Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-18 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting March 18, 1996 1. Interviews for Human Relations Commission.............78-370 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................78-371 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 1996....................78-372 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Power Engineering Contractors, Inc. to Rehabilitate the Flow Meter Station for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant..............78-372 3. Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and CSS Associates to Include Schematic and Design Services for Americans with Disabilities Act Improvements to the Cubberley and Cultural Centers and a Study of the Council Chambers..............................................78-372 4. Implementation of Instrument Approach at ath Palo Alto Airport ......................................................78-372 5. The Finance Committee recommends approval of the staff recommendation to reject all original proposals for a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and provide authorization to contract with a consultant to update the needs assessment, to provide more extensive information about current CAD systems, and develop recommendations regarding in-house development versus purchase of a CAD system.......................78-372 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................78-372 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and M.C.E. Corporation for Installation of Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan for a Six-Month Trial Basis (CMR:168:96) (continued from 3/11/96)..............................................78-373 03/18/96 78-368 78-368 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of an application to rezone property located at 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court from RM-30 (Multiple Family) District to (PC) Planned Community District for development of 13 detached single-family residential units (CMR:188:96)........................78-384 10. Initiation of Community Commercial Zone Text Change for the Stanford Shopping Center..............................78-396 11. Mayor Wheeler re A Proposal for Creating Unity through City- Facilitated Community Action..........................78-396 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map to create six lots on a .77-acre parcel (approximately 33,750 square feet) for the development of six single-family detached homes for property located at 321 Byron Street, 654 & 666 Everett Street, and 308 & 318 Middlefield Road................78-419 9. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 9509, "60kV Bus Tie Breaker Installation..........................................78-432 10A. (Old Item No. 2) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Rabbit Copiers, Inc. for Rental and Maintenance of Copiers78- 433 12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........78-435 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m...........78-435 03/18/96 78-369 78-369 03/18/96 78-370 78-370 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:46 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 5:55 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Human Relations Commission ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 03/18/96 78-371 78-371 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wheeler welcomed the visitors from Niihari, Japan. She said it was the fourth visit of the students from Niihari to Palo Alto. She presented a proclamation to Mr. Hashimoto. Mayor Wheeler welcomed the Boy Scout Troop 57 to the City Council Meeting and Lynn Torin's students from the English as a Second Language class. Irvin Dawid, 3921 East Bayshore Road, representing the Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter, spoke regarding Proposition 192, Seismic Retrofit Bond, on the March 26, 1996, ballot. Jim Lewis, 1498 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding the broadcasting of the Palo Alto Unified School District Board Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 19, 1996. Mary McQuaid, 3990 Ventura Court, Executive Director of the Peninsula Area Information and Referral Service (PAAIRS), spoke regarding Mediation Week. Jim Baer, 3376 St. Michael Drive, spoke regarding mediation activities. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, spoke regarding the Candidates' Forum scheduled for Tuesday, March 19, 1996, sponsored by the Crescent Park, University South, University Park, Charleston Meadows, Palo Verde, and Greenmeadow neighborhood associations. Joseph (Tony) Ciampi, 555 Waverley Street, spoke regarding homeless issues. Richard Probst, 3439 Greer Road, spoke regarding the flood zone policy. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding democracy (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Michael Maurier, 646 Fairmede Avenue, Member of Board of Directors, Greenacres Association, spoke regarding the Hyatt development and 03/18/96 78-372 78-372 lack of the Palo Alto lawyers' response to the Greenacres Associa- tion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the Minutes of January 17, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 3 - 5. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Power Engineering Contractors, Inc. to Rehabilitate the Flow Meter Station for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; change orders not to exceed $20,000 3. Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and CSS Associates to Include Schematic and Design Services for Americans with Disabilities Act Improvements to the Cubberley and Cultural Centers and a Study of the Council Chambers; change orders not to exceed $13,000 4. Implementation of Instrument Approach at the Palo Alto Airport 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to reject all original proposals for a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and provide authorization to contract with a consultant to update the needs assessment, to provide more extensive information about current CAD systems, and develop recommendations regarding in- house development versus purchase of a CAD system. Further, upon approval by the Finance Committee and Council, staff would follow the City's Request for Proposal procedures for consultant selection and return to Council for approval of an agreement with a consultant. MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item Nos. 1 and 3 - 5, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2 had been removed from the Consent Calendar and would become Item No. 10A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 03/18/96 78-373 78-373 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and M.C.E. Corporation for Installation of Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan for a Six-Month Trial Basis (CMR:168:96) (continued from 3/11/96) Council Member Schneider queried whether the removal of the traffic mitigation devices in the Willows neighborhood resulted in increased through traffic that would impact the proposed devices. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the impact of removing the traffic mitigation devices in the Willows neighborhood had not been measured. The traffic circle across the bridge was removed which in and of itself would have a negligible effect, and another circle was removed further into the neighborhood. Traffic circles normally resulted in reduced speed more than diverted traffic. Many of the traffic management aspects originally included in the traffic study remained in place. Council Member McCown clarified when Council previously reviewed the item, a motion was made about using a traffic circle in place of the proposal, but the motion failed by a 4-4 vote. Mr. Overway said that was correct. The motion was to substitute a circle for the median barrier on Chaucer Street. Mayor Wheeler queried staff's opinion about whether a median barrier basically achieved the same purposes as a traffic circle. Mr. Overway said a traffic circle would not achieve the same objectives as a median barrier. A circle was similar to alternatives one and seven in the environmental analysis, and while a circle basically had a negligible impact on diverting traffic, it did have an impact on reducing the speed of traffic. The Policy and Services (P&S) Committee believed there should be a moderate traffic reduction on Lytton Avenue but not excessive. The inclusion of the median turn prohibition at Chaucer Street achieved what staff considered to be a moderate diversion of traffic. Without the median turn prohibition, there would not be the diversion of traffic. Council Member Simitian recalled the discussion referred to by Mr. Overway as well as the discussion in connection with Bryant Street and the bicycle boulevard. He recalled that while the circle on Bryant Street, which was the ultimate remedy of choice, did not reduce the number of trips to the degree that an absolute barrier did, the reason the Council majority voted to work with a circle on Bryant Street was because it did significantly reduce the number of trips on Bryant Street. It was not only a speed issue but there was a significant reduction. He remembered the discussion about 03/18/96 78-374 78-374 whether the reduction in the number of trips was significant enough that a circle was acceptable rather than an outright barrier for a bicycle boulevard and his recollection was that it was a pretty good size number. He queried the drop off in the number of vehicle trips on Bryant Street in terms of the difference between a barrier and a circle. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal did not recall the actual reduction in trips on Bryant Street but believed there were a couple of other reasons which probably accounted for the reduction of trips on Bryant Street. One was the left turn prohibitions on Bryant Street onto Embarcadero Street. For example, the traffic on Bryant Street could not go straight or make a left turn. Also, when staff counted the gross traffic on Bryant Street, the traffic overall in Palo Alto was slightly down. Nancy Bjork, 555 Chaucer Street, said the traffic was bad on Lytton Avenue because people did not want to drive on University Avenue. It was as unfair to shift the traffic over to Hamilton Avenue and Chaucer Street. The proposed barriers were much larger, imposing, and more expensive than anyone thought and they were a poor entrance into Palo Alto. While she opposed the recommendation, she supported Council Member Simitian's program for a circle as a calming device. She did not support shifting traffic from Lytton Avenue to Hamilton Avenue--one street with children to another street with children. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, urged Council to recon- sider the proposed traffic barrier at Palo Alto Avenue/Chaucer Street and the bridge. Three factors had changed since Council's original decision. First, the plans for the proposed barrier were now available, and it was an ugly and intrusive addition to the neighborhood. While the test would be a temporary installation, she did not see much possibility as a permanent installation. Secondarily, when Council made its original decision, Menlo Park was running its own traffic test which included a traffic circle on the other side of the bridge. Menlo Park's circle was landscaped, and a permanent installation had the possibility of being a visual asset to the neighborhood. Menlo Park chose to remove the circle. Palo Alto=s test of a much more restrictive traffic barrier that would never be an aesthetic improvement was not indicative of regional cooperation or collaboration on an issue of mutual interest. Thirdly, Council directed staff to conduct a study of trucks on residential arterials which had broad neighborhood support from Crescent Park, including 267 residential signatures and 14 signatures from Downtown businesses. That study did not begin on schedule due to budget constraints. She queried whether it was worth spending the money to test something which was already 03/18/96 78-375 78-375 known to cause neighborhood dissention and whether Council was willing to make the structure permanent if it reduced traffic along Lytton Avenue. If a portion of the traffic were bottle necked, traffic counts would go down. The barrier was controversial. It came up at the end of the entire study process, all of the negatives were at the edge of the City's defined study area, and there were many residents who would be affected by the structure who had not even been made aware of it yet. Crescent Park neighborhood supported the traffic calming devices but did not support traffic barriers which forced Council to choose to benefit one neighborhood at the expense of another. Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, opposed the proposed barrier at the intersection of Palo Alto Avenue/Chaucer Street because it would cut the 1100 block of Palo Alto Avenue off from the rest of Palo Alto Avenue, and it would also destroy the pastoral vista and the vista as one entered Palo Alto. The project was proposed barely 100 feet from her front gate, and she learned about it when she returned from Christmas vacation in January 1996. The original plan totally blocked off Palo Alto Avenue so that leaving her house as she normally would and approaching Downtown Palo Alto meant she would have to make a right turn into Menlo Park. The plans also mislabeled Palo Alto Avenue. While the plans were modified so that one could enter or exit "East" Palo Alto Avenue by making a right or a left hand turn, one could not go from Palo Alto Avenue to Palo Alto Avenue. While she was pleased that turn lanes were created, they also created a very restrictive traffic flow. The current plan relied on learned behavior and motorists seemed to be less tolerant than ever. She was frustrated by the proposal and urged Council to oppose it. Eric Doyle, 322 Laurel Avenue, Menlo Park, urged Council to eliminate or replace the raised median divider. He had lived in Menlo Park just across from Palo Alto for 25 years, and traveled almost daily between Downtown Palo Alto and his home. They owned property in Downtown Palo Alto, and he considered it to be part of his neighborhood. The same was also true for most of his neighbors. Geographically, part of the Willows was closer to Downtown Palo Alto than it was to downtown Menlo Park. Historically, people in the area thought of Palo Alto as being its downtown. The only reason Council had not heard much feedback from people on the Menlo Park side was that very few knew what was about to happen. If the proposal were based on a sudden in-rush of traffic from Menlo Park, it might be understandable. Menlo Park's data over the past 20 years indicated the traffic volume in the Willows area itself had been stable and that included the vicinity of the bridge going across to Palo Alto. Therefore, the device was probably not in response to some change in situation but rather a response to people who lived on Lytton Avenue in Palo Alto and 03/18/96 78-376 78-376 moved into an existing situation and decided it was in their interest to change it in spite of the cost or expense to their neighbors. Three years ago, the City of Menlo Park worked to slow traffic but prohibited the use of diverters. Now diverters were being used against Menlo Park residents. He urged Council to reject something that was guaranteed to create turmoil, confusion, and anger on both sides of the creek. He believed a device which would not actually divert traffic but rather slow it down would satisfy the concerns of the people on Lytton and Palo Alto Avenues and be acceptable to all. Barbara Hunter, 316 Laurel Avenue, lived in the Willows in Menlo Park and was impacted by the proposed traffic mitigations on Palo Alto Avenue/Lytton Avenue/and the Chaucer Bridge. The Willows was much closer to Downtown Palo Alto than downtown Menlo Park; therefore, much of her shopping was done in Palo Alto by using Palo Alto streets. In May 1995, she objected to the plan for a raised median on Palo Alto Avenue at Chaucer, aimed at preventing Willows residents from crossing the bridge to get to their neighborhood. In May 1995, Council adopted Alternative 5 which showed a raised median diverting traffic to University and Hamilton Avenues. The block of Chaucer Street between University and Palo Alto Avenues contained lovely homes. The raised median at the end of the block would be unsightly and cause drivers who wanted to make a left turn from Palo Alto onto Chaucer Street to instead turn right onto Chaucer Street, then use one of the driveways on Chaucer Street, and turn around and go back across the bridge into Menlo Park. People coming from Menlo Park to Palo Alto would cross the bridge and pass the "Welcome to Palo Alto" sign on the bridge and then be confronted with unwelcoming concrete. Alternative 5 showed the greatest percentage of traffic reduction on the blocks of Palo Alto Avenue between Chaucer and Seneca, and those two blocks had homes only on one side. It was astounding that to reduce traffic in front of very few homes, Council would consider an increase in traffic on Seneca, University, Chaucer and Middlefield. While traffic in one area might be placated, another problem was created in another area. She urged Council to consider removing the raised median at Chaucer before passing the allocation of funds for the traffic mitigation. