HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-03 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 3, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................85-107 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................85-107 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Redwood General & Mechanical for the Civic Center Chiller Replacement Project - CIP 19602.............................................85-108
2. Ordinance 4462 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.30 and Sections 2.31.010 and 2.31.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to
Purchasing Procedures and Disposition of Surplus Property≅85-108
3. Ordinance 4463 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 425-435 Sheridan/440-460 Page Mill Road
From RM-40 to PC-Planned Community≅ ...................85-108
4. Ordinance 4464 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.09 [Assault Weapons] of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code≅ .............................85-108 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission for a 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, including goals, policies and programs for six elements (Land Use and Community Design, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services and Facilities and Business and Economics); creation of new land use designation categories and street classifications; a modified Land Use and Circulation Map; and a Governance chapter which is not an element.......................85-108 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........85-123 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.............85-124
11/03/97 85-105
11/03/97 85-106
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Larry Klein, 872 Seale Avenue, spoke regarding Measure M and Measure O publications received in the mail on Saturday, November 1, 1997. T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding more transparencies to defeat M and O. Diana Diamond, 2512 Cowper Street, spoke regarding the publications received in the mail on Measures M and O. Irene Sampson, 3992 Bibbits Drive, spoke regarding Sand Hill campaign literature. Katherine Day, Teen Center Advisory Board, 425 Bryant Street, spoke regarding Teen Center Street Party. Ned and Tay Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, spoke regarding campaign literature for Measures M and O. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Drive, spoke regarding Measures M and O (correspondence was submitted). Leland J. Francois, 719 Colorado Street #1, spoke regarding public safety communication and Proposition O and Proposition M. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, spoke regarding the Measure M campaign literature (correspondence was submitted). Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic accountability (correspondence was submitted). Tony Spitaleri spoke regarding Sand Hill Road. Bonnie Packer spoke regarding the travesty of campaign literature. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of September 15, 1997, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. CONSENT CALENDAR
11/03/97 85-107
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Redwood General & Mechanical for the Civic Center Chiller Replacement Project - CIP 19602
2. Ordinance 4462 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.30 and Sections 2.31.010 and 2.31.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to
Purchasing Procedures and Disposition of Surplus Property≅
3. Ordinance 4463 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 425-435 Sheridan/440-460 Page Mill Road
From RM-40 to PC-Planned Community≅
4. Ordinance 4464 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.09 [Assault Weapons] of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission for a 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, including goals, policies and programs for six elements (Land Use and Community Design, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services and Facilities and Business and Economics); creation of new land use designation categories and street classifications; a modified Land Use and Circulation Map; and a Governance chapter which is not an element. The Final Environmental Impact Report analyzes potential environmental effects and impacts of the new Comprehensive Plan, mitigation measures for reducing environmental impacts and responds to comments received during public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. (continued from 10/15/97) Mayor Huber clarified the Council stopped on Land Use and Community Design Element, White Page L-18, Program L-17, relating to
University Avenue/Downtown, which was revised to add ΑThe Downtown
Urban Design Guide is not mandatory but provides useful ideas.≅ Council Member Kniss said she was interested in Council Member
Eakins= comments regarding Program L-18 on White Page L-18,
ΑConsidering a public art requirement for certain large development
11/03/97 85-108
projects.≅ Council Member Eakins said that some time ago the Public Art Commission withdrew its request for a one percent for art ordinance. She believed that 200 hours were restored to the
Planning Department=s time budget by withdrawal of the request. Working with developers to use art and artists was a friendly way of persuading them to go in the direction the Public Art Commission desired. Council Member Schneider referred to White Page L-23, Program L-29, Multi-Neighborhood Center, relating to South El Camino Real, and said that the notes received from the Chamber of Commerce asked the Council to consider the addition of the Gruen & Gruen Report. She had not thought about the report for a long time and asked where it was. She said there were no recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan that were part of the Gruen & Gruen Report. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said there were a variety of things in the January 1992 report that were pursued, but at the current time there were no active assignments to follow up with. The only change the Planning Commission recommended, in addition to repositioning the programs, was to
delete the words Αand character≅ in Program L-25 on White Page L-21, regarding California Avenue. On Green Page L-20, those words were struck out. Council Member Kniss said she was curious as to why some words were stricken. Planning Commissioner Kathy Schmidt said the Planning Commission thought the character of California Avenue could be changed. It was good to keep it in scale, but they wanted to see some transformation. Council Member Kniss agreed. If California Avenue was juxtaposed with Downtown Palo Alto, she felt that at some point, if things followed the usual pattern, it would end up looking like the Downtown area in ten years. She asked if the 1950s buildings could be revised or revamped. Ms. Schmidt said yes. Council Member Kniss said that was an attempt to not protect what currently existed. Ms. Schmidt said yes. Mayor Huber was concerned with Green Page L-9, Open Space/Controlled Development, relating to Single Family Residential. He said the Planning Commission struck out the
11/03/97 85-109
language Αwhere they would be compatible with neighborhood
