HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-05 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting February 5, 2001
1. Council Selection of Candidates to Interview for Council Vacancy..........................................................352
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................................354
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................................354
2. Ordinance 4680 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Define Certain Redwood Trees as Protected Trees to be Preserved and Protected, Permitting the Removal of Protected Trees That Damage Other Protected Trees and Modifying Certain Definitions”..........................................................355
3. Ordinance 4681 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $475,000 in the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund for Demolition and Relocation Costs at the Former Palo Alto Medical Foundation Properties”..........................................................355
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Waterproofing Associates in the Amount of $268,880 for the Mayfield Reservoir Roof Maintenance Project..........................................................355
02/05/01 91-349
5. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation re Downtown North Traffic Calming Project..........................................................355
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the September 29, 2000, decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, whereby the application of William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception [00-HIE-18] was approved. Approval was granted to allow the construction of a detached two-car garage within a rear-yard setback at a distance of 71.5 feet from the front property line and 30.5 feet from the street-side property line where 75 feet is the minimum distance required from any street facing property line. The property involved is an existing single- family residence (Zone District R-1), located at 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District R-1 Single Family Residential...........................................................366
7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Nextel Communications for a telecommunications facility at 675 El Camino Real consisting of twelve roof mounted antennas and an associated equipment room located on the roof of an existing commercial hotel building. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zoning District: (PC-4465)...........................................................367
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a tentative map to subdivide a 35,540 square feet (0.82 acre) parcel at 777 Bryant Street into 30 air space condominiums. File No. 00-SUB-06. Environmental Assessment: an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared...........................................................367
9. PUBLIC HEARING: the Palo Alto City Council will consider a tentative map to subdivide a 51,300 square feet (1.18 acre) parcel at 325 Channing Avenue into 36 air space condominiums. File No. 00-SUB-07. Environmental Assessment: an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared...........................................................370
10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..........................................................371
02/05/01 91-350
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m...........................................................371
02/05/01 91-351
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham (via teleconference from Washington, D.C.), Burch, Eakins (via teleconference from Washington, D.C.), Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Council Selection of Candidates to Interview for Council Vacancy Elsie Begle, 501 Forest Avenue, opposed making a special appointment to fill the Council seat vacated by Council Member Kniss. The Council was urged to maintain an eight-person Council during the seven-month interim before an election could be held. Vice Mayor Ojakian said the City Charter required the Council to either appoint an individual to fill a vacant seat within 60 days of the vacancy or hold a special election during the next General Election, which could be scheduled in June. The Special Election would cost the City approximately $100,000 and the individual would have to run for office three months later. The Council made the decision to use the appointment process. Historically, seats were appointed. The Council was asked whether all candidates should be interviewed or only a selection of the candidates. Council Member Fazzino said since 1909, Palo Alto’s Council had seen 55 vacancies. In 51 instances, the Council had chosen to appoint a replacement. In three cases, a vacancy occurred during the Council campaign and the decision was made to allow voters to decide who would fill the seat; however, that option could not legally be taken by the current Council. In one instance, the Council was split but finally allowed the voters to make the decision. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Burch, to interview all 25 candidates for 10 minutes. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Council could decide after the interviews to conduct follow-up interviews with three to five candidates on Monday night, February 12, 2001, for about 15 minutes each. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Mayor could call a Special Meeting on Saturday to identify individuals the Council wanted to interview on Monday. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER that on Saturday, February 10, 2001, Council could consider the alternative of doing follow-up interviews for several candidates on Monday
02/05/01 91-352
evening, and still proceed to the appointment of a Council Member on Monday, February 12, 2001. Council Member Burch said if the Council had 22 candidates at 10 minutes each, the Council would be interviewing for four hours and some type of break would be necessary. Vice Mayor Ojakian said the meeting could not be scheduled earlier than 11a.m. due to other City events some Council Members were attending. Council Member Fazzino stated that one applicant would not be able to appear after 11a.m. A way of accommodating individuals who could not attend Saturday should be found, possibly Monday night. Council Member Mossar stated that the interview date of February 10, 2001, had been published for quite some time, and it was important to facilitate requests as appropriate. It would be more equitable to the community to narrow the candidate pool down to only the strongest candidates. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified the Council would make a decision on Saturday about the possibility of follow-up interviews, with the goal of making a decision on Monday, February 12, 2001. Council Member Kleinberg agreed in part with Council Member Mossar’s point. She favored interviewing all candidates since the decision was made not to hold an election; therefore, it was incumbent on the Council to give every individual the opportunity to be considered. However, 10 minutes was insufficient time to ask more than one probing question. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to extend the time for interviews to 20 minutes which did not need to be continuous on the same day. Vice Mayor Ojakian said critical factors needed to be taken into consideration. One was the number of candidates to be interviewed and another was the time necessary to interview all the candidates. Council Member Fazzino said even if an hour was spent with each candidate, the Council would not know enough. The compromise was to give everyone sufficient time to be heard. A lot could be learned in ten minutes. The possibility of having one or two hours on Monday night to get into greater detail with four or five of the strongest candidates was his proposal for compromise. At no time in Palo Alto’s history had the electorate ever had to consider the qualifications of so many candidates. Mr. Calonne clarified the motion made by Council Member Kleinberg regarding the number of minutes allotted for interviews was really an amendment, not a motion.
