail and bus passenger service capacity, an at-grade intersection of Alma Street and University Avenue, the
re-design of University Avenue between Alma Street and Palm Drive, and the provision of a bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain near Alma and Everett Streets. Community amenities included an urban park and civic space, public art, and urban design features. Each weekday, nearly
2,250 passengers boarded or alighted at the University Avenue Caltrain terminal in downtown Palo Alto. Each day approximately 40,000 vehicles used the University Avenue and Alma Street interchange and about 30,000 vehicles navigated the El Camino Real and Palm Drive interchange. Nearly 600 transit buses
visited the Caltrain station daily. At peak hours during a weekday count in January 2000, 240 pedestrians and 75 bicyclists
used the University Avenue/Alma Caltrain undercrossing and 100 pedestrians and 110 bicyclists used the University/Palm Drive over-crossing of El Camino Real. The benefits of implementing
PAITC included the reduction of between 1,500 and 3,000 vehicles commuting to and from Palo Alto each weekday; enhanced safety
for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists in the train station environs; visual amenities and provision of new civic space; improved way findings for visitors; and safe, pleasant linkages
between Palo Alto, the Stanford campus, and the Stanford Shopping Center. The Council was being asked that evening to set
broad priorities for the plan in terms of the elements, to direct staff to seek additional external funding, and to begin the development of an inter-agency consortium to make the project happen.
Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) Member Annette Bialson responded to the comments made by one of the consultants that said the P&TC derailed the idea of development of
residential property or other improvements in conjunction with the (PAITC). The P&TC was moved by the fact that Option 2, which
would have allowed additional developments of affordable and transit-oriented housing, was far more expensive than Option 1. The P&TC tried to preserve as many options as they could for development and sources of revenue for the PAITC.
03/18/02 440
Mayor Ojakian said he was part of the 1993 Dream Team as a member of the P&TC. He also said Council Member Lytle, who was
the Chief Planning Official as the time, helped put on the “charrette”. Stanford University Architect David Neuman, representing Stanford University and Stanford University Medical Center said
since 1993 much had happened with the Intermodal Transit Plan (ITP). The intersection of Quarry Road was complete, which allowed for the possible connection of transit facilities
through that intersection. Stanford had designated the areas near the Hoover Pavilion for future multi-family housing to
serve populations, such as Stanford Hospital residents and post-doctoral fellows. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) was built, which was only in the planning stages then, and now its circulation system connected to El Camino Real and University Avenue. The passing of Proposition “A” provided the opportunity
for funding of the project. The inclusion of the Caltrain “baby bullet” trains and fourth rails would allow the second most used stop on the Caltrain line, Palo Alto, to be better served and increase its ridership. In addition to accomplishing transit improvement and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity, the ITP would
also create an aesthetic and pleasing park that could be used on a daily basis.
James Lord, representative of Peter Walker and Partners, presented a refined slide-show scheme of the PAITC. He said that
both Options 1 and 2 would transform University Avenue between Alma Street and Palm Drive into an oval loop enclosing a public
park, accommodate an increased number of tracks, and expand the existing bus transfer area. Option 1 retained the buses in their present location. The Preferred Scheme (Option 2) relocated all
bus and shuttle transfers to the level below the tracks. The area currently occupied by the buses provided the opportunity
for future transit-oriented development, such as transit-related retail, a joint-use City/Stanford performing arts theatre, affordable housing, and nonprofit office space. Doug Kolozsvari, 409 East Meadow Drive, supported the Intermodal
Transit Center (ITC). He said funding opportunities were possible through the 2012 Summer Olympics and high-speed rail along the Caltrain peninsula, for the rail bridge and track
improvements. He supported transit-oriented development because it would reduce traffic and strengthen the City’s public
transportation system by increased ridership. Cedric de LaBeaujardiere, 3153 Stelling Drive, supported the ITC. There were two significant bicycle elements missing from the staff report (CMR:118:02). First, was the Bicycle/Pedestrian
03/18/02 441
Bridge over University Avenue. Second, was the revision of the bicycle circulation plan. The revision would include all of the
ITC. The northern undercrossing of the tracks near Everett Avenue was omitted. That track included access to the northern end of the platform. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, recalled reading in the Palo Alto
Weekly that the Director of Planning and Community Environment Stephen Emslie had a conflict with Stanford issues as a source of income, and questioned how it was possible for the Council to
proceed on the staff report (CMR:118:02) when Mr. Emslie was conflicted out. He referred to the P&TC minutes included in the
Council packet that evening whereby the P&TC supported Option 1 because of the cost and the lack of development options. Libby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa Avenue, urged the Council to include the concept of extra rails for high-speed bullet trains.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, urged the Council to adopt the six priorities under Item B in the staff report (CMR:118:02), and Option 1 of the PAITC, which would retain buses in their present location.
