HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-22 City Council (24)C ty
City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 22, 1997 CMR:399:97
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION (PAMF)/SOUTH OF
FOREST AVENUE (SOFA) COORDINATED AREA PLAN
BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, PIAN PREPARATION
PROCESS AND POLICY FRAMEWORK AND GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Council:
Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $300,000 for
funding of the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan ($200,000 of which will .be
reimbursed to the City by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation);
Review and approve the attached Goals, Objectives and Policy Framework for
preparation of the Plan; and,
Direct staff to secure the services of a consulting firm to prepare the PAMF/SOFA
Coordinated Area Plan.
BACKGROUND
On August 4, 199% the City Council approved in concept the preparation of a Coordinated
Area Plan for the PAMF/SOFA area. The preparation of a plan was consistent with previous
Council actions approving the new Medical Foundation facilities on E1 Camino Real. The
Council directed staff to return with the Policy Framework and Goals and Objectives for
Council approval. A Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $300,000 could not
be approved at that time because only five members of the Council were present that could
participate in the discussion and vote.
CMR:399:97 Page 1 of 5
DISCUSSION
Policy Framework and Goals and Objectives: Attached to this report is the staff
recommended Policy Framework and Goals and Objectives for preparation of the Plan. The
Policy Framework was prepared consistent with Section 19.10.030 of the Coordinated Area
Plan enabling Ordinance (included in Council packet for second reading). The Policy
Framework has been developed consistent with the recently adopted Coordinated Area Plan
Ordinance. Staffhas tried to be as specific as possible in order to eliminate any confusion
during the process. For example, the Policy Framework anticipates that Homer and
Channing will be re-established as two-way streets; that the Plan will be economically
feasible and desirable to facilitate sale and redevelopment of PAMF properties; that housing
will be the predominant land use for the former PAMF sites; and that measures will be
included to ensure the retention of the automotive serving uses in the SOFA.
Preparation of the Plan: Staff had previously indicated to Council that coordination and
preparation of the Plan would be done by Alison Kendall, AICP; however, after further
investigation, staff has determined a potential conflict of interest to Ms. Kendall preparing
the PAMF/SOFA plan. Ms. Kendall is pursuing an appraisal of potential impacts on her
affected real property. Preliminary indications suggest that the potential conflict may not
present an insoluble barrier to her participation; however, we cannot be certain at the present
time. In order to keep the Plan as close to the tentative schedule and an October 1998
deadline as possible, staff is proposing a two-pronged approach. For many reasons, it would
be preferable retain Ms. Kendall’s proposed involvement. If that becomes feasible, staff will
develop a contract with her. On the other hand,, staff has identified an alternative which
meets our budget and timing needs. This alternative approach would coordinate preparation
of the Plan ufili~ng CitY staff working with a consultant team. Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
in the Advance Planning Section would serve as Project Coordinator= Project Management
would be by the Assistant Planning Official with direct involvement by the Chief Planning
Official. The Director of Planning and Community Environment also has a potential conflict
of interest and is not participating in the Plan preparation at this time.
The specialized consulting seivices required in order to prepare the Plan are environment,
traffic, economics, meeting facilitation and urban design. For the alternative which would
not use Alison Kendall, staff proposes to secure the consulting services by contacting several
consulting firms with the capability to perform the work, or the ability to quickly assemble
a team capable of preparing the Plan. Staff maintains a list of interested consultants and
would initially seek interested firms that have the available staff and time. Staff would
interview up to three consultant teams, make a selection based on qualifications and
ax;ailability, and negotiate a contract directly with that team. This process could be
accomplished in about 4 weeks. By using this process, staff believes that the Plan can stay
on the tentative schedule (copy attached) prepared for CMR:349:97 of August 4, 1997. The
significantly shortened period to obtain the consultant services, results in the time savings.
CMR:39.9:97 Page 2 of 5
With the groundwork provided by Ms Kendall under the contract for preparation of the Work
Program, City staff is in a position to move quickly forward with consultant negotiation and
Plan preparation. City staff has begun preparation for the initial meeting of the Working
Group scheduled for September 25, 1997. Additionally, staff tasks will include coordination
of the City staff Technical Advisory Group, coordination with outside agencies and
organizations, contract management, set-up and scheduling of Working Group meetings, and .
review of staff reports and interim updates, as well as guidance, input and re, view of the
various Plan documents.