02/05/01 91-353
AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Eakins, Lytle, Kleinberg, Ojakian “yes.” MOTION PASSED 7-1, Mossar “no.” Vice Mayor Ojakian explained the interview process for Saturday, February 10, 2001. Council Member Burch thought a policy should be made regarding any candidate who was unable to attend the interview. Vice Mayor Ojakian suggested working with the City Clerk to set up a schedule after which a determination could be made regarding alternatives. Council Member Fazzino asked that the City Manager and City Clerk ensure sufficient time at the February 12, 2001 Council meeting to address the issues of interviews, follow-up interviews, and the final vote; he suggested starting the meeting at 6 p.m. Mayor Eakins and Council Member Beecham left the Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Joan Reid, 868 Embarcadero Road, spoke regarding roundabouts on Embarcadero Road. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, spoke regarding rare opportunities. Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding real estate. John Easter, 11 Stanley Way, spoke regarding Pacific Bell, the Fiber to the Home project and the process for Council Member candidate interviews. David Jacobs, 275 Ventura Avenue #23, spoke regarding Ventura Avenue rent situation in South Palo Alto. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the Minutes of December 11, 2000, Adjourned Meeting of December 11 to December 18, 2000, December 18, 2000, and Adjourned Meeting of December 18 to December 19, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0 Beecham, Eakins absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to
02/05/01 91-354
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 – 4. Council Member Mossar announced she would not participate in Item No. 4 due to a conflict of interest because the property was owned by Stanford, her husband’s employer. 2. Ordinance 4680 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Define Certain Redwood Trees as Protected Trees to be Preserved and Protected, Permitting the Removal of Protected Trees That Damage Other Protected Trees and Modifying Certain Definitions”(1st Reading 1/22/01, PASSED 8-0) 3. Ordinance 4681 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $475,000 in the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund for Demolition and Relocation Costs at the Former Palo Alto Medical Foundation Properties” 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Waterproofing Associates in the Amount of $268,880 for the Mayfield Reservoir Roof Maintenance Project MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 3, Beecham, Eakins absent. MOTION PASSED 5-0 for Item No. 4, Mossar “not participating,” Beecham, Eakins absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation re Downtown North Traffic Calming Project (Continued from 12/11/00) Council Member Fazzino announced he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because he owned property in the area. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified the public testimony was closed and the Council would discuss the issue. Staff was asked whether it had evaluated any other alternatives or had comments on any other options. City Manager Frank Benest said staff would present a historical view of the traffic situation and answer questions. Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said the issue of traffic calming in the Downtown area was addressed on December 11, 1999 and Downtown north traffic calming was also the subject of a Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC) public hearing on October 11, 2000. The study itself began in January of 1999, which was preceded by a long genesis of neighborhood activity. Through the
02/05/01 91-355
neighborhood analysis and study, problems were identified not only through neighborhood comment but fieldwork. The percentages of peak morning through traffic running east and west were in the range of 60 percent. The intrusion of through traffic was identified as a neighborhood traffic issue. Speed survey data showed speeds either at or above the posted speed limit and were identified in neighborhood comments as a problem. Average speeds on local residential streets ranged between 29 miles per hour (mph) with the 85th percentile speeds up to 35 mph. A solution was identified in the study process and in work with the neighborhoods, which relied on seven street closures. The Comprehensive Plan set parameters in the use of street closures. The language in Policy T-33 of the Comprehensive Plan stated, “Keep all neighborhood streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through traffic problem and there are not acceptable alternatives or unless a closure would increase the use of alternative transportation modes.” The policy issue for Council was the interpretation of “overwhelming through traffic” intrusion. The P&TC and staff supported the recommended preferred option developed through the neighborhood process and voted on by neighborhood ballot. The P&TC likewise supported the recommended preferred option. The recommended preferred option would bring down cut-through traffic by about 60 percent or, on an average daily basis, about 2,700 through trips. Staff estimated speeds would be reduced by 10 to 30 percent, depending on location. Some issues for Council’s consideration included when street closures were deemed appropriate as a policy response and the cost of the recommended preferred plan. Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel explained the recommended preferred plan. The problem analysis took place during the neighborhood process, which consisted of four neighborhood meetings, a number of neighborhood mailings to Downtown north neighborhood, Lytton neighborhood, and a group of residents between Webster Street and Middlefield Road just south of Lytton Avenue. Several Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings were also held. The advisory Committee consisted of several Downtown north representatives, a representative from the Lytton neighborhood, several members of staff, and two consultants. Out of the process came seven to eight alternative plans that were considered at various levels of detail. Ultimately, the advisory committee felt that only one plan should be moved forward to the neighborhood. A neighborhood survey was then conducted and the plan mailed to residents. Of the respondents, 60 percent were in favor of the plan and a few felt something needed to be done but were not in favor of the presented plan. The 60 percent figure in favor of the plan was considered a high number, particularly when street closures were under consideration. As usual, many people did not respond, with only 25 percent of the neighborhood responding. The recommended preferred plan consisted of seven street closures and several gateway treatments. The gateways and bulb-outs were not strong speed-reducing features, but were more architectural and intended to announce entry into neighborhoods. Although an important part of