Tony Carrasco, 4216 Darlington Court, urged the Council to
approve Option 2 of the PAITC, which would allow additional developments of affordable and transit-oriented housing, as well as relocate all bus and shuttle transfers to the level below the
tracks.
Mike Lee, 22 Pearce Mitchell Place, Stanford, opposed the PAITC because it would reduce the City’s open space, which should be preserved for future generations.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, said Palo Alto had outgrown
big urban spaces. The transit center had to be a place where the commuter was going to make the path worthwhile. She urged the Council not to support the PAITC. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, urged the Council to approve
Option 2 of the PAITC. Mr. Benest clarified that the staff report (CMR:118:02),
although signed by the Director of Planning and Community Environment Stephen Emslie, was prepared by Chief Transportation
Official Joe Kott and revised, edited, and approved by the former Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Les White. Mr. Emslie’s signature was a pro forma action.
03/18/02 442
MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission
recommendations as follows: A. Provide Council comments on the two options for the Palo Alto Intermodel Transit Center Conceptual Plan (PAITC) as the basis for the following further
actions: 1) preparation of a full CEQA/NEPA analysis before a final project design is selected; 2) efforts to obtain federal, state, and regional grant funding;
3) creation of an interagency consortium to complete PAITC engineering design and eventually implement the
project; and 4) engineering design. B. Provide Council Comments on the following conceptual plan priorities: 1a) replace the existing rail bridge over University Avenue and create a four-track
configuration at the University Avenue Caltrain Station; 1b) make Alma Street and University Avenue a signalized, at-grade intersection, with final grade to be determined; 2) extend Quarry Road for bus only access to the bus transfer center at the University
Avenue Caltrain Station; 3) create a new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of the Caltrain
tracks beginning near Everett and Alma Streets; 4) reconfigure University Avenue between Alma Street and Palm Drive into two one-way sections separated by a
new public park; and 5) replace the existing road bridge over El Camino Real.
C. Direct its representative to the Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Board of Directors to advocate for the
early and full allocation of the $45,000,000 devoted to PAITC in the Measure B Expenditure Plan of the
2006-2036 Santa Clara County Transportation Sales Tax reauthorized by the voters in November 2000. D. Direct staff to return to Council in one year to report on results of the CEQA/NEPA analysis and the
framework for an interagency consortium. Council Member Lytle asked whether the money in the City’s
budget to handle the items being forwarded that evening was already budgeted for.
Mr. Benest said staff had previously secured federal and state grant funds as part of the grants development effort. Those funds would handle most of the staff time involved in the
03/18/02 443
through the Transportation Department, however the actual work would be done through contractors.
Council Member Lytle clarified that was using federal funds. Mr. Benest said yes.
Council Member Lytle said it would be nice to proceed with the flexibility of both options and look at financing mechanisms to support either. She asked whether the priorities listed on Page
3 of the staff report (CMR:118:02) applied to both options.
Mr. Kott said Option 1 put the buses at-grade level and Option 2 put them below-grade level. Council Member Lytle said she was pleased that Stanford had shown their enthusiasm and commitment for the ITC and was at the
meeting that evening to help the City in seeking outside funding sources. She would like staff to better integrate the train station into the concept for the transit center and improve pedestrian access to the transit center. She would also like staff to improve how the transit center related to both Alma
Street and Downtown Palo Alto.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether an additional four-track configuration was needed for the high-speed rail system.
Mr. Kott said high-speed rail would need to be bi-directional; one express track would travel northbound and the other
southbound. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the current four-tracks
would accommodate the high-speed rail system
Caltrain Chief Engineer Darryl Maxi, said the intent would be for the high-speed rail to share two of the four-tracks. Council Member Kishimoto said she would like to keep both options open, however if the vote had to be made that evening
she would lean toward Option 1. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER to add the following to Recommendation B (conceptual
plan priorities): 1) create an adequate regional shuttle feeder
system to service surrounding communities; and 2) ensure that the proposed bike and pedestrian bridge over the University Avenue area is retained in the design of new rail structures.