character and not create traffic and parking problems.≅ Having spent many years in neighborhoods with legal and illegal cottages, the neighborhood character, as well as traffic and parking, were some of the biggest issues that impacted single-family residential areas. That played against the search for housing, but the reality was that people wanted to keep their neighborhoods with some form of character similar to what they had. He did not mind looking for areas to put duplexes in, but it should be compatible. He wanted to put back the language which had been stricken. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-9, Open Space/Controlled Development definition be replaced with the original wording of the section reflected on
White Page L-9 as follows: ΑLand having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre and population
densities range from 0.1 to 2 persons per acre.≅ Vice Mayor Andersen was concerned that if the wording were added again, would the City see duplexes. There would always be a reason why it would not be compatible. He asked for clarification as to how that would not interfere with adding duplexes. Mayor Huber said it was possible for the same reasons that zoning would not allow Palo Alto to turn into Manhattan. Vice Mayor Andersen said he had not heard any complaints about duplexes located in neighborhoods around school sites. If the wording were replaced, something that was working would not be accomplished. Mayor Huber said he was addressing areas where people would want to build duplexes in the middle of Professorville. Council Member Schneider said the object was compatibility. It must be compatible with the design. It might be zoned to allow a second unit or a duplex, as long as it was compatible with the area. Council Member Fazzino recalled a long discussion on the subject and hoped all the discussion and debates would not be repeated. He said the most significant concern was with the parking issue. He was comfortable with the language with regard to traffic and parking. It was the fundamental concern of the neighbors with respect to adding additional units. If units were provided for people who did not have a need for cars, there would be less of a problem. With regard to the compatibility issue, the language was general enough with respect to neighborhood compatibility. He did
11/03/97 85-110
not view it as being too exclusive or narrowly defined to disallow the possibility of additional units. He viewed neighborhood compatibility as a general statement regarding design and character of the neighborhood to make sure that what was proposed was consistent with the scale of a single-family residential area. Second units were not necessarily inconsistent with the scale of a residential area. If parking and traffic issues were adequately addressed, he was open to adding additional units. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the sentence as originally constructed, before the Planning Commission revised it and as proposed by the Mayor to be reinstated, was consistent with existing land use policies. Mr. Schreiber said the wording before the Planning Commission modification was essentially the same. The sentence historically related to the R-2 duplex zone rather than the concept of second units as cottages mixed in with a single-family neighborhood. The concept of second units had changed since the wording was originally developed in the 1970s. Council Member Wheeler said the City was not diminishing its ability to put duplexes into single-family dominated neighborhoods. It was important to assure the neighborhood that the duplexes would fit in. In the case of the school district properties, they did fit in. Most of the concerns she heard from neighborhoods related to adequate parking. It was not the language of the general policy direction but the way the Council would write the regulations that implemented the policies. Council Member Kniss was told by a neighbor with a cottage that
under the current Αdon=t ask, don=t tell≅ plan, her neighbor said he would not tolerate her renting her cottage out any longer. Therefore, she could not do it. Many people asked what it would take to have a granny unit which would add to their income on their own piece of property. That was a major issue. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said there was an evaluation program in the housing section because staff did not think they could resolve that in the Comprehensive Plan process. She referred to White Page H-7, Housing, Program H-4, regarding Affordable
Housing, Αprovide additional flexibility including reduced parking
requirements.≅ The intent was to look at that in more detail. It was not something that would be resolved in a discussion in one night. Council Member Kniss said she did not have a problem with
Αcompatible,≅ but the part that was difficult was the Αevaluate
traffic and parking.≅ She was willing to leave in Αcompatible≅ but was not sure it would fit in later.
11/03/97 85-111
MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Development Element, Green Page L-9, Single Family Residential definition be replaced with the original wording of the section reflected on White Page L-9 as
follows: ΑIncludes one dwelling unit on each lot as well as conditional uses requiring permits such as churches and schools. Specific areas may be zoned to allow second units or duplexes where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and not create traffic and parking problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1 to 7 units per acre, but may rise to a maximum of 14 units in areas where second units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range from 1 to 30 persons per
acre.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-1, Andersen Αno,≅ McCown absent. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-9, Open Space/Controlled Development
definition be revised as follows: ΑLand having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre, but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per
acre.≅ INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-32, Program L-53A be revised as follows:
ΑEncourage salvage of discarded historic building materials for re-
use by the community.≅ INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, White Pages L-35 and L-36, Programs L-64, L-65, and L-68
be merged into a new Program as follows: ΑTo help satisfy present and future community use needs, coordinate with the School District to educate the public about and plan for the future use of school sites, including providing space for public gathering places for
neighborhoods lacking space.≅ INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, White Page L-42, Program L-78 be revised as follows:
ΑContinue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires, especially in commercial areas. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on
street tree root systems and planting areas.≅
11/03/97 85-112
MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-21, Program L-28 be revised as follows:
ΑEstablish the following unranked priorities for redevelopment within the Cal-Ventura area:
! Connect the Cal-Ventura area with the Multi-modal Transit Station and California Avenue. Provide new streets and pedestrian connections that complete the street grid and create a walkable neighborhood.