02/05/01 91-356
the plan, the gateways and bulb-outs would not be effective in reducing speeds and volumes. Street closures were selected because of the strong demand in the area to shorten trip distances because of the alignment of Willow and Sand Hill Roads. Neighbors desired a reduction in cut-through traffic even more than reducing speeds. The proposed area for the street closures was ideal because it was bound on one side by a creek, a business arterial, and a commercial arterial. The likelihood of traffic being diverted onto other residential streets was minimal. The closures were principally on the east/west streets of Palo Alto Avenue, Hawthorne, and Everett. The north/south streets were unimpeded. All peripheral streets along Alma and Middlefield were open. A more aggressive plan had been considered, but the advisory committee agreed the plan was too difficult for residents. Two major intersection improvements were included in the plan at Middlefield/Lytton and Alma/Lytton, the intent of which was to change some turning lanes and signal facing to help traffic move around the neighborhood. The Lytton neighborhood was very involved in the study through a representative on the advisory committee out of which came an agreement that part of the recommended plan would include a new study of the Lytton neighborhood, not only to address potential impacts from Downtown north, but also through traffic. Council Member Mossar asked about the extra neighborhood impacts. The staff report (CMR: 440:00) concluded that by diverting traffic out of the Downtown north neighborhood, there would be minimal impact on other neighborhoods. Staff also concluded that Lytton Avenue could handle extra traffic. Mr. Stoffel said Council Member Mossar was correct. The primary diversion of traffic would be onto the arterials, such as Alma Street, Lytton Avenue, and Middlefield Road. Lytton Avenue was primarily in the commercial district. Council Member Mossar asked whether the traffic impact on the arterials was studied because at certain times of the day Alma Street and Lytton Avenue carried a lot of traffic. University Avenue was bumper-to-bumper many times, seven days per week. Mr. Stoffel said yes. The consultant looked carefully at the three streets, which was the genesis of improving the intersections to help handle the added trips. The Downtown portion of Lytton Avenue between Middlefield Road and Alma Street was projected to increase by 18 percent; Middlefield Road about 13 percent, and Alma Street about 13 percent. Council Member Mossar clarified staff and the consultant were comfortable with the added load on the designated arterials. Mr. Stoffel said yes. Council Member Mossar said the Downtown core was surrounded by Downtown north, the Lytton neighborhood, Crescent Park, South of
02/05/01 91-357
Forest Avenue (SOFA), and other small neighborhoods. The staff was discussing a traffic calming reduction device for installation in one of the many neighborhoods. Street closures were being tried as a mechanism to deal with the impacts in a neighborhood of an urban location. If the trial was successful, the other neighborhoods bordering the area would want similar treatments. Mr. Kott said other neighborhoods wanting the same treatment was a distinct possibility. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff thought about the impact of significant street closures and traffic manipulations in all of the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. Mr. Kott said yes. Staff supported the Comprehensive Plan ideal about the open grid system for many reasons. Street closures were debated internally. In the current circumstance, staff had good evidence that the amount of intrusion of through traffic met the Comprehensive Plan definition of overwhelming. Council Member Mossar wanted the issue of future consideration addressed. If the treatment was successful in Downtown north, at the end of the trial other neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown commercial core would likely request similar treatments. If the requests were made given the success in Downtown north, streets surrounding the Downtown commercial would begin to close. She asked whether staff considered what would happen to Downtown if that happened. Mr. Kott said staff had no way of knowing which neighborhoods would make what request and when, but it was a reasonable supposition that requests for street closures would be made. Council Member Mossar said the concept would be very attractive to many residents surrounding the Downtown area. She wanted to understand what would happen in the future. University Avenue already carried more traffic than it should. Mr. Kott said staff was concerned about the ripple effect of street closures and was strongly committed to an open grid system. Mr. Stoffel said the Downtown north neighborhood actually appeared on a 1979 Council report as one of the top neighborhoods requesting a traffic study. The neighborhood had been a concern for some time and was a problem. The Lytton neighborhood would be adjusted to include some of the University Avenue corridor, from which a request was made for street closures in the past. Council Member Lytle asked about the cost of the trial and capital improvement. Comprehensive Plan Program T-43 discussed using development fees to fund traffic calming measures, and she asked whether it was the source of money to be used for the project.