03/18/02 444
Council Member Beecham asked whether the true production numbers were accurate with the anticipated development of Option 2.
Mr. Kott said probably not. With the development of new households, some commuting by car would add to destinations that were not accessible by rail. Council Member Beecham asked how much commercial was involved in
the development with Option 2. Mr. Kott said it was the mix of housing, some transit-oriented
and housing-oriented retail, and office.
Mr. Lord said it was based on all transit-oriented type uses. Council Member Beecham expressed concern that Option 2 did not specify any details, and what was involved in the number of units; retail and commercial. He asked whether staff believed
that Palo Alto would obtain the transit center for free. Mr. Benest said the great majority of funding would come from federal, state, and regional sources.
Council Member Beecham said he took exception to the fact that the Council could make the decision later. Once the Council
agreed to proceed with the project and commitments were made, it was difficult to then decide not to do anything.
Mr. Benest said that was not entirely true. The only time the Council would be committed to the project was when the request
was made for matching funds. No commitments had been made to date about any City funding.
Council Member Beecham said the Council would be committing themselves in the next year or so to a project far in advance of
knowing what the ultimate bottom line would be. Mr. Benest said the Council needed to ask themselves whether the PAITC was a good calculated risk. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER to add the following criteria to Recommendation B: to achieve a net trip reduction with a minimum of 1,500 trips a day.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said that the City
was not in the position to approve or adopt the project that evening. It was helpful to staff, however, to have collective and individual comments about the Council’s goals for the project.
03/18/02 445
Council Member Beecham said that although the concept of a new public park looked wonderful on slides and even greater up
close, they would be of little use to the residents of Palo Alto. He did not support putting resources into the parks unless staff found a real use for them. Council Member Freeman asked who would be responsible for the
ongoing maintenance of the ITC and the parks, and where would the funds come from.
Mr. Benest said a Maintenance and Operations Plan (MOP) would be developed that involved different partners, such as the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and SamTrans for the transit center, and the City and Stanford for park maintenance. Council Member Freeman suggested that staff take into consideration the on-going costs of maintenance up front instead
of waiting further down the line. Council Member Morton said the ITC would be difficult for the people in South Palo Alto to understand why money was spent in North Palo Alto. The ITC should be a system-wide upgrade. He
expressed concern about the high-speed rail trains at the four at-grade crossings and the affect it would have on the school
kids who crossed over them. Mr. Kott said staff was working closely with Caltrain in the
development of the ITC including the grade crossings.
Council Member Morton said he would include the at-grade crossings into the motion.
Ms. Furth said the City would not be the lead agency on deciding on whether the high-speed trains would happen and under what
circumstances. Council Member Lytle said she would like to see Council Member Morton’s issue addressed as a related issue of the motion.
Mr. Benest said staff would be happy to identify what the study would entail.
Council Member Morton asked whether staff could identify where funding might come from for future studies.
Mr. Benest said the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would undoubtedly look at that issue.
03/18/02 446
Mayor Ojakian asked Mr. Kott whether he had a brief status report on the grade separation that was looked at approximately
four years prior. Mr. Kott said the benefits to rail and road operations were great. The localized impacts made it impossible for some individuals to get out of their driveways. The Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Advisory Committee did not advance the grade
separation as an objective in the Comp Plan. Council Member Burch asked whether there were plans to address
electrified trains.
Mr. Kott said electrification had significant advantages to air quality and noise reduction. Mr. Maxi said Caltrain was already doing the preliminary engineering and the environmental work for the electrification
of Caltrain. The timetable involved the price tag of $600 million and funding for the project was not secured. The EIR was in process of being written, which would then go the (VTA) in the upcoming months.
Council Member Burch asked approximately when the electrification project would be.
Mr. Maxi said possibly by the end of the current decade.