ALTERNATIVES
Both alternative approaches are outlined above.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The estimated cost of the Plan is $300,000. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation will provide
two-thirds of the cost to a maximum obligation of $200,000. The remaining $100,000 would -
come from the City’s Budget Stabilization Reserve as identified in the attached Budget
Amendment Ordinance.
In addition, approximately $35,000 to $50,000 will be needed to cover the cost of
preliminary engineering work on the feasibility and cost of constructing a bicycle and
pedestrian path between SOFA and the new location of the Medical Foundation. Staff will
return to Council with a budget amendment at the time the engineering consultant contract
is to be approved.
A portion of the costs of the Plan .may be recovered in the future as projects are approved
under the Plan, if included in .the implementation conditions. It is anticipated that the Plan
will allow for a reduced processing time for future applications that are consistent with the
Plan. For example, projects may be subject only to ARB review for consistency with the
PAMF/SOFA Plan: In addition, the environmental documentation wi!l have been prepared,
thus reducing application fees and costs. It is not anticipated, however, that full recovery of
the City’s costs will occur.
In the proposal to utilize a contract planner to prepare the Plan, a large part of the contract
would have been for contract services. These funds will now be shifted to consultant costs
for Plan preparation and urban design issues. The cost of oversight will be absorbed into
City salaries. While the cost of overhead for the consulting firm is an additional cost over
the contract planner, the absorption of coordination and oversight by the City will easily off-
set these costs and the final product will be comparable. Utilization of Brian Dolan to
oversee the Plan will have an immediate impact on his availability to review and assist in the
processing of City projects by other departments such as the Los Altos Treatment Plant and
Downtown Parking Structures. After Council review of the Comprehensive Plan, which is
expected to be concluded in early 1998, his availability for follow up assignments and
CMR:399:97 Page 3 of 5
implementation measures of the Comprehensive Plan will also be limited. This will probably
delay the Zoning Ordinance update and work on a Permit Tracking System.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Preparation of a Coordinated Area Plan for the PAMF/SOFA area is consistent with previous
City Council direction and the adopted Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance. The attached
Policy Framework and Goals and Objectives provides the policy direction from the Council
for preparation of the Plan.
TIMELINE
Attached to this report is a revised time schedule reflecting staff’s proposal to secure
consultant services through an abbreviated consultant selection process. The time schedule
anticipates conclusion of preparation of the plan by October 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Feasibility and Planning Studies are statutorily exempt under Chapter 15262 of CEQA.
Preparation of the Coordinated Area Plan will result in the preparation Of environmental
documentation on the Plan.
Budget Amendment Ordinance
Policy Framework and Goals and Objectives
August 1997 Tentative Time Schedule
September 1997 Tentative Time Schedule
Letters from interested parties re Alison Kendall
PREPARED BY: James E. Gilliland
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Chief Plannin~J/~ffieial
CMR:399:97 Page 4 of 5
CC:PAMF/SOFA Working Group and Alternates
Palo Alto Medical Foundation (David Jury)
University South Neighborhoods Group (Don Fitton)
Alison Kendall
Chamber of Commerce (Susan Frank)
Monty Anderson, Cody, Anderson & Wasney
PAMF/SOFA Plan mailing list ,
CMR:399:97 Page 5 of 5
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFPALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR1997-98 TO
PROVIDE ANADDITIONALAPPROPRIATION TO FUND ACOORDINATED
AREA PLAN FOR THE PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION (PAMF)
SITES AND PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH OF FOREST AREA (SOFA)
"WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on .June
23, 1997 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 1997-98; and
WHEREAS, the preparation of a PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
was included in the Amended Development Agreement for the new
Medical Foundation site on E1 Camino Real which was entered into on
March 14, 1996; and
WHEREAS,. the estimated cost of the plan is $300,000 and PAMF
will provide for two-thirds of.the plan cost up to $200,000; and
WHEREAS, approval of the planning process will require the
Planning Department’s non-salarybudget to be increased by $300,000
and revenues by $200,000 for PAMF’s estimated share of the cost; and
WHEREAS, City Council authorization is needed to amend the
1997-98 budget as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City ~f Palo Alto does
¯ ORDAIN as follows:
~. The sum of Three Hundred Thousand .Dollars
($300,000) is hereby appropriated to non-salary expenses in the
Development Review Functional Areas in the Planning &. Community
Environment Department.
sEcTIoN 2.