02/05/01 91-358
Mr. Kott said staff had not identified a source of funding for the project. Council Member Lytle asked whether the traffic mitigation impact fee could be identified as a source for funding. Mr. Kott said it was possible. Mr. Benest said if the Council approved the plan, it would have to compete with other capital projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), including the backlog. Council Member Mossar asked whether Mr. Benest’s comments referred to the trial or the final project. Mr. Benest said both. No funds were budgeted other than the $100,000 for neighborhood traffic calming, which staff began at the Council’s direction for each year’s budget. No funds were available for new infrastructure, including traffic calming measures. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the total cost of the project both for the trial and for final. Mr. Kott said the cost of the trial and the permanent installation was approximately $845,000. The trial plus the Lytton study was $190,000. The Lytton study was between $65,000 to $75,000. Mr. Calonne thought Mr. Kott had indicated developer fees were available for use, but he thought existing traffic fees focused on the Stanford Research Park and the San Antonio/Bayshore Freeway areas. An existing traffic fee was not available for the proposed plan. Council Member Lytle asked whether Palo Alto received fees from the Sand Hill Project and Cancer Center. Mr. Kott said yes. The traffic impact fee ordinance governed about eight intersections in Palo Alto, mainly around the Stanford Research Park. However, developer funding was possible. The study of Downtown north was funded through a developer public/benefit contribution. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the relative traffic between the University north and Lytton neighborhoods. Comparative numbers indicated the Lytton neighborhood in a 1997 study had worse traffic than the University North neighborhood’s current traffic. Mr. Stoffel said staff had conducted a traffic calming study about five years prior in the Lytton neighborhood. Before the study started, the percentage of through traffic primarily on Lytton Avenue east of Middlefield Road, which was residential, was higher than what was found in Downtown north at approximately 65 percent. The traffic volume on the first few blocks of Lytton Avenue was
02/05/01 91-359
higher than most streets in Downtown north. Farther east from Guinda Street, the amounts dropped to a range similar to what were found in Downtown north. Council Member Kleinberg said based on Council Member Mossar’s comment in terms of the impact of diverting traffic in the proposed plan, if traffic was already bad in an adjoining neighborhood, traffic might be made worse. Mr. Stoffel said staff projected that the through traffic diverted out of the Downtown north neighborhood would move over to Lytton Avenue between Alma Street and Middlefield Road. One of the intersection improvements would facilitate the turn between eastbound Lytton Avenue and northbound Middlefield Road to entice people to use that stretch of road. The people diverted out of the Downtown north neighborhood were not going through the Lytton neighborhood to begin with, but were transiting between Middlefield Road and Alma Street through the Downtown north. Staff anticipated the traffic would stay within the boundaries. The problem was that the traffic would move onto Lytton Avenue, but staff anticipated the traffic would not move onto the other side. Lytton neighborhood residents were concerned because of the amount of traffic on Lytton Avenue, even though designated commercial, because the traffic eventually went through their neighborhood. Staff and the consultant concluded no noticeable amount of traffic would continue across Lytton Avenue into a new route. Staff would measure the volumes during the trial in both neighborhoods to make sure problems would not result in other neighborhoods. Council Member Kleinberg asked about a base line from which a determination could be made. Mr. Stoffel said staff would take new base lines before starting the trial. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the traffic lights on Lytton Avenue, which was a two-lane residential street with many seniors in addition to the commercial. She understood the lights could not be timed in a way to encourage people to stay in the “L-shaped” traffic pattern. Mr. Stoffel said Council Member Kleinberg was correct. One of the consultants on the team was an expert on signals and confirmed that Lytton Avenue between Alma Street and Middlefield Road was part of the Downtown street system and could not be changed. Staff thought more improvements could be made on Lytton Avenue by working on either end. If the Council wanted Lytton Avenue to flow, it could be disconnected from some of the other Downtown streets and a synchronization pattern set up for Alma Street, Lytton Avenue, and Middlefield Road. However, some of the north/south streets would be affected.