Council Member Burch said he did not want to see the Intermodal Transit Center become a big and bulky grand central station. The
objective was to bring pedestrians, bicycles, cars, and buses to where they could interchange with each other and enable people to get around Palo Alto and the region easily and comfortably.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add the following to Recommendation B: to encourage Caltrain to comment on the impact of four rails through Palo Alto with four at-grade crossings. Mayor Ojakian said he would have an interest with either option
of seeing some form of housing incorporated into the project. He had concerns about how the funds would be raised.
Council Member Lytle said if it was possible, to look at the proposed parks for active recreational use. There was a demand
for that in Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED 7-0 Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” RECESS: 9:35 to 9:50 p.m.
03/18/02 447
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to approve the Minutes of February 4, 2002, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Freeman requested that Item No. 11 be removed
from the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 12B. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4-10. LEGISLATIVE
4. Ordinance 4738 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-
02 Authorizing Receipt of Public Library Fund Monies and an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $92,550 for Capital Improvement Project 10204, Library Master Plan”
5. Ordinance 4739 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.06 to Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to New Construction or Replacement of Wood Burning Fireplaces and Appliances” (1st
Reading 12/17/01, Passed 9-0)
ADMINISTRATIVE 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S9103617 Between the City
of Palo Alto and IMServ North American LLC in the Amount of $20,000 for Daily Electric and Gas Interval Meter Data
Acquisition, Validation, and Presentation 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Co., Inc. in the Amount of $114,960 for the Sludge Pipe Hot Water Flushing System for the Water Quality
Control Plant (Wastewater Treatment Capital Improvement Program Project 8021)
8. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. CS124851 Between the City of Palo Alto and Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc., in the
Amount of $60,000 for Services to Facilitate Implementation of the Long-term Goals at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant
03/18/02 448
9. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C2138656 Between the City of Palo Alto and Flynn & Associates for Electric Regulatory
and Technical Assistance in the Amount of $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and for $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2002-03 10. Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the First District Court of Appeal in Harvest Church v. City of
Concord (No. A096604) MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 4-10.
THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. TO A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND RECONVENED AS THE CITY COUNCIL AT 10:05 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Downtown Parking Structures: Construction Parking Mitigation Measures
The Palo Alto City Council will provide the opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed elimination of this
crosswalk. Also included is a proposal to eliminate and add parking spaces in various locations; establishment of
parking garages; and establishment of angle parking at certain locations
City Attorney Calonne spoke regarding an errata sheet on the Resolution.
Public Works Director Glenn Roberts said the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) required staff to return to
Council prior to construction with a plan outlining parking mitigation measures to replace the 189 parking spaces that would
be lost during construction. Staff had proposed a plan to replace those spaces, in temporary nature, during the construction of the garages. The plan consisted of restriping certain downtown streets to create 33 additional spaces which would remain as two-hour parking spaces even after completion of
the new garages, making temporary use of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) for approximately 100 spaces, shifting a portion of permit parking holders to Lot Q to provide relief in
the Downtown North area, and continuing discussion on leasing the top floors of the Cowper-Webster garage. The PAMF lot would
be by permit only, for displaced permit holders moving out of the existing two lots. That would reduce the volume of in-and-out traffic at the site and reduce the on-street parking impacts in the neighborhood. He emphasized there would be cushion of six to eight months from the completion of the garages and the
03/18/02 449
earliest possible start of construction on the South of Forest Area (SOFA) park. In November 27, 2000, Council approved a goal
of designating 40 to 60 percent of the new garage parking spaces as public parking (CMR:428:00). That goal was based on the approximate mix of public versus private parking at existing downtown parking lots and garages. Since that time, staff had worked with the Chamber of Commerce Parking Subcommittee to
refine the details of the distribution. The public parking spaces in the new garages would be limited to two hours during the week, and unrestricted on evenings and weekends. Staff
recommended a final mix of 58 percent of permit spaces and 42 percent of public spaces, which would result in increased spaces
for both categories of what currently existed. It would also enable staff to layout those spaces in a matter that was easily enforceable. Staff expected construction to begin in May of 2002. Lot R would be completed by June of 2003 and Lot S/L by November 2003.
Doug Kolozsvari, 409 East Meadow Drive, said the elimination of the crosswalk would be hard for pedestrians to take back. He would like to see a pedestrian count taken to determine the number of persons who used the Emerson Street crosswalk. Not
having a crosswalk there would not deter pedestrians from crossing there. The benefit of having that crosswalk would
provide a warning to drivers to prepare for the possibility of pedestrians crossing at that location.