$200,000.
Planni~g Department revenue is increased by
~. This transaction will reduce the
Stabilization Reserve from $25,846,446 to $25,746,’446.
Budget
~. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 5. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that the enactment of this ordinance is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no
environmental impact assessment is necessary.
.SECTION.. 6 As provided in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code~ this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: -
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager
Senior Asst.’City Attorney Acting, AdmiDistrative Services
Department Director
Director of Planning
Community Environment
PAMF/SOFA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
POLICY FRAMEWORK
GOALS AND oBJECTIVES FOR PLAN
Design-Character. Scale and Compatibili _ty
Promote high quality design and construction that preserves .mid continues the existing
character of the area, including the scale of development, the highdegree of visual interest,
and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern. Facilitate implementation
of the Plan by providing development standards and design guidelines to help ensure the
compatibility of uses, to reduce potential conflicts and to provide for compatibility in
character, scale and massing.
Mixed Use Character and Compatibili~
¯ Preserve and enhance the historically mixed-use character of the area. Identify appropriate
and mutually compatible uses that provide vitality and convenience for residents, businesses
and visitors.
Economic Feasibili _ty
The Plan must be economically feasible and desirable in order to facilitate sale and
redevelopment of Palo Alto Medical Foundation properties. Avoid potential negative
impacts of vacant and tmdemtilized facilities. Any City participation in project is subject to
Council direction and competition from other City projects for City resources.
Walkable Nei~_hborhood
Reinforcement of the neighborhood as a walkable area providing convenient access to
services and facilities.
Reduce Traffic Imt~aets
Re=establishing H0~ner Avenue and Channing Avenue as two-way streets in order to reduce
the speed and impact of traffic through this residential and mixed use neighborhood. The
replacement of a two-way couplet with two way streets is more appropriate to the
predominantly residential character envisaged for future use and integration of the PAMF
sites with the adjacent neighborhoods.
Transit and Bicycle ~
Take advantage of existing transit connections at the University Avenue multi-modal transit
facility and access to local and regional destinations. Identify opportunities for improving
S APLAbhPLADIV~CMR~P SOB JEC Page 1
existing service or adding new transit service. Coordinate with other studies on transit
services. Promote increased bicycle use by commuters, residents, visitors and customers by
reinforcing existing bicycle routes and providing safe and convenient bicycle parking and
storage related facilities.
Provide a significant quantity of new housing, with Yesidential use as the predominant land
use for the former PAMF sites. Allow for the possibility of live-work and other residential
uses within the mixed use areas along Emerson, High and Alma Streets. Considering the
unique assets of this area, its proximity to jobs and services and citywide and regional
housing needs, allow a variety of housing types especially affordable housing.
Historic Preservation
Identify historically significant and contributing structures in the South of Forest Area and
encourage the preservation and viable continued uses of landmark structures. Evaluate
preservation and continued use of contributing structures that compose the heritage of the
South of Forest Area.. Recognize that in. order to achieve other plan objectives, not all
historical structures may be able to be preserved, and examine alternatives including
preservation, alteration, demolition and relocation.
Relationship to Downtown Commercial District
Clarify the relationship between SOFA commercial and mixed use area and downtown.
Reinforce the potential for complementary uses in the area that support the vitality of
downtown uses serving the city and region. Plan for convenient neighborhood and local
commercial uses and services, including automobile repair, hardware and convenience stores.
Automobile Service and Other Service Uses
Examine the special requirements of automobile service, convenience service and retail
business requiring automobile access and parking, to determine measures to preserve the
economic viability of these businesses while reducing impacts on adjacent uses.
Heritage Trees. Street Trees and Landscaping
Reinforce the overall pattern of significant street trees, and preserve heritage oaks and other
large trees wherever possible as an important asset for future development and the
neighborhood. Reinforce and continue other landscaping and planting patterns..