02/05/01 91-360
Vice Mayor Ojakian said because only five Council Members were present, three Council Members were necessary to pass a motion. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the following: (1) Approve a six-month trial of the “Recommended Preferred Option” traffic calming plan for Downtown North, provided that the design was acceptable to the Fire Department, Police Department, and PASCO, and that there was appropriate signage as discussed by the Commission; and (2) Approve a new Lytton neighborhood traffic calming study with the scope of work and consultant contract to be approved later by the City Council. Council Member Burch said the concern expressed by Council Member Mossar was understandable. The City should be clear in stating the solution was not a “one-size-fits-all” that could be applied to other neighborhoods, but was a specific solution to a specific problem. The motivation for approval was the fact the proposal was a trial to answer the extreme cut-through traffic problem. He hoped the lack of immediately available funds would not prevent the trial from moving forward. The Lytton Avenue signals could be synchronized to make the plan more effective. The proposal was a trial that should be supported. Council Member Lytle said the recommendation and corresponding support from staff and the P&TC in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-33 was convincing. A great deal of testimony was voiced by the neighborhood in a previous public hearing that the alternative was the only one that would accomplish the objectives. She was also persuaded by the testimony about neighborhood and government partnership and neighborhood self-determination in designing the projects. The street closure concept was introduced around ten years prior in its original discussions with the neighborhood. Precedence was already established in other areas of the City for closing streets and in Evergreen Park and College Terrace, people showed up to testify to the great advantage to having the measures implemented in their neighborhoods. Although controversial at the time of introduction, most residents were currently supportive and desired additional measures implemented in their areas. If the motion passed, staff was asked to also consider Development Impact Fee mitigation measures from the Comprehensive Plan. Several quality-of-life issues were discussed as appropriately mitigated through Development Impact Fees as growth in the Ten-Year Plan occurred. Neighborhood traffic calming was one of the issues along with parks and community centers. It was important for the Council to receive a report about where the City stood on getting the fees in place. Council Member Mossar asked the City Manager if the motion should pass and the City approve the trial, how would it be financed? The trial was $190,000, which was greater than the $100,000 per year
02/05/01 91-361
approved by the Council and other projects were already slated to receive the $100,000. Mr. Benest said the staff would develop a CIP for the plan, which would be submitted to the City Manager’s Office and, through a collaborative process with all departments, staff would rank that project with other infrastructure projects. A Council policy, which he would aggressively promote, prioritized focusing capital dollars on existing infrastructure. Staff would return to the Finance Committee in late spring 2001 and ultimately to the Council in June with a proposal for the CIP program. Council Member Mossar clarified the project would appear in the CIP deliberations for budget year 2001-02. Mr. Benest said yes. One decision was whether all the neighborhood traffic calming dollars in the 2001-02 and 2002-03 budgets should be allocated for other projects or focused on the proposed project. Council Member Mossar asked what would occur when the trial was over in six months if the project was funded. Mr. Benest said the Council would then have to decide if it would fund a new, major infrastructure project of approximately $700,000 and whether that project would take precedence over existing infrastructure projects identified in the Ten-Year Plan. Assuming Council wanted the project to take precedence, a decision would need to be made as to where it ranked in terms of the other new infrastructure projects. Council Member Mossar asked whether maintenance funds to bridge the gap between trial and final implementation were available. Mr. Kott said the trial devices would simply remain in place and would likely not require much maintenance. However, the devices would not remain attractive if in place for a long time. Council Member Mossar asked about reasonable alternatives for the Council at the current evening in addition to the preferred option. Mr. Benest said if the Council approved the preferred option, given the financial implications, staff could proceed through the process just identified. Staff could also discuss other options. Mr. Kott said staff had schemed out a few options, which had undergone at least some level of analysis and were discussed early in the neighborhood process. Other than the recommended preferred option and its modified generic version, the other options had not gone through the full neighborhood process and a full analytic process. The third plan included diverters, forcing turns so traffic could not go through. That plan was approximately half the cost of the recommended preferred option. The diverters kept the street grid open and because they forced turns, made the street
02/05/01 91-362
grid more circuitous. Another modified plan went through some neighborhood process that involved 14 traffic circles resulting in moderate trip reduction and speed reduction. People in the neighborhoods were not in favor of speed humps because of the appearance and local noise generated at the speed hump location, although it was the cheapest feasible option. The turn restrictions involved signage prohibiting left turns at certain hours at certain places. The cost of signs was trivial but the cost of ongoing enforcement was significant. East Palo Alto had tried the turn restrictions with some favorable comments, but involved a commitment of some enforcement personnel and inconvenienced residents as well. Council Member Burch asked whether the trial cost was the same in both the recommended preferred option and the modified preferred option. Mr. Stoffel said the modified preferred option had four fewer traffic calming elements, so the cost was approximately $25,000 less. Council Member Burch said it was possible then to move ahead with the trial and at a subsequent date decide whether the best version could be installed. Mr. Stoffel said yes. The design issues would all be included as part of the second stage, and was not as essential as the street closures. Council Member Kleinberg said the recommendations in the staff report (CMR: 440:00) contained five recommendations, but