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the burden of Ms. Hunter's concern was when she came from Menlo Park to Palo Alto with the barrier present, she would have to drive one more block and turn right on University Avenue rather than turning right on Palo Alto Avenue. Ms. Hunter said she could not return to Menlo Park the same way. She would have to go to University Avenue, which she avoided. She usually used Hamilton Avenue, and doubted the residents of Hamilton 03/18/96 78-377 78-377 Avenue were pleased that she used Hamilton Avenue instead of Palo Alto Avenue. She had to cross the bridge to get into Palo Alto or to return home. She lived within two blocks of the bridge. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified she could still enter Palo Alto by turning right on Palo Alto Avenue but could not return the same way. Gordon Cruikshank, 328 Pope Street (Willows), Menlo Park, owned and operated two retail businesses in Palo Alto. When he returned home from work, he sometimes turned left on Palo Alto Avenue. He opposed the raised median structure. The residents of the Willows had the traffic circle at Pope and Woodland removed, and a number of people from Palo Alto used that route. Everyone cut through traffic. He did not sense the traffic volume had changed much in his area over the past 20 years. The Willows took out the traffic circle which was so unpleasantly placed next to the bridge. He urged Palo Alto not to build the barrier because it was not in the interests of being a good neighbor. Becky McReynolds, 835 Lytton Avenue, encouraged Council to consider approving the Alternative 5 traffic plan presented by the City staff. She realized traffic was a problem for everyone everywhere, and as a society, broader solutions to benefit everyone needed to be addressed. The City had been studying the problem for three and one-half years and it was still only talking about a six-month trial. Basically, no one knew what the results of the trial would be. Rebecca Alzofon, 190 E. O'Keefe Street #3, (the Willows), Menlo Park, had lived in the Menlo Park area all her life, and held fond feelings for the residents and City of Palo Alto. For seven years she enjoyed a short commute to work on University Avenue, and she did all her business in Palo Alto. Since there was little shift in the traffic patterns over the past years, she concluded the effect of the traffic median on Chaucer Street at Palo Alto Avenue was to render her an undesirable outsider. She queried the likelihood that an obstacle like the one proposed would be contemplated if Palo Alto's boundary extended a few extra blocks to include her neighborhood. She would have expected government to make decisions by rational measurements; but since the Menlo Park Willows traffic issues developed, she learned by experience that some decisions were largely made by feelings. If the trial period were approved by Palo Alto partially to test for a reaction, one could look no further than the recent history in Menlo Park's Willows, the neighborhood the device would affect. The introduction of street obstacles in the Willows caused neighborhood upheaval and emotions to appear that were never present before. She could not imagine 03/18/96 78-378 78-378 Council wanted that to happen between the two jurisdictions. James Alan Cook, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, believed the genesis of the proposal was because residents in the Lytton Avenue neighborhood expressed concerns that the amount and speed of traffic were compromising their quality of life in terms of safety and noise. - When the Council-requested study returned in September 1994, the findings indicated "safety and travel speeds within the study area were not unusual for comparable streets within Palo Alto." Arguably, the core of the problem, e.g., safety, did not exist. The traffic median should honestly be referred to as a barrier. Barriers were abhorrent, and he found himself now being cut off from Palo Alto Avenue. His neighbors across the stream would have a better opportunity to avail themselves of access into town than he would. He thanked Council Member Simitian for suggesting something more intelligent, not a barrier that would prevent him from ingress and reasonable egress from his home, but a traffic circle. He wished Council would reconsider and not create an unattractive and discriminatory alternative which would only enrage the conviction of people within Palo Alto and Menlo Park. He believed his end of the neighborhood would be most severely impacted by the proposal, and he urged Council to seek out their concerns. Mark Bowman, 871 Lytton Avenue, thanked Council and staff for supporting the process from the beginning in December 1992, all the way through the approval in May 1995. The points being discussed were all discussed in May 1995, and while it was not an easy decision and there were good points on each side, the Council approved going ahead and trying the project to see if it would work. He drove to work through the Willows to get to U. S. 101, but he would now have to drive three or four blocks out of his way to get to Willow Road and the highway. The barrier probably affected the same amount of people going the other direction. In regard to the median versus a traffic circle, the idea was to reduce traffic not speed. He urged Council to move forward with the trial. Darrell Benatar, 881 Lytton Avenue, said the Transportation Division's process was an inclusive one which tried to minimize the amount of dissention that would take place. It notified the neighborhood and invited everyone to participate in focus groups. The issue was difficult and it created a lot of dissention. During the time of the study period, Council received a lot of complaints about traffic around the City and to some extent it helped people on Lytton Avenue because Council realized the problems were Citywide. The hope was that the six-month test would generate enough information to help decide how to handle similar situations throughout the City. The reason there were so many speakers in 03/18/96 78-379 78-379 opposition of the proposal and few in support was because the people in his neighborhood assumed the contract would be approved especially since the item was on the Consent Calendar last week. He urged approval of the contract between the City of Palo Alto and M.C.E. Corporation. Nothing had changed since Council made the decision to do the six-month trial. It was time to move ahead and when the six months were over, it would be appropriate to talk about the effects. Mary Haslam, 437 Chaucer Street, requested that Council drop the barrier at Palo Alto Avenue and Chaucer Street. She opposed the barrier because it would be unattractive and especially distasteful since it was at a City entrance. More importantly, the proposal meant one neighborhood would win and another would lose. That was divisive and inappropriate. Approving the barrier essentially indicated Council's belief that it was appropriate to take one neighborhood's traffic and dump it onto another neighborhood. With all the developments taking place, traffic was going to become a greater problem. She preferred a solution which did not involve one neighborhood winning and one losing. She preferred to try the calming devices to see how they worked. Another option might be to forget the entire thing until the flood plain study was completed because that study would show whether the bridges at Middlefield and Chaucer could be rebuilt. If so, the entire flood plain would be changed and residents would not have to pay the flood insurance. At that time, the entire intersection could be redone. It was important for a solution to lead to everyone winning. Fred Bjork, 555 Chaucer Street, said everyone made a lot of excellent points about not putting up the barrier. In the short block which existed between University Avenue and Chaucer Street including the "T" where Chaucer Street ran into Hamilton Avenue, there were 12 small children living there all under the age of 12. Many comments were heard at the subcommittee level about the great number of young people who walked, rode bicycles, and played in the area between Lytton and Palo Alto Avenues. It was incredible to learn that the process had gone on so long and that those who lived on Chaucer Street and Hamilton and Palo Alto Avenues were never informed or invited to any meetings. He encouraged Council to either do nothing or to install a calming device for all the reasons mentioned. Council Member Simitian clarified there were six Council Members present, and he queried how many votes the contract required to be approved. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said five votes were required to approve a contract. 03/18/96 78-380 78-380 Council Member Andersen was inclined to agree with Council Member Fazzino who previously indicated that although he was a strong supporter of circles and calming devices, the six-month period was an appropriate experiment to examine the procedure. While he was not persuaded to redirect or take another type of position, he clarified he would be carefully looking at the six-month trial. He was a supporter of the circle concept and was never excited about shifting traffic from one area to another. He believed it was appropriate to be consistent, and it was only fair to those who anticipated the decision. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to: 1) authorize the Mayor to execute the construction contract with M.C.E. Corporation in the amount of $33,560, for installation of the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan on a six-month trial basis; and 2) authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract for related unforeseen work; the total amount of which shall not exceed $5,000. Council Member McCown said Council had agonized over the same set of issues last May. Council Members on the P&S Committee also agonized over the issues during the past year or two. While she preferred the use of calming devices rather than diverting traffic, she believed Council tried to arrive at a middle ground that would not unfairly shift traffic from one neighborhood to another. Short of a trial, no one really knew how a change in turning movements at one intersection would impact traffic patterns. While Council had projections, no one knew for sure whether those projections were over or underestimated. There was no doubt there would be impacts especially on those people trying to leave Palo Alto. She did not believe Council could determine whether the impacts were acceptable without testing the barrier. If the trial resulted in the unfair unloading of traffic onto other streets, she would support removing the barrier. Council Member Rosenbaum said Council spent a great deal of time debating the issue and both sides were equally represented. He believed it was somewhat unfair to assume it was a "done deal" on the basis of no new information to reverse Council's position. It was a trial, and it should go forward. Council Member Simitian queried what happened next if the motion failed. Mr. Calonne said aside from administrative issues, the legal opportunities were that a member of the prevailing side could move for reconsideration at a later time. The other option was to continue the matter until a full Council was present. 03/18/96 78-381 78-381 Council Member Simitian queried if the motion failed by a vote of 4-2, and the contract required five votes, the "2" would be the prevailing side. Mr. Calonne said the two votes would be the prevailing side; however, the rules allowed a motion to rescind the previous action by any member. It might not make a practical difference in the subject instance. Mayor Wheeler queried whether the motion to reconsider or rescission had to be done the same evening. Mr. Calonne said the rules allowed a motion to rescind at any time. If the parties changed legal position, then matters external to the rules could affect it. A motion to reconsider had to happen no later than during the meeting. Council Member Simitian said his argument in May was that a more moderate middle ground was appropriate because the information Council had from the Transportation Division was the traffic patterns were not unusual and for that reason a more modest or incremental approach might make more sense. He also believed the best way to enter a test was not to take the most radical solution to see if that cured the problem but rather whether some incremental improvements were sufficient to meet the problems articulated by the public. Council Member Andersen said while Council Member Simitian's arguments were persuasive, his concern was that a decision prevailed, and it deserved a six-month trial. He supported the issue reappearing at the end of the six-month period if there were any indication of severe impacts on neighborhoods as a result of a diversion. He was not sympathetic with shifting traffic and creating situations where one neighborhood was pitted against another as a result of a Council decision, and he would be interested in the results of the study. Council needed to be careful about being amateur traffic engineers, and he wanted to see the information clearly before moving ahead. While he philosophically agreed with Council Member Simitian, he was not persuaded the other system would have as severe an impact as was laid out. City Manager June Fleming said the City had until April 27, 1996, to award the contract. In terms of options, five votes were needed if Council substituted the circle for the barrier. Council Member Simitian queried whether the contract could be awarded with the circle rather than the barrier as a change item. 03/18/96 78-382 78-382 Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Simitian queried whether Council Member Andersen had engaged the possibility of moving forward with a traffic circle instead of the median strip which would allow Council to provide much of what was previously approved. He still believed the median strip was overkill. While he was sympathetic with the process arguments, if Council Member Andersen would have voted against Council Member Simitian last May, then he had no interest in hanging people up. On the other hand, if Council Member Andersen had been there last May, and the will of the majority of the Council would have been to go with the circle, and if Council could still move ahead in a timely fashion, it was a different issue. Council Member Andersen was persuaded by the arguments made by Council Member Fazzino in May 1995. The issue was not "slam-dunk" in six months by any means, and he believed Council owed the neighborhood the trial. Council Member Simitian was still in the same place on the merits of the issue but would support the motion with the admonition that it was a trial. The reason he supported the barrier on Bryant Street was it was the one time when he believed Council had a clear consensus that the entire idea was to move the traffic off of Bryant Street onto another street. He was bemused when people were upset that Council had moved the traffic to another street. Council Member Schneider served on the P&S Committee when the matter was first considered, and she was unhappy with the plan at the time. When the plan returned to the Council, she voted with Council Member Simitian for the circle as a far better solution. In the end, she voted against the entire project because of the barrier. Not wanting to be an obstructionist, she would regrettably support the motion because of all the hard work the neighborhood had put into the process, and because it was only a six-month trial. Mayor Wheeler said it was ironic that Council Member Andersen associated himself with the comments made by Council Member Fazzino in May 1995, because she and Council Member Fazzino discussed the matter over the past weekend, and he had decided if he were at the meeting, he would switch his vote to support the circle. She remembered the experience the members of the Willows neighborhood had with their traffic diversion devices, and she was disturbed by the dynamic set up within the neighborhood by the inclusion of diverters and other devices. She believed Menlo Park's experience should have taught Palo Alto how not to run a neighborhood. She believed if the motion passed, Council would be back in six months 03/18/96 78-383 78-383 looking at an alternative to the barrier. She was disappointed at the small number of Council Members present that evening especially when the circumstances needed a five vote majority. Council was in an awkward position. She would oppose the motion because she still believed Council Member Simitian was correct in his initial view on the matter. While she realized it was a trial, she believed it was headed in the wrong direction, and the City could receive good information without the same amount of pain if the matter were approached from a circle device rather than the barrier. Council Member McCown asked for a projection of the six-month review date. Mr. Overway anticipated sometime during late November or early December 1996. Mayor Wheeler clarified the installation would occur quickly. MOTION PASSED 5-1, Wheeler "no," Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of an application to rezone property located at 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court from RM-30 (Multiple Family) District to (PC) Planned Community District for development of 13 detached single-family residen- tial units (CMR:188:96) Mayor Wheeler said the matter was a quasi-judicial item, and she reminded Council to divulge any communications with the applicant or with others who helped them formulate their positions. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the files indicated the site originally had six units on it, which were vacant and in poor condition as far back as 1988. In 1990, the Fire Department approached the property owner about the possibility of using the structures in a training exercise where under controlled condi- tions, the structures would be burned down. In 1991, an Architectural Review Board (ARB) application was approved for the property under current RM-30 zoning, and the project yielded 12 units in a townhouse-style design. The approval included a preservation of significant trees on the site particularly the large oak; it had primary access from Everett and from the Bryant Court side. Demolition of the six units was part of the approval and they were removed in a Fire Department training exercise subsequent to the entitlement being granted. The property had been vacant since the time the structures were destroyed. As staff understood it, the approved project was granted an extension in 03/18/96 78-384 78-384 1992, but it was never financed and constructed and the approval expired in 1993. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the application was for a 13- lot subdivision. Seven lots would be accessed off of Everett Street from two shared driveways, and six lots would be accessed off of Bryant Court with individual access ways. The proposed density was 14.9 units per acre which was within the range of 10 to 45 units per acre as contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Public benefits to the Bryant Court alleyway included nine streetlights about 14 feet high and 62 feet apart staggered on either side of the alleyway. The streetlights were a scaled down version of the streetlights on University Avenue. There was a three-foot wide pedestrian path on the south side of the alley with an area another three feet in width of truncated domes required for Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements. There were travel and parking lanes. Rather than losing parking along the northern edge of the alley, an alternative public benefit would treat the overall alley more as a court without the pedestrian path. The decorative paving would be in bands across the width of the alleyway as well as some accent bands along the edges but there would not be a delineation between pedestrian paths and travel lanes for vehicles. The overall court would be treated in a much more unified way and as a pedestrian and vehicle environment. She noted the public benefits were as stated in the ordinance which was Attachment #1 to the staff report (CMR:188:96). The public benefit as the applicant originally proposed was in Attachment #6 in their application letter. Some of the items the applicant proposed as public benefits such as outstanding architecture and saving the 42-foot oak tree were not accepted as public benefit but rather as good project design. The ARB reviewed the application on January 18, 1996, and recommended approval. There were concerns with the parallel parking arrangement and some of the materials proposed for the project. The project was also reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 14, 1996, with some minor comments about exterior materials and the parallel parking arrangement and also the possibility of including traffic calming measures along Bryant Court. Staff recommended approval of the project with the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian said the project reflected the Planning Commission's realization of the need for housing. As a natural outcome of some of the work on the Comprehensive Plan, over the past few years the Planning Commission had shown sensitivity toward design which explained why there were comments related to the exterior building materials or where garages were placed, etc. Care and attention were also given to safety matters which explained some of the discussions in the February 14, 1996, Planning Commission minutes about parking and how that should be 03/18/96 78-385 78-385 set up and arranged. The staff report (CMR:188:96) noted a couple of options to improvements of Bryant Court which arose since the Planning Commission meeting, and while the Planning Commission had not discussed them, his personal preference was option No.1, slightly-raised speed humps. Architectural Review Board Vice Chairperson David Ross said as noted in the staff report (CMR:188:96), the ARB approved the project on a 4-0 vote. While there were some concerns and conditions regarding further review of the exterior finish materials, the comments were also echoed by the Planning Commission. There would be another visit by the applicant to the ARB, at which time the details would be worked out. Council Member McCown queried the solution on the parallel parking on Bryant Court. Ms. Grote said currently the project proposed parallel parking as shown in the plans. There would be a parallel space the resident could back into in front of their unit. The ARB and the Planning Commission encouraged the study of an alternative solution, but the proposals had not changed. Contract Planner Paul Jensen said for units 1 through 5, the proposed garage space came in front Bryant Court and the parallel parking space ran in front of the garage and a portion of the front yard. There was a condition in the recommendations that unit No. 6 also include a parallel space. Mayor Wheeler asked if Council adopted the recommendation, whether the study would take place and whether it would be reviewed by the Transportation Division and presented to the ARB. Ms. Grote said yes. Condition 14(e) on page 7 of Attachment No. 1A, to the staff report (CMR:188:96) called for further study that would go through the Transportation Division staff and then the ARB for review and approval. Mayor Wheeler clarified there was not parallel parking on the Everett Avenue side units. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member McCown could not find the proposed parallel parking spaces in the plans Council received. Council Member Andersen queried how many cars would be able to park on Bryant Court and whether there would be cars on both sides. 03/18/96 78-386 78-386 Ms. Grote said the current parking on the north side would remain, and there would only be the parallel parking on private property on the south side. There would not be two row of parking. Council Member Andersen clarified there would be parking for six cars where the new units were plus whatever was already there. Ms. Grote said that was correct. The cars for the six units would be off the alleyway and on private property. There was also parking on the north side of the alley. Council Member Andersen queried whether there would be enough space in the middle for two cars to pass with cars parked on either side. Ms. Grote said there was enough room for one car to pass plus an area for pedestrians. Council Member Andersen asked whether the change which would occur as a result of the additional six cars would intrude further out into the actual alley. Ms. Grote said if the cars were parked correctly, they would be entirely on private property. Council Member Andersen referred to the below-market-rate (BMR) unit. The price would be approximately $107,000, and he queried how the price was determined. Mr. Jensen said the project was required to provide 1.3 BMR units because it was a 13-unit development, and 10 percent was the City's minimum requirement. Typically, the price was 80 percent of the median. The price of unit No.6 would be approximately $150,000. Since the project sponsor was obligated to also provide an additional amount of BMR units because of the 0.3 partial unit, they chose to apply it to one unit by reducing the price of the unit for the incremental cost they would be required to pay the City for the partial unit. The price was lower than what would typically be required for moderate income. Council Member Andersen asked where the $20,000 additional funds came from. Mr. Jensen said that was part of an earlier proposal. Council Member Andersen clarified at that point there was only one BMR unit priced considerably below 80 percent. Mr. Jensen said as noted in the staff report (CMR:188:96), the BMR unit was not a public benefit per se because the applicant was meeting the minimum obligations. 03/18/96 78-387 78-387 Council Member Andersen clarified the only public benefit identified at that point was the street itself, which was normally something the City would do anyway. Ms. Lytle referred to page 2 of Attachment No.1 to the staff report (CMR:188:96). The benefit findings before Council reflected that the design of the project was inherently more compatible than a conventional zoning would yield in that it reflected more of the traditional patterns in the surrounding neighborhood, allowed for more use of the alleyway in terms of facing units, addressed street-scape in a more pedestrian-friendly manner than the traditional zoning might, and the type of unit yielded would not necessarily come from conventional zoning, either RM-30 or R-1 which would also be allowed under the RM-30 regulations. The right-of-way improvements also went beyond what the City would traditionally require of a project in that special pavement treatments or lighting fixtures would not be a standard requirement for the frontage of a project. Council Member Andersen clarified the difference was between the color in the concrete approach and the kind of lighting fixtures being used, and the design. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Simitian understood from the materials provided that staff distinguished between inherent quality of design, and did not consider it a public benefit because projects should be well- designed. On the other hand, looking for public benefit inherent in the proposed project, as distinguished from asking for extras, was when the case was made that it was inherently beneficial to the public to have a particular housing type as contrasted with what the community would receive if one went with the standard zoning. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Simitian referred to the improvements along Bryant Court and said the issue was also the length of the improvements as opposed to the extent of the improvements within that relatively short corridor. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Mayor Wheeler queried the fate of the large, healthy tree on Bryant Court. 03/18/96 78-388 78-388 Mr. Jensen said if the tree were in the area of unit No.1, which was roughly the corner of the property, it could be an incensed cedar, which was one of the trees which was listed in the inventory. The arborist who prepared the report went through a condition charting of each of the trees and identified which were worth preserving and which had problems. Mayor Wheeler referred to the utilities. The renderings reflected a beautiful, improved alleyway, and she assumed the standard terms and conditions requiring applicants to underground the utilities at least along the portion of the alleyway the project affected applied. There were two or three other unattractive standard utility poles along the Bryant Court right-of-way, and she queried whether those would be impacted by the application. Ms. Grote said there was not currently any condition or requirement to underground the rest of the utilities other than those along the frontage of the project. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Scott Ward, Classic Communities, applicant, 1068 East Meadow Circle, encouraged support of the Planning Commission, ARB, and staff recommendations to approve the proposed project. The project was well conceived, designed, and favorably received by the neighborhood. The project addressed a need in the new home marketplace and was consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. He clarified Classic Communities did not assert the project would address a need in the new home marketplace in the Palo Alto community lightly. He clarified the highest sales price on the Times Tribune site was not $720,000, but about $650,000, and only four of the units sold for more than $600,000. All of the lots had both primary and secondary dwelling units on them so the buyer effectively purchased two homes for the price of one. He also clarified none of the sales contracts had closed at that point. In terms of dollars per foot calculations, the homes sold for about the same price as other homes in the Downtown north neighborhood. Secondarily, Classic Communities voluntarily accepted lower prices than it could have obtained. The Dutch auction process had been utilized for centuries in different marketplaces and was designed to achieve a price for a similar type of unit and not necessarily the maximum price for the particular unit. He encouraged thinking of it as a lowest common denominator approach, e.g., if there were four units of a particular type available, the four highest offers were accepted, but the home sold for the fourth highest price. He queried how many homeowners voluntarily elected to accept a third, fourth or fifth highest price offered for a home. If Classic 03/18/96 78-389 78-389 Communities wanted to focus only on maximizing the sales prices of the units, it would have engaged in a different process. Little advertising was done, the units were not modeled, and they were not presented to the brokerage community. Yet, the project ended up with about 300 interested parties. Ultimately, when Classic Communities took the homes to auction on the limited basis, it had 50 offers for 10 units. The applicant took its responsibility as corporate citizens seriously. In terms of the advance sales, it was not uncommon for a developer to reserve units in a project, and in fact, many developers were required by the terms of their financing to do so. It was absolutely typical for a developer to release units on a phase basis and in popular projects, for prices to increase sometimes significantly between phases. In the subject case, advance sales were made at a market rate in order to secure agreements with several parties who were highly motivated to purchase the homes. The advance sales were not made on a discounted basis designed to favor friends. In the PC application, the applicant projected the homes would sell in the mid- $300,000 to mid-$400,000 range. The applicants also stipulated in the application that the homes would sell for whatever price the market would bear. A unit was lost in the approval process. When the projection was made, there were about 40 homes for sale in the Downtown north neighborhood as documented by the multiple listing service (MLS). When the Times Tribune site went to market, there was one home on the market available for sale and a transaction was pending on it. Obviously, the market changed in the intervening 18 months. Even so, the applicant failed to appreciate the distinctive character of the Palo Alto market since it had not had the same experience in other communities. Regarding the representations made in the application with respect to the prices for the homes, Classic Communities represented that the homes would sell in the high $300,000s to high $400,000s before the Times Tribune experience, and based on it, the homes would sell in the low $400,000s to low $500,000s. Regarding public benefit, he believed the proposed housing filled a gap in the range of choices in Palo Alto, and the housing was priced in the middle range for Palo Alto. With respect to the homes on the Times Tribune site, there was a gap between a $300,000 condominium and a $700,000 single-family home, and the project was clearly within that range. While the applicant expected to be at the low end of the range, they might be in the middle to higher end. The entire range appeared to be ratcheting up at the moment. The buyer profile was consistent with their projections, e.g., they had a number of first-time buyers, many older couples who were leaving larger homes on larger lots, and several young families. The applicant was protective of its goodwill in the community. He referred to a letter from one of the buyers who had lived in Palo Alto from 1976 to 1984 and had not been able to buy anything in Palo Alto since that time. The buyer was moving his family into one of the Times 03/18/96 78-390 78-390 Tribune site homes and was pleased to be a part of the community. Classic Communities continued to focus on the substance and merits of the project and believed it provided an opportunity to create another high-quality new community that would be integrated into the Downtown north context and would provide a housing choice not currently prevailing in the marketplace. Based on a series of meetings with the neighbors and the support of the Planning Commission and ARB, the applicant was confident he/she was on the verge of accomplishing the goal a second time. Regarding the parallel parking space, he did not believe Council's drawings showed the parallel parking space. The applicant took seriously the direction from the Planning Commission and the ARB to find another way to make it work, and therefore, in the latest set of plans, the head-in space only was depicted, which would provide for traffic to circulate along Bryant Court clear of the guest spaces that would be parked head-in, and there would be no obstruction in Bryant Court with respect to parking. On the BMR question, typically developers elected to opt out of the requirement because they feared contamination of a project by the introduction of a low income buyer. The applicant did not have that fear and was happy to have the unit in the project and to meet his/her obligation in that manner. With respect to public benefit, the applicant's obligation typically would only be to improve one-street section or about 2,000 square feet of Bryant Court as opposed to the more than 10,000 square feet proposed for improvement. As the applicant understood the Utilities Department, the balance of the undergrounding activity apart from the applicant's frontage along Bryant Court was scheduled for sometime between the year 2008 and 2011. Council Member McCown said Council's plans did not depict the parallel parking scheme but rather the head-in parking scheme. She clarified the applicant proposed the head-in scheme, and queried whether staff concurred. She was concerned Council was supposed to approve that aspect of the plan that evening and she was not clear on it. Mr. Ward was comfortable with the direction of the staff recommendation that it return to the ARB for final approval. He was trying to demonstrate that the applicant was open to alternative ways to provide the parking. Council Member McCown clarified Council was not approving a specific solution to the parking situation but rather it would be worked out. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Condition #14(e) indicated the parking alternative would return to the Transportation Division staff as well as the ARB for final review and approval. 03/18/96 78-391 78-391 Council Member McCown said her concern over the issue was whether realistically usable spaces were being provided because it was the second required space. If there were some issue that could not be resolved, she was concerned about leaving the matter dangling if it really affected the number of units or how units were placed on the site. It seemed to her it could be a significant issue, and she did not hear a high degree of certainty that there was an obvious solution. Mr. Ross said the parking issue was actually resolved before it reached the ARB. The ARB raised the question, but he believed the Transportation Division staff endorsed the parallel parking plan. Council Member McCown understood from the ARB minutes there was still a concern about whether the parallel parking scheme was really going to be usable. Ms. Lytle said the concern was whether people would park the way the parallel parking was currently designed or whether they would in reality use the nose in parking, which was the revision the applicant placed in the Council=s packets but which was not the set of plans referenced in the Ordinance. Staff would study further whether it was realistic to do parallel, nose in, or a combination of the two but did not believe either option was a significant issue for the project design. It was more of a subtle detail staff believed could be worked out at the ARB. Council Member Andersen thanked Mr. Ward for the extensive explanation of some of the issues with regard to the Peninsula Times Tribune site. He queried whether there would be advance sales on the subject project. Mr. Ward did not currently have a marketing plan in place for the subject project nor did he have a marketing plan in place for the Times Tribune project until about a week before it went to market. It could be argued that to the extent all of the homes were exposed to the marketplace, it was conceivable the prices would be even higher. The applicant did not have a particular need for advance sales. Council Member Andersen queried the benefit of an advance sale. Mr. Ward said in the subject instance, a number of parties had been in contact with Classic Communities for quite some time and had expressed a strong desire to purchase one of the homes. Their objective as businessmen was to take advantage of that motivation to secure revenue for a portion of the project. A price was put to the most highly motivated set of buyers. 03/18/96 78-392 78-392 Council Member Andersen clarified those prices might be lower than future prices if all the units were done at the same time. Mr. Ward said it was not uncommon to establish what one perceived to be a provisional price to see how the market responded. If the market received it favorably, then the price might be increased to the point where the market did not receive the units favorably. Council Member Andersen queried how much interest was generated. Mr. Ward said by the time the units were made available for sale, there was an interest list of about 300 parties. The definition of interest in their minds was a telephone contact. Council Member Andersen said the applicant also indicated the prices would be somewhere within the mid-$400,000 to low $500,000 range. Mr. Ward said assuming current market conditions prevailed at the point at which the units were expected to be delivered but there were no guarantees. Council Member Andersen said some communities had some type of add- ons into the BMR fund when prices went beyond a certain level, and he queried how the applicant felt about it. Mr. Ward had not experienced such a thing in other communities, and staff had not conveyed any such provision. As a policy matter, it would require significant additional study because it had implications he was not prepared to address. Council Member Rosenbaum disclosed a telephone conversation with Mr. Ward earlier in the day. Clearly, the reason Council was concerned about the cost of the Times Tribune site units was because some Council Members felt foolish by what was said a couple of years ago about why they were approving the project in terms of fulfilling a certain market nitch for the public. Even as recently as a few months ago, there were signs on the property indicating what the prices were going to be. In the end when it did not turn out that way and when it was further compounded by the fact that not all of the units were available to the public, he believed there was some understandable notice taken. Council was looking for, and so far was not getting, some indication that the current 13 units would be treated differently so there was not the same reaction. Mr. Ward clarified a sign was not posted on the property indicating the price of the units. For a period of time, however, a sign had 03/18/96 78-393 78-393 been posted that the homes would be priced from $379,000. When the decision was made to make the homes available starting at $399,000, the sign was removed. The argument initially made with respect to the Times Tribune site project and its positioning in the marketplace was still valid. There were no other new single-family homes available in the community priced in the low $400,000 to low $600,000 range. The applicant did not assert that the units were moderately or affordably priced homes, but it was a segment of the marketplace where there were not a lot of offerings in Palo Alto. There was no particular need to reserve the units in the subject project for any sort of advance sale. Council Member Rosenbaum said the applicant mentioned the quoted price of $720,000, which he believed someone bid for the unit, but it was not going to be the sales price. Mr. Ward said in the subject instance, some people apparently approached the auction as a sort of gaming strategy in which the belief was if they bid a high price, a price they did not actually intend to close on, it would put them in a position to secure a unit as the price was established by those who were actually bidding what they believed to be the market values of the homes. That was the case with respect to the $720,000 offer. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the buyer reneged and was not going to pursue the home. Mr. Ward said the buyer was notified that his/her bid was the winning bid and was invited to enter into a contract to purchase the home at that offering price. The bidder declined the offer. Mayor Wheeler asked about fate of the large, healthy tree on Bryant Court. Mr. Ward believed it was an evergreen tree in close proximity to lot No. 5 on the drawing, and it was proposed for removal. Mayor Wheeler asked why. Mr. Ward said the tree conflicted with the location of a driveway apron or a porch. There were seven feet of setbacks from the Bryant Court right-of-way line to the single-story porch structure and about another three feet to a two-story element of the homes which fronted along Bryant Court. The trip line of that tree was probably a radius of about 15 feet. There was not enough clearance. Mayor Wheeler clarified the slated removal was not because of the condition of the tree but rather because of the building plans. 03/18/96 78-394 78-394 Mr. Ward believed the arborist found the tree to be a reasonably healthy but not highly valued specimen. RECESS: 9:50 P.M. - 10:07 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to bring Item Nos. 10 and 11 forward for the purpose of a continuance. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. 10. Initiation of Community Commercial Zone Text Change for the Stanford Shopping Center 11. Mayor Wheeler re A Proposal for Creating Unity through City- Facilitated Community Action MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to continue the Item Nos. 10 and 11 to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. Item No. 7 Discussion Continued: Public Hearing re 315-335 Everett Avenue/ 332-340 Bryant Court Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, said about 30 years ago he devised a review process for planned unit developments that analyzed high- density residential buildings, the kind which went six or more stories in height and created shadows, etc. One of the problems was what to do with vacant land and how to evaluate its appropriate density. By studying the number of bedrooms in the living units and relating it to the gross residential area or acres, it was possible to get another parameter to evaluate different types of residential development. In other words, four bedroom houses in a standard subdivision tended to generate a certain number of people as residents, and cars. He did a little figuring to determine what the present project would look like and how it compared with the Times Tribune project site. The particular project had six three- bedroom units, and seven four-bedroom units, which totaled 46 bedrooms. The population per gross residential acre would be 43.5. The curb parking space available on the public street per unit was seven-tenths, less than one parking space per unit could park at the curb. Parties or gatherings would create a parking problem in any project area that did not provide reasonable amount of on- street parking in addition to the off-street parking. Comparing the proposed project with the Times Tribune site, the population per gross residential acre there was 33.3 or about twice the number of curb parking spaces per unit. He cautioned Council to be careful about establishing PC districts. He was particularly 03/18/96 78-395 78-395 concerned about rezoning the particular site when it was already zoned RM-30. He believed it was an unnecessarily high residential density and there was inadequate on-street parking. Steve Frankel, 351 Byrant Court, lived across the court from the proposed project. He had been involved in most of the public presentations about the project and generally supported the product outlined. There were still some unresolved issues mentioned in the Ordinance regarding speed control down Bryant Court, the parking, the court surface, the street lighting, numbers, and locations. He wanted to ensure the public input would still be a part of the process once the ordinance was approved. The other issue was whether the new utilities would be sized for addition to the existing systems by the property owners on Bryant Court. If that were not normally part of the Ordinance, he requested it be included. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, believed the public benefit was weak. Council should accept the BMR housing unit. A contribution to the BMR program should be tied to the cost of the houses so if the houses sold for $500,000 or $600,000, the City actually profited in the BMR program. The market was strong, and it made no sense to artificially use $39,000 figure to reduce the price of the BMR unit to $107,000. She believed anyone in Palo Alto would be delighted to pay $146,000 for a three-bedroom, two- bath house. She was concerned about how the street trees would fare after the project because frequently trees were damaged during the construction process. She suggested irrigation and maintenance of the street trees be tied to the construction. For example, if a tree died within a year, it would be replaced and irrigation would be tied to the houses so the trees had a chance. With reduced sized lots, there was little soil, so if the street trees were not watered and cared for properly, they would not survive. She was confused about the parking in the alley. The plans showed people walking down the middle of the alley, yet the report repeatedly referred to speed problems not yet addressed. The old mature oak on Lot No. 9 was a big responsibility. It would be costly to maintain, and the responsibility for it would fall on one individual. It would have been a public benefit if the cost to maintain the oak were shared. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to the previous project proposed for the site which went before the ARB and possibly the Council for approval at a time when there were some rental units on the property. That project required compliance with Housing Program 9 of the Comprehensive Plan where the developer was required to meet two out of the three conditions for the preserva- tion of rental housing. The project had an unusual history because those houses were demolished after project approval but the project 03/18/96 78-396 78-396 never went forward. The new owner essentially bought a vacant piece of land and got out of the requirements of Housing Program 9. That was an example of what happened when housing was demolished before there was project approval. In November 1995, Council approved new Building Code provisions that allowed anyone to demolish housing before project approval, and Council was told there were no policy implications of that action. The unusual case for the subject property would be a general case in the City, e.g., developers with multiple-family parcels could demolish existing housing and not have to abide with Housing Program 9. Council should revisit the issue of allowing demolition before approval for a new project. Page 4 of the staff report (CMR:188:96) provided a table to compare the various regulations of the proposed project - with both RM-30 and R-1 district regulations. He believed it was a misinterpretation of the Zoning Code and misleading to compare the proposed project with R-1 regulations. The purpose of the language in the multiple-family zones for developing single family referred to development within the RM regulations that met the minimum site area of those regulations. It had nothing to do with comparing it to something that was much smaller such as the individual lots. With regard to "minimum required on-site parking," multiple-family zones required on-site parking as an addition of resident and guest parking. The main advantage of doing a PC zone for the subject type of housing was it eliminated guest parking by claiming the applicant wanted to create something which had no ownership in common, and the only way to provide guest parking was with something owned in common. The particular site with reserved parking would require a higher amount of guest parking than a project with spaces that any resident could use. The parking item should show the actual total number of parking spaces that would be required in the RM-30 zone by totaling the resident and the guest parking rather than trying to show some vague ratio as shown in the report. Palo Alto did not have to look at other cities' regulations to determine the BMR sale price formula. Palo Alto started it, and for fractional units, it was a percentage of the total sale price of the project. With the proposed project, one unit should be provided as an actual unit on site, and for the others, the price could be based upon three out of thirteen times the sales price times the relevant percentage for BMR rather than just picking a number of $39,000 out of the air. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, said the proposed rezoning required some significant public benefit, and the only benefits offered were the questionable improvements to Bryant Court balanced against the loss of trees, and the supposedly moderate priced housing to be provided. He heard Mr. Ward say the pricing was all driven by market forces. To him that was a euphemism for we want to get whatever we can out of the houses. Mr. Ward should have been held to his agreement to offer the houses on the Times Tribune site and 03/18/96 78-397 78-397 presumably the next set of houses within some price range. That was the whole point; there was no other public benefit unless he did so. He had no objection to the project until he heard the testimony. He was concerned because he did not believe the public benefits were clarified and they were talking about a rezoning with an equivalent public benefit. Unless the public benefits were defined, he did not believe the project should go forward. Mr. Ward assumed the new utilities would be sized so that growth was anticipated and discussions had been held with the Utilities Department to that effect. With respect to the BMR requirement, it was a negotiated process, and he understood the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) conveyed to the staff representative the particular highest priority needs for a particular project, and that staff representative sought to have the applicant meet the need in the project. He did not understand the matter to the extent that if the market rate homes increased in value then presumably the limitation on the BMR contribution also grew. At 330 Emerson, Classic Communities developed a four-unit apartment building which would shortly be conveyed to the PAHC and rented by very low income individuals. That project presumably also grew in value at the same rate the Times Tribute site project grew in value, and therefore, he could argue a bad judgment was made in not seeking to cap the amount of the contribution. Based on negotiations with staff, he understood delivery of the units was the important thing. To pay an in-lieu fee and then seek to place those fees in the present marketplace was not a particularly cost- effective use of the funds. With respect to the previous project, those 12 units were approved with an average area of about 2,400 square feet. In terms of the actual intensity of use and the market positioning for those units as opposed to the units proposed, the units would have been priced substantially higher than proposed in the subject instance. He believed the public benefit was well defined, and he reiterated the amount of area proposed for improvement on Bryant Court was five times the amount of area that would otherwise be required to improve. In addition, the quality of those improvements was substantially higher than would otherwise be required to make. Bryant Court was in decrepit condition, and it was an area which needed to be addressed, and Classic Communities was in a position to do so, and it was clear what the program was. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Simitian said there was some ambiguity about the issue of affordability as a public benefit. His understanding was that affordability was not being represented as a public benefit attached to the project. 03/18/96 78-398 78-398 Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Simitian had pushed for affordable housing projects often in the minority of one or two, and if Council wanted affordability, it needed to be built into a project. His vote on the subject proposal would in no way be with any belief that affordability was attached to the project except with respect to the BMR unit. The affordability discussion with regard to the proposed project was extraneous, and it was important to be clear so people did not have unreal expectations. In terms of public benefit, Council Member Rosenbaum raised good points three or four years previously when he pushed Council to find public benefit inherent within projects by virtue of their design. The push was instead of telling an applicant what to do as long as there were enough extras, or to return to the City and ask for public benefit when the applicant would make the case that the rules did not produce the best project and that a more creative development was actually better for the public interest than following all the rules. The burden was then on the applicant to make the case to the Council. In terms of public benefit, staff said it believed if Council had the applicant do what the rules suggested, the project might end up being much less beneficial to the public than the one proposed on the merits. In addition, there was the incremental public benefits of the improvements on Bryant Court. He did not believe the discussion should conclude with all the emphasis on Bryant Court because it detracted from the direction Council wanted to go which was to determine the inherent public benefit in projects when Council broke the mold and let applicants present something outside the rules. Council Member Andersen believed there would be a significant parking deficiency with the number of spaces being provided. If, as a result of the design, there were not much flexibility in terms of parking availability, the neighborhood did not have a lot of parking space either. When he drove down the courtyard, he did not see a lot of space for additional cars over and above what was being discussed. He queried staff's thoughts on some of the issues raised with regard to guest parking and the options for the residents who had two cars. While he realized there was a trade- off in terms of the number of units, there was also a question of space and neighborhood problems down the road. Ms. Lytle said there was not a magic answer to where people would park. They would park on-street as guests just as they currently did for other developments in the area which had no guest parking. There was some ability to stack in the long driveways for the units which faced on Everett Avenue and there would probably be some tandem parking occurring. Other than that, guests would compete for parking. 03/18/96 78-399 78-399 Council Member Andersen referred to Herb Borock's point that the City was now in a position where people could actually demolish rental units and the City would find itself in a position where it might not be able to leverage the creation of the unit which was previously destroyed. While he did not require a response at that time, he would be interested in knowing whether the statement was accurate. Regarding the landscaping conditions for the old oak, it was on one property, and as he recalled, there was to be a specific landscaping plan in place so the property would have the yard completed in a manner most conducive to preservation of the tree. Mr. Jensen said that was correct. The draft conditions not only applied to Lot No.9 but to two other lots in which the tree canopy encompassed. The conditions required certain types of landscaping for those yard areas and a specific turf type because of the sensitivity of the drip line. Council Member Andersen clarified the conditions would be carried over into the ownership of the properties. Mr. Jensen said that was correct. Staff was working on draft conditions for the tentative map portion of the entitlement process, which included deed restricted easements. Mayor Wheeler asked whether any sensitivity was expressed toward the mature tree Mr. Ward indicated was in the way of a porch or a driveway when the plans were reviewed. She urged a design around it. Mr. Ross did not recall much concern about the tree plan. The ARB believed the arborist did a good job, and the trees being sacrificed were a good solution recognizing that some trees would be lost in a housing project. To save many more trees might result in fewer units. He had the tree plan for the site along with the arborist's recommendation for each of the trees. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the following actions: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. 2. Introduce the Ordinance, including findings and special conditions, rezoning the subject property from RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential) District to Planned Community (PC) District, allowing the development of 13 detached single-family dwellings. 03/18/96 78-400 78-400 3. Approve the Standard Conditions of Approval in Attachment No. 1A. 4. Approve the proposed setback variance (95-V-21) based on the findings in Attachment No. 2. ATTACHMENT No. 1A STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Most of the conditions listed below are standard conditions. These conditions would normally be applied to the project as part of the final ARB approval process. However, given that the project proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District, which includes the normal ARB process, these conditions have been incorporated into this recommended action. Major and/or special conditions are proposed for incorporation into the PC Ordinance for this project. Additional and more detailed conditions may be imposed as part of the Tentative Subdivision Map review and approval process. Prior to Submittal of a Tentative Map 1. The project sponsor shall test the sewer line on Everett Avenue for flow capacity. The project sponsor shall be responsible for any required upgrade of the sewer in conjunc- tion and in an equitable manner with other proposed develop- ments in the immediate vicinity. Prior to Approval of a Tentative Map 2. Conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map and the design of the Final Map and improvement plans/drawings shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented in the Environmental Assessment-Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, both on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. 3. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall show the location of all lot lines along with easements for deed restricted areas and reciprocal use of land for private yard areas and parking spaces. Draft conditions, covenants and restrictions shall be prepared and submitted as part of Tentative Map review. Prior to Recordation of a Final Map and/or Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 03/18/96 78-401 78-401 4. A construction logistics plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works Engineering Department, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo=s Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. This plan shall specifically address construc- tion staging and phasing along Bryant Court, during construc- tion of road right-way improvements. 5. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared. The plan shall include the details for installation of a catch basin in front of the project area on the Everett Street frontage and replacement of the sidewalk for the entire property width along the Everett Avenue frontage. The plan shall also show the drainage patterns for the whole length of Bryant Court. 6. The Final Subdivision Map and improvement plans as well as construction drawings for issuance of a building permit shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated September 18, 1995, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Utility Engineering Division. 7. Prior to the recordation of a Final Subdivision Map, final landscaping and irrigation plans as well as other pertinent improvement details including but not limited to above ground utility boxes and apparatus, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architectural Review Board, City Arborist, Utility Energy Service Division and Planning Division. The final plans shall include the following: (a) The landscaping and irrigation improvements for all front and side yard areas, as well as >concept plan= for private rear yard areas, as presented on the Development Plan. (b) The property owner shall be required to install a six foot high wood fence along the western and eastern property boundaries, extending from Everett Avenue to Bryant Court to comply with the provisions of Section 18.68.150(c) (PC District) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The details and location of the two fences shall be presented in the final landscaping plan and shall follow the same design theme of the development. 03/18/96 78-402 78-402 (c) Preservation of and protection measures for the large Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk identified as tree #13 in Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22) located at the center of the site, as recommended in the tree survey and analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3, 1995. (d) Preservation of and protection measures for the Coast Live Oak trees (trees #19, 20, 21 and 22, as identified in Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22) located at the western edge of the site, as recommended in the tree survey and analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3, 1995. Likewise, the same measures shall apply for the preservation and protection of tree #7 (Eucalyptus) located near the eastern property boundary. (e) The landscape plan shall include detailed measures and steps required for the removal, relocation and replanting of trees #6, and #15 and #18 (Canary Island Palms). (f) Minor adjustments in the Everett Avenue driveway curb cuts and aprons to preserve and protect the two Southern Magnolia street trees (trees #2 and #4). (g) The installation of, at minimum, two street trees along the Everett Avenue frontage (to accompany the four street trees that are to remain), to be located within the landscaped parkway between the sidewalk and street curb. These trees shall be planted at a minimum 24 inch box size, with the species and planting specifications as determined by the City Arborist and the Planning Division. (h) The final plans shall meet the City's Water Efficiency Standards. (i) Final Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & Rs) covering all issues outlined and required by conditions of approval. 8. Submittal of a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and implemented prior to demolition and throughout construc- tion. The plan shall include implementation of the recommen- dations contained in the report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3, 1995. The plan shall preserve and protect on-site trees #7 (Eucalyptus), #13, #19, #20, #21, #22 (Coast Live Oaks), trees #6, and #15 and #18 (Canary Island Palms to be removed and replanted). The plan shall survey and accurately map all trees to be protected and shall 03/18/96 78-403 78-403 include measures for their protection during construction, including a temporary construction fence to be erected around each tree that is to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing approved in writing by the Planning Division. The purpose of the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the dripline of the trees. It shall be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be removed until the final landscape grading is completed. The site and landscaping plan shall be designed to provide tree roots with air and water through use of perforated paving or other permeable surfaces. 9. The following measures shall be incorporated into the Final Map improvement plans and construction plans for issuance of a building permit to protect and preserve the large Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk diameter), identified as tree #13 in Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22 (Barrie Coate and Associates tree survey and analysis, November 3, 1995): Prohibit, through initial design and deed restrictions, all pavement within the dripline of the tree. Prohibit installation of turf within 20 feet of the trunk. If turf is installed within the dripline, the Bonsai Tall Fescue (Fescue arundinacea 'Bonzai") shall be used as it requires less frequent irrigation than other turf species. Any soil preparation within the dripline of the tree for turf installation must not involve rototilling that is deeper than three inches below the soil. Avoid the installation of irrigation lines within the dripline of the tree. Avoid construction access within the tree canopy. Implement the pruning and cabling measures recommended in the tree survey and analysis, referenced above. Require that the subdivision design include conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC & Rs) establishing a restricted use area and/or a deed restriction over the rear yard of lots #7, #9 and #11, as identified on the Development Plan. The restriction shall be worded and recorded to include all restrictive use and maintenance measures to ensure the long- term life and continued health of the tree. In addition, the 03/18/96 78-404 78-404 restrictions shall include violations and fines for destruc- tion or unauthorized removal of this tree. 10. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The project sponsor shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area, submitted with the Final Map and/or building permit. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the approval of construction by the Building Inspection Division. 11. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the final landscaping and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and the landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements, subject to ARB review and approval. 12. The following permits shall be secured from the Department of Public Works: (a) An Encroachment Permit for use of the sidewalk, street and alley. (b) A Permit for Construction in the Public Street. (c) A Grading and Excavation Permit. Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. 13. Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance require- ments of Section 18.83.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code applicable to all driveways within the development, to the satisfaction of the Transportation and Planning Divisions. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following shall be submitted for Architectural Review Board review and approval: (a) Exterior building materials shall be studied by the project sponsor. Consistent with the concerns and recommenda- tions of the Planning Commission high quality materials, particularly for exterior siding, stone/brick trim and windows, shall be required with actual samples submitted for Architectural Review Board approval. 03/18/96 78-405 78-405 (b) The exterior building material colors palette is accept- able, as submitted. However, a stronger contrast of colors shall be proposed to better reflect the range of building colors found in the surrounding neighborhood. (c) Detailed elevations of all fences and walls, calling out all proposed materials. Color and material samples of all fences and walls shall be submitted. (d) Final location, design and treatment of the pad-mounted electrical transformer. (e) The project sponsor shall study and submit an alternative plan to the "parallel" driveway parking arrangement proposed for Units #1-6 (fronting Bryant Court). Prior to ARB review, the City Transportation Division shall review the alternative and present a recommendation on the final preferred plan. (f) Detailed plan for the Bryant Court public right-of-way improvements as implemented per required conditions of approval. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the building elevations shall be modified as follows: (a) All fireplace chimneys shall be surfaced with the same exterior siding material that is approved for the building. Use of stucco material on the chimneys is not acceptable. (b) A "hip" rather than a "gable" roof design shall be used for the west elevation of Unit #13 to comply with the R-1 District daylight plan requirement. Likewise, a Αhip≅ roof design shall be permitted in-lieu of a Αgable≅ for the east elevation of Unit #8. During Construction 16. All public street trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory (Tree Survey and Analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, November 3, 1995), as required by this condition and as shown on the final landscaping plan, shall be protected. The street trees that are to be preserved and protected shall include trees #1, 2 and 4 (Southern Magnolias) and tree #3 (Evergreen Ash), as located and discussed in the analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coate (Attach- ment #3 of 95-EIA-22). The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition contracts and be implemented during construction activities unless otherwise approved. The following tree protection measures shall apply: PAMC 8-4-070. 03/18/96 78-406 78-406 Any modifications to these requirements must be approved in writing by the City Arborist. (a) All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six- foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two- inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least two feet at no more than 10 foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected (Public Works Department standard specification detail #505). (b) No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles, or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. (c) The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered. (d) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 17. Implement all measures required during project construction for the protection of the large Coast Live Oak tree located near the center of the site (specified under condition #8, above). 18. A new catch basin shall be installed in front of the project area along the Everett Avenue frontage. 19. All of the existing sidewalk along the Everett Avenue property frontage shall be replaced. 20. Dust control measures shall be imposed to ensure that tempo- rary air impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are reduced. Measures during construction shall include 1) the watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (early morning and early evening), 2) avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage into the public right-of-way and requiring contractors to clean-up spillage in the public right-of-way, and 3) requiring the contractor to submit a logistics plan identifying routes of transported earth material. 21. All construction activities shall be subject to the require- ments of the City's Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: (a) 8:00AM to 6:00PM, Monday - Friday (b) 9:00AM to 6:00PM, Saturday (c) 10:00AM to 6:00PM, Sunday 03/18/96 78-407 78-407 22. All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division. 23. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 24. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP=s) for stormwater pollution preven- tion in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP=s with respect to the developers construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (Federal Clean Water Act). 25. The following fire protective measures shall be installed: (a) Installation of on-site fire hydrants every 300 feet (model 76 type). (b) Installation of residential smoke detectors in accordance with UBC 1210 for R1 occupancies. (c) Emergency vehicle access in accordance with Article 10 of the UBC. (d) Installation of building address signage, per the specifications of the Fire Department. After Construction 26. All activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 and all of the applicable City codes. Ongoing (Throughout Processing and Construction) 27. City staff time required for the implementation and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor. ATTACHMENT No. 2 03/18/96 78-408 78-408 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE PC DISTRICT MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 18.68.150(c) 1. Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions are applicable to the subject property, which do not apply generally to property in the same district. Accordingly, the reductions in the minimum 10 foot side yard setback require- ment for Units #1, #6, 8, #12 and #13 are necessary. Specifi- cally, the subject property is exceptional in that it contains a large, Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk diameter and a 78 ft. canopy spread) located near the center of the site. In order to protect this oak tree,, new structures, pavement and private yard areas must be carefully placed and clustered, resulting in the need to provide large open areas near the center of the site, while reducing setbacks in other areas of the site. 2. The granting of this variance for reduction in the side yard setbacks of Unit #1, #6, #8, #12 and #13 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and would prevent unreasonable loss and hardship in that it would permit building clustering for tree protection and preserva- tion and would permit side yard setbacks which are in keeping with the typical sideyard setback requirements for single- family residential development in an R-1 District. Further- more, the reductions in setbacks would allow large setbacks for areas proposed for private, usable yard space. 3. The granting of this variance for the reduction in the minimum 10 foot sideyard setbacks of Units #1, #6, #8, #12 and #13 will not be detrimental or injurious to subject property or adjacent and surrounding improvements and will not be detri- mental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the proposed setbacks would be adequate to provide and maintain privacy, light, air and natural screening for future residents of the development and adjacent resi- dents. Furthermore, privacy, light and air would not be compromised given that the overall average side yard setback proposed along the western and eastern property lines is 10 feet or greater, which would be consistent with the intent of the setback requirement and will not harm any oak trees, necessary for screening the west property use. Lastly, the reductions in setbacks would not cause impact to the adjacent developed properties in that a) existing building setbacks for the two adjacent apartment structures are adequate to maintain light, air and privacy and b) the reduced setbacks that are requested would be consistent with the minimum sideyard setbacks required for single family residential development in the R-1 District. 03/18/96 78-409 78-409 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 Classifica- tion of Property Known as 314-335 Everett Avenue/ 332-340 Bryant Court from RM-30 to PC District" Council Member McCown associated with Council Member Simitian's comments at the outset about the issue of affordability of the units. She did not recall that approval of the Times Tribune site project related to any kind of commitment about pricing. She realized Council was excited about the concept of the smaller lot, single-family homes, and hoped the project would fill a price and type of housing gap. If Council were in a situation where a PC application proposed some substantially expanded entitlement of greater density and square footage, and the public benefit was some pricing of units, then there would need to be conditions associated with the PC to tie it down. In the subject instance, the project was less dense and designed in a unique way so as to provide a better project than the zoning would allow. Because of that, the situation was not one where Council would try to exact some kind of cap, commitment, or legal obligation on the part of the builder in terms of the ultimate pricing of the units. In terms of the parking, she needed assurances from staff that the conditions in the draft ordinance would provide the City with the mechanism to get sufficient protection for the neighborhood in terms of creating parking spaces as a part of the project that met the City's requirements. She understood the City would hold onto the commitment that there was to be two parking spaces per unit with the exception of the BMR unit. Staff had indicated, even though it was not spelled out exactly how it would be accomplished, that it would be subject to the further study and that there would be no project until it was shown how two parking spaces per unit would be accomplished. Ms. Lytle said the intent of the condition was to ensure that either the parallel parking would be demonstrated to be usable, available, and functional for the residents or nose-in parking would be designed. Council Member McCown clarified with that requirement, the units were being required to provide the same amount of parking that any other single-family, R-1 property in the City of Palo Alto was obligated to have, e.g., two spaces dedicated to each house with the exception of the BMR unit. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member McCown said to the extent there was other guest parking needs beyond anything that could be accommodated by the two 03/18/96 78-410 78-410 parking spaces, some of the guest parking might be able to park in a driveway or in the street, which was no different than any other single-family, R-1 property in the City. She wanted to make it clear that the City expected the subject project to do the same as, but no more than, what was normally required for single family units. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. The only caveat was that the project was more dense than a single-family development would yield so there would be more spill-over from guest parking than would be the case. Council Member McCown referred to page 3 of the Ordinance, which was Attachment No. 1 to the staff report (CMR:188:96), Section 3c(i), Site Development Regulations, which indicated, "The approved Development Plan requires the preservation of a number of mature trees within the development and along the Everett Avenue street frontage. No development or improvement on any home and lot, following initial construction and occupancy, shall result in the removal or destruction of these trees." She queried how the regulation would be communicated to the purchasers of the units. Mr. Calonne did not read the regulation as a tree maintenance section. The particular section referred to permit improvements in a backyard, such as a hot tub. He was specifically thinking about a case on Lincoln Court some years ago where a variance approval had a special no-building condition in the backyard. Council Member McCown clarified that while the next paragraph, Section 3c(ii), referred to future improvements occurring without the necessity of returning to the ARB, nothing could occur in a manner inconsistent with preserving the trees. Her main concern had to do with the parking question, and it was important for the record to reflect Council's expectation both to the people who would live in the units and also to the surrounding neighborhood. Council would rely upon staff to achieve an adequate plan. She hoped it would be accomplished. Council Member Simitian referred to the comment from the member of the public with respect to BMR pricing. The City was being provided with one BMR unit since its BMR entitlement was one unit out of ten. Then, in lieu of the City's remaining BMR entitlement of three-tenths, the sales price of the BMR unit was being further reduced by that amount based on three-tenths of an estimated price of a unit. The member of the public suggested a more accurate and more generous contribution level might be obtained if the City took three-tenths of the actual sales price of the units once they were sold. He asked for staff comment. 03/18/96 78-411 78-411 Mr. Calonne suggested that one BMR unit out of ten represented some cost to the applicant. He clarified the question was whether three-tenths of the discounted BMR price represented that cost. Ms. Grote understood the BMR cost was based on an estimated sales price versus an actual sales price, and the fee was typically taken before the units were sold. Council Member Simitian queried whether the figure deducted was the estimated sales price. Ms. Grote believed the figure was negotiated based on an estimated sales price. Council Member Simitian referred to page 2 of Attachment No. 7 to the staff report (CMR:188:96), which indicated the initial sales price of the unit shall be $107,550. This price was reached utilizing the City of Palo Alto current housing price guideline base price for a three-bedroom unit of $146,550, which was reduced by $39,000 since the project carried a ten percent BMR requirement, the $146,550 base price represented satisfaction of ten units of the project and the $39,000 reduction represented the remaining three units. He believed the $39,000 was a function of the $146,000 current housing price guidelines. He asked whether the housing price guidelines were off the shelf numbers or whether it bore some relationship to the actual sales price of the units. Mr. Calonne thought the sales price was the 80 percent number, e.g., what a person earning 80 percent of the median income could afford. Council Member Simitian understood the $39,000 reduction was based on the $146,550 figure. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Simitian clarified that figure came from the housing price guidelines. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Simitian queried what the housing price guidelines represented. Ms. Grote said it represented 80 percent of what a person earning the median income could afford. Council Member Simitian said if the City were trying to achieve a contribution equivalent to 1.3 units, then the .3 being claimed in 03/18/96 78-412 78-412 a price reduction was not driven by what an affordable unit costs but rather was derived from .3 of a unit in the proposed project. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Simitian said if the units sold at $500,000 each, 0.3 of a unit was more like $150,000. Ms. Grote said the figure was based on a projected sales price rather than on the actual sales price. Council Member Simitian said if there were 13 units and each were worth $500,000, then the City wanted one of the units as the 10 percent set aside, which was worth $500,000. The question was how one could say that 0.3 of that number worked out to $39,000. He believed that was the point the member of the public was trying to make. Ms. Lytle knew that $39,000 was intended to get at the 0.3 fraction of a unit although she was not sure about the calculation. If Council needed that information in order to make a decision, she recommended the item be continued. The mathematics were not apparent in the record, and she would have to return with the information. Mr. Calonne believed Council Member Simitian's concern warranted continuing the item if Council were so inclined. The Comprehensive Plan appeared to indicate that an in-lieu payment be calculated as 5 percent of the actual sales price of units sold. He was hearing that people used some sort of projected price to do that math. It was not apparent from page 2 of Attachment No. 7 of the staff report (CMR:188:96)how the $39,000 was arrived at. Council Member Simitian clarified the in-lieu payment was supposed to be 5 percent of the actual sales price. Mr. Calonne said the Comprehensive Plan, when discussing in-lieu payments for projects of ten or more units, stated the in-lieu payment was to be 5 percent of the actual sales price of each unit sold. Council Member Simitian queried whether it was 5 percent of the sales price for 3 units which was more than $39,000 but substan- tially less than 30 percent of the cost of a single unit. If there were 3 units which each sold for $500,000, 5 percent of each one would be $25,000 or a total of $75,000. Mr. Calonne could not respond with certainty. The particular portion of the Comprehensive Plan was not implemented in any set of 03/18/96 78-413 78-413 ordinances and there was a volume of administrative interpre- tations. He would need to confer with the Director of Planning and Community Environment in order to provide an appropriate response. Mayor Wheeler queried whether it was possible to act on the rest of the application and defer action on the part which appeared to be of issue or whether the entire item should be continued. Mr. Calonne said there was an opportunity to amend the Ordinance at a second reading, with Council direction. The amendment would be contemplated within the scope of the original action. He was troubled that he was unable to determine how the $39,000 was derived at as well as not understanding the basis for the number. Council Member Schneider referred to page 8 of Attachment No. 8 to the staff report (CMR:188:96). The bottom of the page reflected the Housing Price Guidelines, effective May 1995, that established an average BMR price for a three-bedroom unit at $146,550. The difference between the City's average BMR price of $146,550 and the proposed unit price of $104,550 was $39,000. Mr. Calonne said the part that was missing was the relationship between three-tenths of a unit and $39,000. Council Member Simitian believed since a second reading was required on the Ordinance, the solution was to move forward and if Council had a resolution on the amendment then action on the project did not have to be delayed. Council could work through the item although not in consequential detail of BMR prices. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that as a proviso prior to the second reading of the Ordinance, an amendment be entertained with respect to an appropriate calculation of the Below Market Rate (BMR) condition. Council Member McCown clarified the incorporation contemplated that at second reading of the Ordinance Council would have further information on how the calculation was determined, and it might be the basis for an amendment to the BMR condition in the ordinance. Council Member Andersen clarified if the Comprehensive Plan reflected 5 percent of sale, with the $39,000 figure, anything over and above taking the sales prices of the properties and the difference between that 5 percent and $39,000 would be the additional contribution into the BMR program. Council Member Simitian said that was direction he wanted to go, but the City Attorney indicated that what the Comprehensive Plan stated and what administrative implementation actually spelled out in detail might not be congruent. 03/18/96 78-414 78-414 Council Member Andersen believed, given some of the discussion about public benefit, that the BMR contribution was a condition. He did not believe the differential as being that far out of line with what was already contained in the Comprehensive Plan regardless of administrative history. Council Member Simitian referred to the issue of the care of the single specimen tree. The whole project, including the basis for the variance, was built around the need to preserve the single specimen tree. He asked whether staff had concerns about the ability of the single property owner over time to maintain or protect the single specimen under the circumstances. Ms. Lytle believed the City saw a poor track record on public and private accountability and preservation. She did not know that the City could do any more to preserve a tree privately than was laid out in the conditions attached to the project. Staff had gone to great lengths to preserve a single tree. Council Member Simitian said while he was not proposing a maintenance bond set aside, there were two or three different setbacks plus a variance all built around the starting point of the particular specimen. There was a applicant who designed the entire project around the desire to preserve the one specimen, but then the City was not in the position of knowing whether the specimen would be preserved. Ms. Lytle knew that maintenance bonds were reported to be an effective means of getting projects through construction with tree preservation conditions intact and complied with. She did not know, nor had she heard, whether such bonds were effective for the ongoing maintenance of a tree. She believed there would be great value having the tree on the property in the area. The ongoing maintenance costs of the oak tree versus the cost of removing it and whatever bond might be set was not considered. Mayor Wheeler referred to the issue of public benefit and said she was uncomfortable about declaring as a public benefit that which was a fault of the City's own zoning ordinance or lack thereof. If the housing type were one which the City found to be generally beneficial in the community and one which should be encouraged, she hoped the City would move along quickly to fix the zoning ordinance. It was foolish to say the City's zoning ordinance was broken and continually say it was a public benefit some project proponent to fix it on a temporary basis. If did not do the City nor an applicant any good to go through the very onerous PC process. As mentioned in her opening comments and questions, she would have preferred to see as a public benefit the undergrounding 03/18/96 78-415 78-415 of the utilities along the length of the court. She would not offer an amendment because she believed the public benefit as spelled out in the presentation was adequate and commensurate with the project. She would have preferred to have been able to justify in her mind and with the concurrence of her colleagues the addition of undergrounding the entire alley and believed it would have made a more attractive setting. Council Member Andersen said if an area was going to be trenched in order to put underground utilities into the area where the line currently did not run, it seemed it might be appropriate to consider extending the undergrounding beyond the particular project. He was curious about whether an opportunity existed to proceed with undergrounding that might have to be done regardless. Ms. Fleming said the issue was not considered. Council Member Andersen queried whether staff knew where the lines were going to be trenched. Ms. Lytle believed the project applicant preliminarily worked with the Utilities Department, but as presented that evening, there was no intent on the part of the Utilities Department to do the remainder of the work identified by Mayor Wheeler for many years. When the issue arose at the Planning Commission level, the applicant was encouraged to look into the opportunity for doing more undergrounding. Mayor Wheeler said the other concern about simply requiring further undergrounding as a condition was that undergrounding of utilities was not only an expense to the City or the applicant for a particular project, but it was also an expense as it affected other property owners and homeowners along the route. Those homeowners were not prepared to take that expenditure at that time. Mr. Calonne believed staff that figured out the arithmetic on the BMR contribution. With a projected selling price of $400,000 per unit, the Comprehensive Plan numbers worked out to be 3.25 percent per unit for three units at $39,000. The Comprehensive Plan had a table which reflected when down three units above ten, the number was 3.25 percent per unit. If that were backed up, it came out to an assumed selling price of $400,000 per unit. Staff would confirm the calculations. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map to create six lots 03/18/96 78-416 78-416 on a .77-acre parcel (approximately 33,750 square feet) for the development of six single-family detached homes for property located at 321 Byron Street, 654 & 666 Everett Street, and 308 & 318 Middlefield Road. Mayor Wheeler announced the item was a quasi-judicial hearing and subject to Council disclosure policy. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said there were 12 underlying lots on the site of about 3,000 square feet. The lots would be combined and reconfigured into six single-family lots with R-1 zoning, and 5,000 to 6,200 square feet in size. Exceptions were requested for lot width and lot size for Lot Nos. 2, 3 and 5. As a result of Planning Commission recommendations, there would be an additional request for lot size reduction request on Lot No. 6. Staff recommended approval of the application. Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian referred to page 4 of the staff report (CMR:188:96) where staff spelled out a lot of the Planning Commission deliberations. Some of the Planning Commission's suggestions as additional conditions reflected its concern for design elements in a project. Separate from that, the construction building time was limited to make sure the people who lived in the surrounding area were not disturbed by the building project. On the lot sizes for the project, the Planning Commission believed it was acceptable in the particular area because they fell within the traditional patterns of lots sizes in the area. Council Member McCown clarified the Planning Commission's modification to the conditions required that any Architectural Review Board (ARB) or building permit application for Lot Nos. 2, 3 and 5 would have detached garages at the rear of the property. Mr. Ojakian said that was correct. Those lots were sized in such a way that it was possible to detach the garages and put them to the back of the lot whereas some of the other lots were not configured in quite the same way. As the second bullet on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:189:96) indicated, Lot Nos. 1 and 4 would have garages that faced a different block face than the front of the house in an attempt to de-emphasize the garage. That was in tune with many of the concepts coming out of the draft Comprehensive Plan currently being worked on. Council Member McCown said those conditions would apply regardless of whether the application was processed as a multiple unit project through the ARB or whether the ultimate decision was the lots were sold off and developed individually in which case they would not go through the ARB. 03/18/96 78-417 78-417 Mr. Ojakian said that was the intent of the Planning Commission. Council Member Simitian was interested in the build out potential between five and six units. There was a reference in the Planning Commission minutes that the build out potential was not exactly the same because even though the floor area ratio (FAR) calculations remained the same, there was a bit of a fluke in the formula in terms of a base which produced something slightly different. He queried the differential between total allowable square footage if they were looking at five and six units as was proposed. Ms. Grote said the difference was about 750 square feet over the entire project. For five units, if one assumed the lots were all 6,750 square feet, it would result in about 13,875 of total FAR. On the six lots as currently configured, there was about 14,626 square feet of FAR on all six lots. Council Member Simitian asked for clarification about the verbiage, "an exception was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner," and why it was the case in the subject instance. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle believed the point was if the City were going to be granting exceptions or variances to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requirements for minimum lot size, the first test was that a property right was somehow being denied by not complying with the PAMC. Ms. Grote said in addition most of the lots in the immediate vicinity ranged in size from 5,620 square feet to about 6,000 square feet with most of them being in the range proposed by the applicant for the six lots. Council Member Simitian referred to the exceptions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner and clarified the substantial property right in the subject instance was the right to develop the lots in conformance with lots in the surrounding area. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Scott Ward, Classic Communities, applicant, 1068 East Meadow Circle, said the Program 13 requirement was based on actual sales price unlike the previous item where the requirement was based on an assumed sales price. No rezoning was involved with respect to the property. The extent of continuity of the 5,625-square-foot lots was extraordinary in the neighborhood. In the four-block area 03/18/96 78-418 78-418 abounding the neighborhood, 46 of the 58 lots were of similar type and had regular 50-square-foot wide dimensions. He encouraged support. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, said the lots sizes were established 100 years ago, and the current housing were single-family, one- story. There were larger houses in the neighborhood, but they were built on larger lots. The developer proposed to build two-story homes with a maximum FAR on a substandard 5,000-square-foot lot size, The minimum lot size was 5,750 square feet in an R-1 zone, and he did not understand why the developer could not view the merged 12 underlying lots as a rectangle, determine R-1 lots of 5,750 square feet, and build the appropriate number of houses. Without the benefit of public input, the Planning Commission attempted to mitigate construction impacts by limiting construction to Monday through Saturday. The neighbor adjoining the project on Middlefield Road was a 92-year old widow who lived alone, the neighbor directly across from the project on Byron Street was an 88-year old couple, and the neighbors directly adjoining the project on Byron Street were an elderly couple. The area had been subjected to two years of constant noise and construction, and with another year ahead, he requested the City Council further mitigate the project by limiting construction to Monday through Friday on behalf of those neighbors. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the lots needed irrigation out to the street trees, and it should be a standard condition. More onus was being placed on the City Street Tree Division to water and care for the City's new street trees, yet when new subdivisions were developed, as in Gaspar Court, the trees were thriving because they were on the sprinkler system directly from the house adjoining the park strip. Mr. Ward assumed if a person owned a 5,635-square-foot lot in the neighborhood, a person could elect to demolish the property and design it to R-1 standard in the same way they were proposing to design the proposed project to a R-1 standard. While they were able to comply with a variation in the typical work hours, it would elongate the overall period of construction. Mayor Wheeler queried whether it was normal operating procedure to do construction on the weekends. Henry Fischer, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, said they took advantage of Saturday work hours when operations, e.g. pouring foundations, required a sequence of multiple days. When they were not allowed to work a Saturday, sometimes they put the operation off until the following week which had the effect of elongating a project. 03/18/96 78-419 78-419 Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Wheeler said when she first read the staff report, she believed the Sunday limitation was something new but the staff report (CMR:189:96) reflected it was a clarification of the City's existing rules. Ms. Grote said the Ordinance allowed Sunday construction for residential projects. The Planning Commission wanted to eliminate Sunday as a construction day for the proposed project, and it was in the process of discussion that the Ordinance was clarified. Council Member Rosenbaum queried the possibility of irrigation from each house out to the parking strip. Ms. Lytle said when improvements included new street trees in the public realm, a standard condition required irrigation with the new street trees. The City did not require irrigation as a standard condition to existing mature street trees. There would not be any irrigation to the existing trees in the proposed project unless a special condition were added. Council Member Rosenbaum queried whether it would be any great imposition to extend the irrigation lines on the house out to the parking strip. Ms. Lytle said no. New sidewalks would probably be replaced if damaged during construction. Council Member Rosenbaum queried the proper action if Council were interested. Ms. Lytle said Council would want to clarify Condition No. 7b on page 2 of Attachment No. 2, Modified Conditions, of the staff report (CMR:189:96) by adding to the end, "with the addition that irrigation shall be added for existing street trees as well as those to be planted and replaced." MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the following actions with an amendment to Item No. 7(b): 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Approve the Tentative Map, based on the modified findings. 3. Approve the exceptions for proposed lot size and lot widths that do not meet the minimum 6,000- square-foot lot size and 03/18/96 78-420 78-420 60-foot lot width requirements for the R-1 Zone, based on the exception findings as noted in Attachment No. 1. Attachment 2 - Modified Conditions CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE MAP PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A FINAL MAP 1. The applicant shall modify the map so that the property line between Lots 5 and 6 is aligned with the property line between Lots 2 and 3, recognizing that this adjustment will reduce the size of Lot 6 to slightly less than the 6,000 square-foot minimum. 2. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of the tentative map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. The purpose of the meeting is to review all conditions of approval and to discuss the standards for design of all off-site improvements. Improvement plans reflecting the required off-site improve- ments and utilities shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. 3. The improvement plans shall include detailed drawings for all public improvements including, but not limited to the location of street signs, fire hydrants, street lights and curb cuts. The improvement plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 4. The subdivider shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan to the Public Works Department. Prior to approval of the final map, the grading and drainage plans must be approved by the Public Works Department. 5. The subdivider shall install all electric utilities in accordance with Palo Alto Standards, including underground utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. Each residence shall have individual electrical service. A new padmount transformer is required to serve the subdivision. All electrical plans shall be approved by the Light and Power Division before the final map is approved. 6. All work done within the City right-of-way will require a Street Work Permit from the Public Works Department. PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP 03/18/96 78-421 78-421 7. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder and shall include the following agreements: a. The subdivider shall agree to pay an in-lieu fee of four percent of the actual sales value of each lot, including improvements, in fulfillment of Programs 9 and 13 of the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The in-lieu payment shall be due and payable upon the first sale of each home. The in-lieu fee requirement for any unit that is not sold and becomes occupied on a rental or lease basis shall be due at the time of occupancy and shall be based upon the sales price of the most expensive unit sold. b. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design of planter strips, sidewalks and all other public improvements required by this approval. These improve- ments shall be installed by the subdivider, at the subdivider's expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. All public improvements shall be constructed by a licensed contractor and shall conform to the City's standard specifications. Further that irrigation be added for existing street trees as well as those trees to be added to the project. c. The applicant shall demolish all existing site improve- ments. Demolition of these improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of security approved by the City Attorney. 8. The final map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval of the tentative map. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 9. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 10. For this subdivision, a certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection plans for all private and public trees to be retained. The plans shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their protection during demolition and construction. The 03/18/96 78-422 78-422 certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify that the PAMC Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to demolition, grading, or building permit issuance. 11. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT 12. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec. 16.28.270. 13. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 14. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the informa- tion requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 15. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 16. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 17. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrad- ing the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibil- ity includes the design and all the cost associated with the 03/18/96 78-423 78-423 construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. 18. The applicant shall submit to the WGW Engineering Division of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and sewer utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities Department Design Criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared and stamped by a regis- tered civil engineer. 19. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 20. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection . 21. A new four-inch sewer lateral installation is required. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 22. Building Permits for the new residences to be constructed in this subdivision shall be subject to review by the Architec- tural Review Board (ARB) in compliance with Palo Alto Munici- pal Code 16.48 unless the houses are singley developed by different owners. 23. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 24. The project sponsor shall submit an assessment of all mature trees on the project site and adjacent right-of-way. The assessment shall be prepared by a certified arborist and shall indicate the existing health and condition of each tree and shall include recommendations regarding tree preservation and removal. 25. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. 26. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for the fire system including all Fire Department requirements. 27. The applicant=s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan have been approved by the 03/18/96 78-424 78-424 Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division and all utilities conditions are met. 28. Plans submitted in conjunction with an ARB and/or building permit application for Lots 2, 3 and 5, shall reflect detached garages placed at the rear of the property. 29. Plans submitted in conjunction with an ARB and/or building permit application for Lots 1 and 4 shall reflect that the front of the garage faces a different direction than the front of the house. DURING CONSTRUCTION 30. The Contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.060. 31. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 32. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution preven- tion in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) 33. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Sec. 12.08.060. 34. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for water, Gas & Wastewater. 35. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 36. All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, Chapter 03/18/96 78-425 78-425 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: Construction times shall be limited to the following hours: 8:00 AM to 8:00 6:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 6:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday 37. For construction on residential property, the ending time shall be 6:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday. 37 . The contractor shall furnish to the Utilities Department a complete schedule of work and method of construction for the new ___ water service connection to the existing water main. 38. The contractor shall submit for approval by the Utilities Engineering Department the manufacturer's literature on the materials to be used. 39. The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. 40. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor. 41. No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for any purpose by the appli- cant's contractor. All required operation will be performed only by authorized Utilities Department Personnel. The applicant's contractor shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. 42. All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW Utilities Inspector. Inspection costs for any work done before 8:00 A.M. or after 4:30 P.M. on a regular work day, or on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays shall be paid by the applicant's contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 415/329-2156 five working days before start of construction. 43. The applicant's contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department 415/496-6932 OR 415/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. 44. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by expressed permission of the utilities 03/18/96 78-426 78-426 chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 45. The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the performance of chlorination and bacterio- logical testing have been completed. The contractor=s testing method shall be in conformance with ANSI/AWWA C651-86. 46. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW Engineering Division, inspected by the Utilities Cross Connec- tion Inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. 47. All customer piping shall be inspected and approved by the Building Department before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed within three working days after the building piping passes final inspection. 48. Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 45 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 49. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution preven- tion in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) 50. The following dust control measures shall be implemented in order to minimize temporary air quality impacts associated with construction: a. Exposed earth surfaces shall be watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days. b. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. 03/18/96 78-427 78-427 c. Overfilling of trucks by the contractor shall be prohib- ited. d. Trucks shall be covered during transporting of demolished materials and earth materials from the site. e. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor's opera- tions, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor's expense. ONGOING 50. The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extent of the equip- ment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. Rules and Regulations 3D. 51. The applicant shall be required to plant street trees within the planting strips along the right-of-way bordering the property. The number, size, species and location of the street trees shall be reviewed in conjunction with the ARB applications and shall be approved by the City Arborist and the Planning Division. Council Member Simitian believed everyone was sensitive to the big house on small lot issue and also to the issue of neighborhood character. He supported the application because he believed the City would end up with bigger houses with five lots rather than with six. He acknowledged the proposal offered a closer fit with the neighborhood with six lots rather than five and the square footage was not appreciably different so the level to overall development was, for all intents and purposes, the same. He was stretched about as far as he could go with the exception findings which said the exception was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. The property right being preserved was the property rights of others not the property right which attached to the proposed property. While the exception lead to the right result in the subject instance, he asked staff to give the granting of exceptions based on such findings further thought before bringing another such proposal before Council. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:189:96) under Housing Element, Policy 3, and the sentence, "the proposed lot sizes will provide sufficient building envelopes to construct single family homes that are in scale with the existing neighborhood and respect the character of the existing 03/18/96 78-428 78-428 streetscape." He assumed that meant that there would be no requests for variances with regard to the newly created lots. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. ORDINANCES 9. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 9509, "60kV Bus Tie Breaker Installation Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, queried whether the intent was to landscape the area or whether it was going to be another barbed wire fence or chain link fence around the boxes. There were $4,000 not accounted for, and any leftover money might be directed toward a nice wooden fence, which would be less attractive to vandals. Generally, the projects in South Palo Alto, whether they be utilities, public works, or Santa Clara Valley Water District projects were not landscaped. The Utilities Department indicated it would landscape when a project was redone, which was the case on Old Trace Road, and she urged consideration. Council Member Rosenbaum asked staff to comment on the landscaping issue. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said when the Colorado Sub- station on West Bayshore and Colorado was built several years ago it had landscaping. The landscaping was upgraded a few years ago, and there was design fencing around the chain link fencing. Landscaping would continue to be upgraded around all of the City's substations as part of the Capital Improvement Program as staff had been doing over the last several years. As staff saw a need to upgrade the Colorado Substation, Council would see it in future capital programs. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to adopt the Ordinance. Ordinance 4336 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 9509, `60kV Bus Tie Breaker Instal- lation'" MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. 10A. (Old Item No. 2) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Rabbit Copiers, Inc. for Rental and Maintenance of Copiers 03/18/96 78-429 78-429 John Remus, 4300 Stevens Creek, account executive for Monroe Systems, an international office equipment manufacturer and one of the bidders for the project. In December 1994, the City was prepared to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP), one year early, because of the amount of service related problems with the current vendor, including response time, down time of equipment, and parts and supplies availability. After many emergency meetings with the vendor, the RFP was put on hold and the vendor agreed to supply the City with an on-site person to add paper, toner, clear misfeeds, clean the copiers, and generally perform all nontechnician duties pertaining to the operation of the copiers. In November 1995, the City issued an RFP for copier service and support. The final process came down to three vendors. The first vendor was not considered due to the previous problems. The second vendor was Rabbit Copiers, a small local dealership which sold both Minolta and Panasonic copiers. The third vendor was Monroe Systems. The successful bidder for final approval was Rabbit Copiers. Rabbit Copiers was about one-quarter the size of Monroe Systems which was over $250 million strong with over 150 direct branch offices across the country. He could not understand how Rabbit Copiers, a much smaller dealership, could provide appropriate service. Rabbit Copiers was not providing an on-site person but rather a telephone link system to the copiers that would provide ability to handle meter-reads and misfeeds. City employees would have to add paper, toner, try to clear misfeeds and still have to wait for a technician to arrive just as it would with any other vendor. Monroe Systems submitted a cost-effective proposal with a slight charge for an on-site person just as the RFP specified along with guaranteed prices for the term of the contract. Monroe had access to a national parts bank, guaranteed services responses in writing, provide lifetime replacement guarantees and up-time guarantees all of which would be beneficial and a marked improvement over the current vendor and the selected vendor. Monroe Systems was experienced in providing support to large users such as the City of Palo Alto. The City wanted to resolve its current problems and for the transition to be as smooth as possible for the end user. Not having an on-site person would impact the end users who were the employees because they would have to add toner, paper, and clear misfeeds. The RFPs specified an on-site person along with the ability to walk away from a certain percentage of the copiers for lack of need. Monroe Systems wanted to ensure it was compared favorably and accurately. Monroe Systems wanted the opportunity to provide the kind of support the City of Palo Alto had been unable to find in a local dealership. Rick Zirpolo, representing Rabbit Copiers, 904 Weddell Court, Sunnyvale, said Rabbit was a small dealership, and one of the most seriously evaluated items they brought to the table was the cutting 03/18/96 78-430 78-430 edge technology to eliminate down time. Having an on-site technician to simply add paper and wipe off the glass did not impact the overall operations of the machines. City staff issued RFPs to 29 vendors, six replied, and four were chosen for extensive evaluation. As its references reflected, Rabbit would provide excellent service to the City. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, that the Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract agreement with Rabbit Copiers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $167,000 per year for a three-year time period, to provide rental and maintenance of organization-wide photocopiers; and to authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the agreement with Rabbit Copiers, Inc. The total amount of the change orders shall not exceed $20,000. The amount would cover increases in the total number of copies used or any additional requirements for new photocopy machines. Council Member McCown said Council had some conversations in the past, mostly raised by Council Member Simitian, about the City's bidding and evaluation process, etc. While those were appropriate questions, Council's involvement should only be to ensure the process used brought in a fair number of proposals for evaluation. The notion that Council would go in and second guess the Purchasing Division advice was extraordinary. She was surprised by the request. She supported the staff recommendation. Council Member Simitian queried how many members there were on the Selection Advisory Committee. Purchasing Manager Howard Edwards said there were two members on the Selection Advisory Committee, and a third member came and went. Council Member Simitian asked whether there was information which reflected the price of the competitive bid. Mr. Edwards said the four bids for a quarters worth of business did not vary $300. The award was not made on the basis of prices, but rather on the package of features each supplier provided. Council Member Simitian believed it would help for Council to have that information provided in its materials then it knew it was not spending $50,000 more for one vendor rather than another. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements 03/18/96 78-431 78-431 Mayor Wheeler reminded the Council of the Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 20, 1996, at 7:30 p.m., and the opening and dedication of the new Ventura Police Substation on Thursday, March 21, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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. 03/18/96 78-432 78-432