! Fry=s Electronics site (1300 Portage): Continued retail activity is anticipated for this site over the next 15 years. A program should be developed for the future use of the site for mixed density multi-family housing and a park or other open space.
! Hewlett Packard: Mixed office, residential, and possibly retail uses that fit with the scale and character of the surrounding area. Uses that are compatible with the surrounding area and a site plan that facilitates pedestrian
use of Park Boulevard.≅ MOTION PASSED 5-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss Αnot participating,≅ McCown absent. Council Member Rosenbaum said one area staff was asking the Council to consider had to do with Midtown and the question of whether Council wanted staff to rewrite the text. The sentence in the
staff report (CMR:444:97) read, ΑHowever, the Council may wish to have the programs rewritten to reduce the level of detail and the focus on the 1995 Midtown Workshop, emphasizing a more generalized
planning objective and a clearer focus on public improvements.≅ It was in response to the current developments going on in Midtown and the fact that some of the programs might no longer be as pertinent as they were at one time. Mr. Schreiber said that staff would revise the wording along the lines that were indicated in the staff report (CMR:444:97). The bottom line message was that with recent approvals and activity in
that area, many of the concerns that had been high in the Council=s
and public=s minds in the past were being addressed. Staff did not see any interest on the part of the commercial property owners in pursuing a Midtown plan. The Council referred it to the Planning Commission. It might be best to rewrite the text to generalize it rather than stick with the detailed wording. Vice Mayor Andersen agreed that the market place had solved many of the problems. There would be some dramatic shifts in ownership
11/03/97 85-113
over the next twenty years, and also some interest and desire on the part of future owners to move in that direction. He hesitated taking out the detail due to the potential for future consideration of a plan that might have a comprehensive approach to what had been a problem in the past. Council Member Wheeler agreed to removing the detail, but did not believe that the Council should give up on the vision. The buildings in Midtown had a useful life. She said the City should enunciate a vision for that center. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, and it was duly seconded, to direct staff to reconfirm existing policies and establish new policies related to Midtown in accordance with CMR:444:97. Council Member Eakins participated as a Planning Commission representative along with Commissioner Cassel during the Midtown meetings. There was a concern about vacancies and the center lagging. The current concern was about circulation, the danger of walking through the parking lot, and lack of parking. The storefronts were filling up. The problem was from a center that was overused for its resources. Mr. Schreiber said staff would rewrite the policies and return to Council for future discussion. City Manager June Fleming said staff would do their best to
articulate the Council=s discussion. A Master Plan was never approved, but staff would write something and bring it back to the Council. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Schneider said she wanted to look at White Page T-3,
Transportation Element, Reducing Auto Use, Program T-4, ΑConsider the use of additional parking fees and tax revenues to fund
alternative transportation projects.≅ She asked how additional parking fees would be raised; would it be by charging for parking or increasing the assessment district. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said it did not relate to assessment. Present parking permit fees were generally set at the amount necessary to maintain the existing parking and one could put an additional increment on that. Ms. Cassel said it was recognized that any fees would have to be regional and could not be City of Palo Alto alone. Council Member Rosenbaum said in the Transportation Element, Green
Page T-5, Program T-15, the Planning Commission replaced Αevaluate
11/03/97 85-114
and test≅ with Αestablish.≅ [Evaluate and test Establish a local transit or jitney bus system to (or as an extension of) Stanford
University=s Marguerite Shuttle.] He believed the original wording was more appropriate. He asked that the original wording be used. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, Green Page T-5, Program T-15 be revised
to replace ΑEvaluate and test≅ with the original language
ΑEstablish a jitney bus system similar to Stanford University=s
Marguerite Shuttle..≅. Council Member Fazzino said the issue of establishing a shuttle was a popular concept. The City was in the position to establish a system based on the success of the Marguerite system. He suggested including retail centers, job centers, and neighborhoods. He was comfortable with the language the way it was. Council Member Eakins asked for comments from staff regarding the difference in language between the white and green pages. Mr. Overway said it was not really a transportation issue, and
ΑEstablish≅ did not necessarily mean a full bore system.