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access across Caltrain Tracks
Conduct feasibility study to thoroughly explore construction of a pedestrian and bicycle
crossing-of the Caltraln tracks to provide pedestrian and bicycle access from thedowntown
and South of Forest Areas to the Urban Lane area.
S :WLAN~LADIV~CMR~P SOB JEC Pag~ 2
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE PLANNING PROCESS:
Working Group Role
The role of the Working Group will be to advise the City Council, Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), Public Arts
Commission (PAC), consultants and City staff on the issues, alternatives and substance of
the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. The Council retains the ultimate decision making
responsibility for policy direction, plan content and Plan adoption. The Working Group will
meet approximately monthly to provide input, review and recommendations to the staff and
consultants. Neither consensus nor voting is required of the Working Group. The Working
Group will not have subcommittees but small task forces may be constituted for maximum
1 to 2 month periods to address specific issues in more depth.
Product of Planning Process
The Plan and associated documents will be prepared by City staff and consultants under the
direction of the Chief Planning Official. The Plan shall be prepared in conformance with the
Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance and particularly Section 19.10.040, Contents of
Coordinated Area Plans (included in Council packet for second reading). The Plan process
will culminate in the preparation of the Coordinated Area Plan for the PAMF/SOFA area that
shall include:
Land Uses: A map designating all land uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and zoning or a recommendation for changes. The Plan shall describe all permitted
and conditionally permitted uses and, for housing, minimum and maximum densities.
Parcels: A map showing parcel and lot configurations, including but not limited to
size, orientation, easements and fights-0f-way.
Infrastructure: Identification of public and private transportation, parks, open space,
sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, sidewalks, plazas, street trees,
landscaping, art and other public improvements existing and proposed for the area.
Site Design: A plan showing specific Site design objectives, primarily for PAMF-
owned parcels, including but not limited to building placement, orientation, maximum
building footprints, setbacks, mass, height, daylight plane, floor area, lot coverage,
open space and parking.
Design Guidelines: Architectural design guidelines that address each land use type,
street, park or public facility. Suggested typical or prototype elevations, facades, roof
types and materials are to be included.
Feasibility: A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with
specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives, as well as
S APLANWLADIV~ClVlRkP SOB JEC Page 3
a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected economic
benefits to the City and community.
Environmental: An Environmental Impact Report consistent with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act including alternatives to the Plan.
Implementation: A program of implementatibn measures to be coordinated with the
City’s Capital Improvement Program and including development regulations, public
works projects, application processing, infrastructure improvements and financing.
Timeline for Plan Preparation
The goal for preparation of the Plan is to be available for public review by the various City
approving bodies by September 1, 1998 with an anticipated approval date no later that
October 31, 1998. Planning Commission and City Cotmeil review and policy
recommendations of Plan alternatives shall occur approximately half way through the
process.
Process for Approvals Upon Plea Adoption
Upon plan adoption, development proposals in conformance to the Plan may be processed
as minor Architectural Review Board applications including staff approvals, thus eliminating
the requirement for further environmental review and HRB, ARB, Planning Commission or
City Council review. Development proposals found not to be consistent with the Plan, will
be processed as amendments to the Plan requiring review the Planning Commission and City
Council.
S :kPLA_N~LADIV~CMR~PS OB JEC Page 4
TENTATIVE SCHI
August 1997
September 1997
October 1997
November 1997
December 1997
Jalluary 1998
February 1998
March 1998
April 1998
May ,1998
June 1998
July 1998
August 1998
September 1998
.ILE FOR PAMF/SOFA COORDI~T ~ED AREA PLAN
(August 4, 1997)
Council initiates PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
Working Group: Mayor appoints Working Group
TAG: Technical Advisory Group formed
Staff: Prepare and finalize contract for contract planner services
Plan: Begin existing conditions analysis
Council: Approve Contract Planner contract
Council: Adopt Goals and Objectives and policy framework
Plan: Issue Requests for ,proposals for consultant services
TAG: Finalize data base and existing conditions
Working Group: Initial meeting and orientation
TAG & staff: Review RFP responses, interview & select
consultants
Working Group: Existing conditions, opportunities & constraints
Staff & Plan: Consultant contract completion and begin work
Working Group: Alternatives exploration
Working Group: Alternatives development
TAG: Technical Analysis of alternatives
EIR: Notice of Preparation and scoping
Working Group: Alternatives Evaluation re Goals & Objectives
TAG: comparative analysis of alternatives
EIR: Describe baseline conditions, affected environment
Community Update Forum: Comments on alternatives
EIR: Alternatives description
Review and comment from ARB, HRB, PAC and Planning
Commission on preferred alternative.