Cedric de LaBeaujardiere, 3153 Stelling Drive, said the mid-block crosswalk on Emerson Street should be removed only as an
interim measure until construction was completed. Diagonal parking on Bryant Street should also be done on an interim basis so as not to interfere with the “Bicycle Boulevard” that existed
on that street.
Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, agreed with Mr. de LaBeaujardiere’s comments on interim parking on Bryant Street. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, spoke on behalf of the merchants of the 500 block of Emerson Street and encouraged the Council to
retain the mid-block crosswalk on that street. She also encouraged the Council to retain at least two of the twenty minute green zones.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, was opposed to permit parking
within the new construction garages. Mayor Ojakian asked whether staff had considered interim measures for the mid-block crosswalk on Emerson Street and the diagonal parking on Bryant Street.
03/18/02 450
Mr. Roberts said staff was aware of the public’s sensitivity to
the crosswalk on Emerson Street and, although it was not critical to the project, it would create three less parking spaces. He said staff looked at the issue on Bryant Street and noted that the lane width would remain at twelve feet after the diagonal spaces were put in. That was two feet wider than the
lane width on the remainder of “Bicycle Boulevard”. Council Member Burch was opposed to removing the mid-block
crosswalk on Emerson Street. He stated that Bryant Street already had diagonal parking between University Avenue and
Hamilton Street, so it was not a big leap to extend the diagonal parking to Forest Avenue. He suggested keeping the diagonal parking until the completion of the garages. He asked whether staff had considered shuttle service for those who would park at PAMF and use the facilities at Avenidas.
City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal, said City staff met with Avenidas’ President Lisa Hendrickson and Retired and Senior Volunteer Henry Viveiros and offered them 50 spaces in the PAMF lot. They discussed the possibility of using the center’s van
during the noon hour to shuttle persons from the PAMF to Avenidas.
Council Member Burch suggested staff stay on top of that situation.
Mr. Aggarwal said staff would do that.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked if the construction schedule would be delayed if the Council were to refer the parking changes on Bryant Street to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
(PABAC) for comment or action.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said April 15, 2002, was the date for final decision for the downtown parking structures. Staff could bring back comments from Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) on the Council meeting of April 8, 2002.
Vice Mayor Mossar said she had seen public parking spaces in the downtown area remain empty during the daytime hours because they were dedicated spaces for restaurants that offered valet parking
at evening hours. She asked whether the City had been too generous in dedicating parking spaces to those businesses.
Palo Alto Police Lieutenant, Traffic Division, Jon Hernandez said Palo Alto had more than enough parking spaces since June 2001. There were presently four restaurants in the downtown area
03/18/02 451
that had valet parking and that number would soon decrease to three.
Mr. Aggarwal said there were two downtown businesses that provided valet parking during the daytime as well. Evvia was one restaurant that had two on-street parking spaces and Spago’s was the other with four. MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Morton to approve the staff recommendation as follows:
1. Approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment A of CMR:151.02);
2. Adopt the Resolution to authorize the addition of 34 on-street parking spaces at the specified downtown locations; spaces; to eliminate a mid-block crosswalk on Emerson Street in order to add on-street parking;
to authorize angle parking in certain locations; and to designate public and permit parking in the two parking garages, with a parking mix of approximately 58 percent permit spaces/42 percent public spaces.
Resolution 8134 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting Parking
Restrictions in Certain Portions of the Downtown Necessitated by the Construction of the Lot R and the Lot S/L Parking Structures”
3. Approve use of the former Palo Alto Medical Foundation
(PAMF) parking and for Avenidas senior center staff and service vehicles during the construction period for the new garages. This recommendation could be
revisited at a later point if staff is able to negotiate an agreement for early termination of the
lease for the Webster/Cowper garage. Further, to include the following additions: 1) adjustment of the number of on-street parking spaces to 30; 2) request that Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) be given an
opportunity to review and comment on the diagonal parking configuration proposal and return to Council should their comments require consideration; 3) not to eliminate the Emerson
Street crosswalk between University and Hamilton Avenues; and 4) to monitor impacts on Avenidas.
Council Member Beecham asked Vice Mayor Mossar whether the intent of the motion was for the item to return to the Council after comments from the PABAC.