five were not included in the motion. She wanted clarification about what the Council was and was not voting on. Under the motion, approval would be given to the six-month trial of the recommended preferred option and the contemporaneous Lytton neighborhood traffic calming study. In the staff report, under the design section, staff would move ahead during the trial period to find funding for permanent installations and would work on the design. If the Council was only approving the six-month trial, she asked whether staff intended to move ahead assuming it would be approved. Mr. Stoffel said during the trial, staff could be working on ironing out some of the design issues with emergency personnel. Without funding, nothing could be built. Mr. Kott said developing and finding resources, was extremely time consuming with a very long lead-time in staff’s experience. It was very difficult in a six-month period, even if staff began at the start of the trial, to raise funding for such a project. Council Member Kleinberg understood staff’s comments. However, her discomfort was the presumptiveness of a trial for which staff was already designing permanent installation and seeking funding. It
02/05/01 91-363
created momentum and a self-fulfilling prophecy that tainted the trial. Staff would spend a great deal of time and be prepared for funding a project that the Council would have a difficult time judging fairly. It was important to remain extremely neutral or the trial was not fair. She was concerned that the “train not push the caboose.” After six months, if the trial was for six months, the temporary installations would be removed and either replaced with something more permanent or gone. Some evaluation period was necessary. Mr. Stoffel said if staff proceeded as it had historically, near the end of the six-month period, staff would obtain and evaluate data and return that information to the Council. In all past installations, if the trial proved to be successful, the trial elements would remain in place until replaced with the permanent version. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the six-month trial plus the evaluation period, at least. Mr. Stoffel said staff would try to conduct the evaluation during the six-month period. Waiting for funding and the design work for the permanent features caused delays. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the six months included the evaluation. Mr. Stoffel said yes. Council Member Kleinberg was troubled by the proposal. A number of points made the project an unattractive opportunity for the City. One was the fact that only 15 percent of neighborhood residents voted in favor of the trial. The Council had been flooded with emails, messages, and telephone calls both for and against the trial. An enormous number of residents either did not vote or felt their voice was not heard in the neighborhood process and were vehemently opposed. The level of vehemency and concern was high. She was also concerned about the delay in emergency response time, which was documented in the staff report and noted by the Planning Commission. She was also concerned about adding to the precedent of street closures in the community; it was not the first street closure plan. The potential domino effect could see one neighborhood after another stepping up to the microphone demanding the same treatment in their neighborhoods, which would only be fair. The City would then be faced with the problem of considering whether it was setting up a string of neighborhoods with diversions and closures and mazes. The plan was also not a traffic reduction plan, but a traffic calming and diversion plan, which moved traffic from one area to another. Clearly not enough was being done about the traffic. If she had been presented with a project to spend $190,000 on expanding the shuttle, she would have been the first one to approve. However, alternatives to traffic were not being presented. She was also concerned about other neighborhoods with
02/05/01 91-364
equally bad traffic, although they might or might not have had a study. The Lytton neighborhood, the Crescent Park neighborhood, and the Charleston neighborhood had bad traffic. One neighborhood after another could stand up and have the same argument in favor of street closures like Downtown north. The recommendation before the Council was the most drastic and the most expensive. In neighborhood discussions about what needed to be done to address infrastructure needs, not many discussed closing streets as the top priority for expenditures. She would have preferred expenditure on alternative transit, but would reluctantly vote in favor of the trial. The Downtown north neighborhood was encouraged to do a better job of contacting its neighbors. Council Member Mossar thought the net result of the motion was that the Council would be giving conceptual approval to a project and directing staff to find funding for the trial. A “yes” vote would not move the trial forward and could not be a promise to the neighborhood that the trial would happen because there was no money to even do the trial. The Council would be giving conceptual approval only for a project for which there was no funding. Staff would need to develop a funding plan. Vice Mayor Ojakian stated he would vote against the motion with reservations because of the reasoning just stated by Council Member Mossar. He was concerned about creating false hopes. A lot of time was spent financially to make sure money was available for projects in terms of existing infrastructure and finding new funding sources for new projects. He was unsure it was possible to find funding for the proposed project. If the motion failed, he would like to see staff examine other alternatives and return to the Council with a clearer idea of where new funding sources could be found and provide specific, clear guidance on how much through traffic should be eliminated, finding engineering solutions, and a timeline within which the proposal could happen. MOTION PASSED 3-2, Mossar, Ojakian, “no,” Fazzino “not participating,” Beecham, Eakins absent. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to direct staff to report back to Council on development fees as a source of funding for traffic calming and other quality of life projects. Development fees were already adopted as a mitigation measure and included as a policy in the Comprehensive Plan as a funding source. Mr. Stoffel talked about the State-required nexus report, which was required before the City could develop and enforce development impact fees. Over the next week, staff would put an item in the City Manager’s weekly memo giving the Council and update on where it was in the process. When staff returned with the CIP project for evaluation with other CIPs, an examination would be made of different kinds of funding, part of which would include projected development impact fees.