Working Group: Refine preferred alternative
Plan: Begin conceptual plan preparation
EIR: Begin impact analysis ::
TAG: Review Administrative Draft Concept Plan and 60% EIR
EIR: Complete impact analysis
Working Group: Preliminary Draft Plan review
Draft Coordinated Area Plan for Public Review
Working Group: Draft Plan review
EIR: Administrative Draft review
Plan: Revisions to Draft Plan
Working Group: Implementation, capital improvements, plan,
guidelines & development standards review
EIR: Pr~luce Draft EIR
Plan: Production of Final Draft Coordinated Area Plan
EIR: Production of Draft EIR for Public Review
Public Review of Final Coordinated Area Plan
Public Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning
Amendments
Public Review of Draft EIR
Review/Approval: ARB, HRB/PAC, Planning Commission
EIR: Certification of EIR
Council Adoption of Coordinated Area Plan, Zoning
Amendments and Comprehensive Plan
JG 119971A:XMMPSCAP
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR PAMF/SOFA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
(REVISED SEPTEMBER 1997)
August 1997
September 1997
October 1997
November 1997
December 1997
January 1998
February 1998
March 1998
April 1998
May 1998
June 1998
July 1998
August 1998
September 1998
Council initiated PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
Working Group: Appointment by Council
Council adopts Policy Framework and Goals and Objectives
Working Group: First meeting, review of Policy Framework,
Establishment of schedule and meetings
Staff interviews consulting teams & negotiates contract
TAG: Staff Technical Advisory Group formed
Working Group: Begin review of existing conditions
Consultant contract to Council
TAG: Finalize data base and existing conditions
Working Group: begin alternati.ves exploration
Working Group: Alternatives development
TAG: Begin technical analysis of alternatives
EIR - Notice of Preparation and scoping
Working Group: Alternatives Evaluation re Goals & Objectives
TAG: comparative analysis of alternatives
EIR: Describe baseline conditions, affected environment
Community Update Forum: Comments on alternatives
Review and comment from Boards, Commission and Council
on preferred alternative.
EIR: Alternatives description
Working Group: Refine.preferred alternative
Consultant: Begin conceptual plan preparation
EIR: Begin impact analysis
TAG: Review Administrative Draft Concept Plan and 60% EIR
EIR: Complete impact analysis
Working Group: Prel’_mlinary Draft Plan-review
Consultant: Conceptual Coordinated Area Plan for Public Review
Working Group: Draft Plan review
EIR: Administrative Draft review
Consultant: Revisions to Draft Plan
Working Group: Implementation, capital improvements plan,
guidelines & development standards review
EIR: Produce Draft EIR
Consultant: Production of Final Draft Coordinated Area Plan
EIR: Production of Draft EIR for Public Review
Public Review of Final Coordinated Area Plan
Public Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
Zoning Amendments
Public Review of Draft EIR
Review/Approval: ARB, HRB/PAC, Planning Commission
EIR: Certification of EIR
Council Adoption of Coordinated Area Plan, Zoning
Amendments and Comprehensive Plan
Enshallah
Real Estate ¯ Consulting ¯ Development
September 15, 1997
June Fleming, City Manager
City of Palo Alto
2580 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear June:
1997
Environmel:
The Paio Medical Foundation and the University South Neighborhoods Group
urge the City of Palo Alto to move forward with the South of Forest Avenue
(SOFA) study. We understand that Alison Kendall, the contract planner, whose
contract has been approved by the council, is now being reevaluated for the job
due to a possible conflict of interest. Alison Kendall lives outside the study area
but the proximity of her house to the study area has. raised the possibility of
some potential benefit from the planning process of the SOFA study.