03/18/02 452
Vice Mayor Mossar said that would only occur if the PABAC had a specific recommendation that would alter the proposal that was
before the Council that evening. Council Member Morton asked Vice Mayor Mossar if she intended to add to the motion that the diagonal parking on Bryant Street be temporary and then brought back to the Council with an
evaluation from staff. Vice Mayor Mossar said she hoped that staff and PABAC would be
able to answer that question.
Council Member Freeman suggested further noticing to residents that would be affected by parking on their street. She also suggested the lights in the PAMF parking lot be put on a timer and the use of low lighting on the lot for safety purposes.
Mr. Roberts said the timer issue was feasible. Staff would need to look into the use of low lighting. Mr. Benest said staff would evaluate with the Police Department about the safety issue.
Council Member Freeman said that from staff’s presentation the
lots would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and only permitted during the day. She suggested that parking lot maintenance at PAMF occur when it was less intrusive to the
adjacent residential area.
Mr. Roberts said that would not be a problem. Council Member Freeman suggested adding to the motion that the
diagonal parking be evaluated during the construction period, to determine aesthetic and feasible value.
Vice Mayor Mossar hoped that staff and PABAC would work together on the proposal for monitoring and making recommendations for the long term.
Council Member Freeman said she wanted to include the other streets that had parallel parking.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the referral was the whole program contained in the staff report (CMR:151:02).
Council Member Freeman suggested that staff consider a back-up plan to the van service offered by Avenidas.
03/18/02 453
Vice Mayor Mossar said the motion included careful monitoring of the impacts of the program on Avenidas.
Council Member Kishimoto supported the mid-block crosswalk on Emerson Street. She encouraged staff to consider ways of making the crosswalk safer rather than eliminating it. In speaking with staff, she was made aware that all-day paid parking on Lot R was
proposed to be eliminated permanently. Since there was demand for all-day visitor parking, staff should consider putting up notices around downtown to let people know that it was possible
to buy a one-day parking permit at City Hall. She would also like staff to monitor the impact of parking in the neighborhood
as the result of the garage construction project. Vice Mayor Mossar said she could not see a solution in the short term if that became a problem. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER that the former Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) parking lot be available as an interim parking lot and vacated as a parking lot by spring of 2004 at the latest and available for park construction.
Council Member Morton asked whether the wording could be changed
to say the interim parking lot would be vacated at the completion of the garages.
Ms. Harrison said staff would return to the Council if there were concerns about being able to meet the deadline.
Council Member Lytle said it would be helpful if the staff would point out the policy inconsistencies for the Council, such as
the mid-block crosswalk debate. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER to retain existing green zones on the 500 block of Emerson Street between University and Hamilton Avenues. Council Member Kleinberg was concerned that the ratio of public
parking to permit parking was unfair to retail owners. She recalled prior discussions of there being a small percentage of spaces being set aside for longer parking time.
Mr. Roberts said the proposed parking ratio just about mirrored
the existing mix of the other downtown lots. In addition, the distribution of floor levels served the City well in prior years, was enforceable, and met the original objectives of the project, which were to provide an increase in both public and permit parking. The ratio mix on permit parking enabled the City
03/18/02 454
to move forward to mitigate other problems, such as Downtown North and Residential Permit Parking.
Council Member Kleinberg asked why an entire floor of garage parking was designated as either permit or public parking. Mr. Roberts said a delineated section of the floor had to be
either permit or public parking. Council Member Kleinberg clarified it was possible to carve out
sections of the permit to public parking ratio to change the ratio mix.
Mr. Roberts said yes. Mr. Aggarwal said several years prior most of the downtown parking lots were a mixture of permit and public parking. That
mixture created problems with people getting confused and being cited. The more mixture of parking within the structure or lot, the more confusion that resulted. Council Member Kleinberg asked for an explanation of the present
all-day and half-day permitting system that presently existed, and how many of those spaces were available.
Mr. Roberts said the City set up so many permit-parking spaces to generate enough permit revenue from the garages to pay for
the maintenance costs.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the generated revenue would be impacted significantly if the parking ratio mix were 50percent/50percent.
Mr. Roberts said staff did not have those figures available that
evening. Special all-day parking permits for merchants and businessmen were available, and could be purchased in advance for clients. Council Member Kleinberg asked where the all-day parking spots
were and how many were available. Mr. Roberts said the special permits were available from the
Revenue Collections Department and could be used at any permit parking lot or garage in the City.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there was a limit to the number of all-day permits per day.