02/05/01 91-365
Council Member Burch understood Council Member Mossar’s comment that there was no funding and was only approving the Project concept. However, by approving the project, the Downtown north neighborhood was being informed that its concerns were heard. The idea of a trial was absolutely right, and he hoped more trials would be utilized. No one could be assured that a project would work but trials were appropriate. Vice Mayor Ojakian would vote against the motion, not because it was not a potential source of funding, but wanted to leave staff some latitude in how the funds were used or how funding the project was viewed. Council Member Lytle thought the motion implied latitude but expressed interest in receiving a report on something the City had already adopted as a mitigation measure and Comprehensive Plan policy for funding sources. Vice Mayor Ojakian understood, but since it came on the heals of a specific issue just moved, it created an indication that that was how the funds would be used. MOTION PASSED 4-1, Ojakian “no,” Fazzino “not participating,” Beecham, Eakins absent. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the September 29, 2000, decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, whereby the application of William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception [00-HIE-18] was approved. Approval was granted to allow the construction of a detached two-car garage within a rear-yard setback at a distance of 71.5 feet from the front property line and 30.5 feet from the street-side property line where 75 feet is the minimum distance required from any street facing property line. The property involved is an existing single- family residence (Zone District R-1), located at 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District R-1 Single Family Residential. (Continued from
12/18/00) MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar, to continue the item to a date uncertain at the request of staff. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Eakins absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Nextel Communications for a telecommunications facility at 675 El Camino Real consisting of twelve roof mounted antennas and an associated equipment room located on
02/05/01 91-366
the roof of an existing commercial hotel building. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zoning District: (PC-4465). Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the item represented an application for modification to an existing Planned Community (PC) zone, which would allow a telecommunications facility at the Westin Hotel, consisting of 12 panel antennas, primarily to be located on existing penthouses on the roof of the hotel. There would also be a 238-square foot equipment enclosure on the roof, which would be completely screened by a new rooftop screen. Both the Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommended approval of the modification to the PC zone change, which was similar to a PC zone change recently approved at Palo Alto Square on El Camino Real. Vice Mayor Vic Ojakian declared the public hearing open and receiving no requests to speak declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to adopt the ordinance amending Planned Community (PC) Zoning District PC-4465 to allow building-mounted telecommunication facilities, and approve the Environmental Impact Assessment application prepared for the project. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map)to Change the Classification of Property at the Intersection of El Camino Real and Wells Avenue Known as 675-695 El Camino Real/Wells Avenue from PC Planned Community 4465 to PC Planned Community” MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Eakins absent. Vice Mayor Ojakian announced he would not participate in Item Nos. 8 and 9 due to a conflict of interest because they dealt with property close to his home. Council Member Fazzino would be the Presiding Officer on Item Nos. 8 and 9. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a tentative map to subdivide a 35,540 square feet (0.82 acre) parcel at 777 Bryant Street into 30 air space condominiums. File No. 00-SUB-06. Environmental Assessment: an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the condominiums to be built on the site were still going through site plan review and the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) design review process. Therefore, the conditions of approval recommended by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Historical Review Board (HRB) were not yet final. Therefore, condition No. 19 should be amended to read: “the subdivider shall comply with all the conditions of
02/05/01 91-367
approval for 00-ARB/HRB-111 as finally approved by the City.” The same clarification would apply to Item No. 9 as well. Council Member Lytle asked about the emergency vehicle access at 351 Homer Avenue. It seemed highly unusual that the City would grant an easement for emergency access on public property with such a minimal amount of compensation. Secondly, she asked how it would affect the historic hedges in the gardens surrounding the Rhona Williams property. Mr. Gawf said the first consideration was to protect the historic nature of both the driveway and the hedges. One of the things staff ensured was that any use as a fire emergency access was subject to all consideration of the historic nature of the property, for example, the driveway had to be built to certain specification, the curb and gutter had to be retained, and the hedge had to be retained. Staff considered it an opportunity to couple the development requirement with the need of the Williams Museum. If for any reason the Council had difficulty with the proposal, an alternative was possible that did not include the option. Council Member Burch asked about page 10 of the Final Conditions of Project Approval under “Police,” which stated, “All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday thru Friday, 9:00 am to 8:00 pm Saturday, and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm Sunday.” He could not believe construction would be allowed on Sundays or that late in the day on either Saturday or weekdays. Mr. Gawf said the reference was to the City’s current requirements. The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) would soon be going before the Council with a proposed change to the construction times. He believed the change was for no construction on Sunday, construction during the week limited to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, and Saturdays 10:00 am to 6:00 pm. If the City at any time changed the hours of construction, it would apply to the Summerhill contract as well. Summerhill Homes indicated the Monday thru Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm and no construction on Sunday was acceptable. The hesitation on the proposed change on Saturday starting at 10:00 am was difficult because of bringing in crews, hoping for the 9:00 am start time. Council Member Burch thought the City could give an hour earlier on Saturday if Summerhill Homes gave an hour earlier for the end of the day (5:00 p.m.) Mr. Gawf said the City had several options. If the hours of construction were changed Citywide, it would apply to the project as well. The other option was for the Council to modify the condition at the current meeting to reflect the hours. Council Member Fazzino declared the Public Hearing opened and receiving no requests to speak declared the Public Hearing closed.