The possibility of any financial gain for Alison from the outcome of the SOFA
study appears to be non-existent. The Foundation and the Neighborhood Group
are asking the City to reaffirm her contract and proceed as planned. To do
otherwise would add additional time to a timeline that is already under pressure.
The Foundation has a development agreement with the City that was negotiated
in good faith and which says the study will take approximately one year. It was
June 1st when the time officially started. We have said we are willing to work
with the City and have accepted the September 8, 1998 deadline for the final
completion. Any further delays would negatively impact our project, cause as yet
unidentified monetary losses, and would be unacceptable.
Let us move forward and remove any delays.~
Sincerely,
Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Jim Gilliland, Acting Planning Director
Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager
Ken Schreiber, Planning Director
Members of the Council
60 Pierce Avenue o San Jose, CA95110 ¯(408) 295-9880 o FAX (408) 295-5928
September 15, 1997
June Fleming, City Manager
City of Palo Alto
2580 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear June:
The University South Neighborhoods Board of Directors has learned that
Alison Kendall, because of the location of her home, might have a "conflict of
interest" which could disqualify her from the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area
Plan facilitation. We understand that for her to be "qualified", she needs to
have a property appraisal which would reflect the fact that the results of the
Coordinated Area Plan would not affect the value of her property.
This Neighborhood has appreciated the fact that you started early with the job
of finding a facilitator excellently qualified to fulfill this task. That allowed us,
as a large group, to have a chance to get to know her, study her credentials,
and become thoroughly impressed with her experience. We applaud your
excellent judgment in choosing her for this sensitive job.
Because this Coordinated Process is comparatively new territory, we all join
you in hoping it will really work well. With this is mind, we have talked
directly to Gerry Steinberg, and David Jury about this situation. All of us feel
that elimination, or major, changes in you~ original description of Alison’s
part in this process, will slow everything down and possibly jeopardize the
intended planning. None of us want that to happen. We urge you to do
whatever it takes to confirm Alison Kendall in the position you originally
intended.
Sincerely,
Pat Burt, President, USNG Board of Directors
" co: Ariel Calonne
Jim Gilliland
Fanily Harrison
Ken Schreiber
Ron Anderson
Sandy Eak~
Gary Fazzino
Joe Huber
Liz Kniss
Jean McCown
Dick Rosenbaum
Micki Schneider
Lanie Wheeler
Alison KmdaU, AICP
803 Guin~ Street
P~flo Alto, CA 94301
250 Hamiltan Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94303
15, 1997
Dear Jtme,
As you know. since May i have been wtwking with Jim Gillilmt and Ken SeMeitm- to develop a wodcsu)pe
for tim Palo Alto Medical Foundatitm / South of Ftxett Avmm Coordinated Arm Plan. We ~veloped
work~.ope aad Fopo--1 afZer ~o.sidering th~ nmy ismes tl~ City wanted to ~ldress in the Ira)jeer,
community dmm~ ~x subsia~id participttim, the dc~ire to l:m:)vide detailed design guidan~Ym new
and the City which covered bot~ projm ~t =~l pl~ prepm~i~o, supplementui by additioml
Two weeks before the September 15 mining ~t which the ~t~-ii w~ sehednled to alCOVe this cammU, I
was told that because of the l~atim of my residenoe, I mi$ht have a tmoBiet ofinterest whidl ~ould inmqere
with my work on ~ lm)jea. I ~lieve this possibility had bern investigated mi dismis~xl in Jtnm.y 1996,
whm the Plami~g Divisi~t offered me a position whidt would have involved managing this project and
the proj~,
appr~ shows no demonstnble impact of th~ pka m my homo, l~ ~l tlml~ would n~mmmd you
the contract which we have ncsotieted to pa:pm~ the PIm.
$2,000 to $3,000. He has indimted he could iamride a vab~ detmnimtim by tim end ofthis wee& a draft to
the City Atttxney f~" ctmmxmtthe follm~. ,week, and a f.~ writtea., repoa ~ ~ ~ ~ m my
pmlxa~ alo.g with I~.’s md Joe’s.
Ariel Calonm, Jim Gil~land