03/18/02 455
Mr. Aggarwal said there had never been a problem with the number of permits sold. Once the permit was purchased the bearer could
park in any permit space in the downtown lots. Council Member Kleinberg suggested amending the motion to say the percentage of public to permit parking be modified to 50 percent/50 percent.
Vice Mayor Mossar said it was difficult to evaluate the ratio mix without further information.
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER to
direct staff to return to the Council with more information to reconfirm or change the percent of public to permit parking space ratio. Council Member Burch said he would like a sunset clause on the
diagonal parking once the parking garages was completed. Council Member Mossar said she believed the motion covered that issue because it directed staff to work with PABAC to evaluate the diagonal parking in the short term and what should happen
after completion.
Council Member Burch said the diagonal parking was also an aesthetic issue for the City. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER to consider at the completion of the garage, a review to
determine if diagonal-parking spaces should remain. Mr. Calonne said the percentage of public to permit parking
needed to be articulated.
Mayor Ojakian said he understood Council Member Kleinberg to say she wanted staff to return with more information on the permit to public space ratio. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Council Freeman asked whether her comments regarding the lighting in the PAMF parking lot and the noise needed to be a
motion.
Mr. Roberts said staff was prepared to take Council Member Freeman’s comments as direction to follow during the project. COUNCIL MATTERS
03/18/02 456
12A. CAO Committee re Policy and Procedures for Performance and Compensation Reviews of Council Appointed Officials
Council Member Beecham said the CAO Committee met on this issue and requested the item move forward. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said he was not aware of any
previously appointed Council Members or Council Appointed Officers who felt the need for the ideas embodied in the motion that was before the Council that evening.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to
direct the Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee to review policies and procedures for the annual performance and compensation review of the CAO’s and bring those recommendations to the full Council for public discussion and formal adoption. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 12B. (Old Item No. 11) Finance Committee recommendation re City Manager’s Authority to Execute Open Purchase Contracts for Commodity Services
Council Member Freeman asked whether the Ordinance was subject
to the limitation of $65,000 and if so, how would that be controlled.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said concerns were raised about the dollar authority limit and the City Auditor was reviewing the
issue. If the limit did apply, it would nullify the City Manager’s authority to execute commodity contracts because $65,000 was a low limit. Staff had been adjusting and improving
the Risk Oversight procedures since deregulation began, which would balance necessary control and accountability with
transactional flexibility. City Auditor Sharon Erickson clarified that staff was auditing the dollar authority limit and working on recommendations with the Utilities Department.
Council Member Freeman asked who were the members of the Risk Oversight Committee.
City Manager Benest said the Committee was composed of
representatives from the City Manager’s office, the Director of Utilities and his staff, the Director of Administrative Services, and representatives from the City Attorney’s office. He said there was a policy in place whereby the City Manager could not purchase utilities for speculation.
03/18/02 457
Council Member Freeman was pleased that the issue was being
reviewed. She suggested that staff look at the composition of the Risk Oversight Committee to ensure that not everyone on the committee reported to the City Manager. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, that the
Finance Committee recommend to the City Council the adoption of an Ordinance to affirm the City Manager’s Authority to Execute Open Purchase Contracts for Commodity Services. This
modification is reflective of both existing law and long-standing custom and practice of the City.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.30.120 of Chapter 2.30 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertinent to the Authority to Purchase Commodities by Open Purchase
Contracts” MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Kleinberg announced that the Housing Leadership
Council for Santa Clara County was working with the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG) to educate and promote affordable housing in the County. She encouraged her Council
colleagues and City Commissioners to attend one of the Housing Leadership Council lunch meetings to which they were invited
from time to time. She also noted the City’s wonderful Way to Go program that promoted alternatives to driving to work.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. to a Closed Session. 13. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Christine Lasich v. City of Palo Alto; SCC
#CV783615 Authority: Government Code 54956.9(a)
14. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated
Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1)
03/18/02 458
arising out of termination of Maria Makela's gardening license. (Gov. Code, 54956.9(b)(3)(B) & (E).)
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation and potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 13 and 14. Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 13 and 14.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for
the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
03/18/02 459