02/05/01 91-368
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the item was a quasi-judicial matter, so any site visits by the Council should be declared. Council Members Lytle, Burch, Fazzino, Mossar stated they had visited the site. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the tentative map based on the findings (Attachment A) and conditions (Attachment B) of CMR:129:01 with changes to the conditions as follows: 1) Condition No. 19 should be amended to read “the subdivider shall comply with all the conditions of approval for 00-ARB/HRB-111 as finally approved by the City,” and 2) that the construction hours should be Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and no construction on Sunday. Council Member Lytle asked whether the motion should be amended to include the option that would not put emergency access or any encumbrance on the historic property at 351 Homer Avenue, which was public property. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the City would normally not have an easement on City property for access to a private property; however, the proposal was for a revocable license that the City could remove in the future if the property was used in a different way in the future. The property was unusually constrained because it had a historic building and a plan for the landscaping and development of the entire parcel, which included maintaining the space with the driveway in the location with the hedges. It also required that the surface of the driveway have a historical appearance. If Summerhill used the space, it would be required to remove the surface gravel, build an appropriate permeable but firm base, and return to the gravel driveway. It seemed to staff that under those circumstances the actual limitation and encumbrance on the City’s land was minimal and had the alternative to revoke the license in the future. The wording could be changed to indicate the license was revocable with an option to require an alternative arrangement in the future if the City chose to make other use of the land. Council Member Lytle clarified the alternative could be triggered at any point in time. Ms. Furth said yes. Council Member Lytle clarified there was design room on the property to accommodate emergency access in another way. Ms. Furth thought it involved either a hydrant location or other methods. Another reason for wanting the proposed approach was that it seemed to give more fire protection to the Rhona Williams house
02/05/01 91-369
by improving the quality of the driveway and making it more suitable for fighting fires. Council Member Lytle was more comfortable with the revocable license concept. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Ojakian “not participating,” Beecham, Eakins absent. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Mossar, to add that any fire access is only by revocable license. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Ojakian “not participating,” Beecham, Eakins absent. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: the Palo Alto City Council will consider a tentative map to subdivide a 51,300 square feet (1.18 acre) parcel at 325 Channing Avenue into 36 air space condominiums. File No. 00-SUB-07. Environmental Assessment: an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf clarified condition No. 19 should be amended to read: “the subdivider shall comply with all the conditions of approval for 00-ARB/HRB-112 as finally approved by the City.” Initially, staff considered an easement over City parkland but had removed that consideration and was using alternative means to achieve fire protection. Council Member Fazzino declared the public hearing opened at 9:25 p.m. and receiving no requests to speak declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Lytle asked whether the design issues in the staff report (CMR: 129:01) were set into the tentative map approval, or whether everything would be reflected in the final design approval. Mr. Gawf said the design issues would be reflected in the final design approval. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the tentative map based on the findings (Attachment A) and conditions (Attachment B) of CMR: 129:01 with changes to the conditions as follows: 1) Condition No. 19 should be amended to read “the subdivider shall comply with all the conditions of approval for 00-ARB/HRB-112 as finally approved by the City,” and 2) that the construction hours should be Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and no construction on Sunday. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Ojakian “not participating,” Beecham, Eakins absent. COUNCIL MATTERS
02/05/01 91-370
10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Ojakian announced that the City Council met with the Palo Alto Unified School District on January 29, 2001, and was able to work out the beginnings of a Memorandum of Understanding on the middle school issue and community services issue. On Tuesday, February 6, 2001, interviews would be held for applicants for the Library Advisory Commission beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. The interviews for the Council candidates will begin at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 10, 2001, in the Council Chambers. The City Manager would hold another Community Dialogue at Mitchell Park on Saturday, February 10, 2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
02/05/01 91-371