Council Member Kniss said Αestablish≅ had a great deal of support. She questioned the difference between a bus, a jitney, and a shuttle. Senior City Attorney Debra Cauble said the term used in the glossary was jitney and described it including the term bus. The Council could use the term jitney or revise the glossary. The definition in the glossary said a jitney was a small bus or van that transported passengers. Council Member Kniss said the Council did not want big County busses. Something that was small and useable such as the Marguerite would appeal to the public. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to White Page T-6, Program T-13,
ΑEvaluate the extension of a light rail line along El Camino Real.≅ He knew what Mountain View did to get light rail to that community
which he felt was a lot more than just Αevaluate≅. Council Member Fazzino said the reality of making that happen would be difficult unless it was part of a regional plan. He was very active in the Measure A-Measure B campaign, and he recalled the Mayor of Mountain View begging Palo Alto to support the extension of light rail through Mountain View as part of the Measure A-Measure B Plan. The light rail connecting to CalTrain was a wonderful connection. He was not sure he would want to spend
11/03/97 85-115
precious few regional transportation dollars on a light rail system that paralleled CalTrain going up El Camino Real. He had no objection to a trolley or bus system paralleling El Camino Real, but it was unrealistic to focus solely on the possibility of light rail along El Camino Real. He recommended a more general statement regarding a transportation system along El Camino Real rather than focusing solely on light rail which was unrealistic. The language needed to reflect the current transportation funding environment. Mr. Schreiber said the proposed wording included an assumption that in the near future, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) would be undertaking a county-wide land use and transportation plan. It would be an update of the County Transportation Element. He agreed that Palo Alto would not likely end up with a decision to have light rail come up El Camino Real. If the City wished to pursue that, it would cost millions of dollars to start matching other funds. That was what Mountain View had done to get light rail into their City. Mr. Schreiber said there was community interest regarding light rail. Staff came to the conclusion that it would be better to allow the process at the County level to unfold. The question for the Council was whether it wished to have the City aggressively participate in the County transportation process. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Council Member Fazzino, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element,
White Page T-6, Program T-13 be revised as follows: ΑEvaluate the extension of a light rail line along El Camino Real from Mountain
View through Palo Alto to Menlo Park.≅ Council Member Wheeler did not want to let go of the light rail extension. She agreed that having it come down El Camino Real was not within the realm of reality and had no problem taking out specific reference to El Camino Real. She suggested other routes such as Foothill Expressway that would serve Palo Alto and the employment centers in particular. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page
T-6, text under Program T-13 be revised as follows: ΑLight rail is perceived positively by residents and has been enjoying a renaissance in many parts of California. Santa Clara County light rail is expected to reach Mountain View in 2000, and a logical extension would be north along El Camino Real to Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The extension would provide more stops than CalTrain and would provide access to many destinations not served by
CalTrain.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Schneider did not think the CalTrain electrification
11/03/97 85-116
extension to Downtown San Francisco would transpire. Council Member Fazzino said that funding for electrification was in Measure A & B which the County voters approved. The language was consistent with Measures A & B funding. He agreed that the extension of Downtown was more problematic because of the BART extension to the San Francisco Airport, but he held out hope that the extension to Downtown San Francisco would be secured in the future. Council Member Rosenbaum questioned Green Page T-17, Program T-36,
ΑMaintain the current program of not adding traffic signals on
Alma Street and Middlefield.≅ Mr. Overway said it originally came up in the Downtown Study. The theory was that traffic signals allowed people to make turns easier onto side streets and that would cause additional traffic on the residential side streets. Council Member Kniss White referred to White Page T-8, Policy T-10,
ΑImprove amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage at bus
stops,≅ saying she thought it was a County issue. Ms. Fleming said Palo Alto maintained the bus stops but did not install them. Council Member Kniss asked whether it made sense to say that Palo Alto would improve the seating, lighting, and signage, or was it a County problem. Ms. Fleming said if the Council were to approve such a statement, she understood the message was that the Council wanted the staff to work with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Council Member Kniss clarified that the City could work with the
VTA as long as it did not impact the City=s budget. Ms. Fleming said it would impact the budget. Ms. Cassel said if people were to use transit systems, they needed to be comfortable when they got to the bus stop. Council Member Kniss asked about the dollar impact. Ms. Fleming had discussed with staff the fact that there were bus stops and bus shelters, and not all bus stops had bus shelters. She said the intent was to improve bus stops. Council Member Kniss asked what would allow the Council to look at that issue without having a major budgetary impact.
11/03/97 85-117
Ms. Fleming understood that the County did not intend to put shelters at all the bus stops. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-8, Policy T-10 be revised as follows: Improve Encourage amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage at bus stops to increase rider
comfort and safety.≅ Vice Mayor Andersen said if the Council wanted to encourage alternative transportation system, it was necessary to provide at some cost to the City the amenities that would encourage their use. To suggest that the Council would encourage the alternative transportation procedures, but at the same time strike out any financial consideration, would mean the City was not really serious about it. There was support for the City giving serious efforts to improve the alternative transportation systems and provide additional ones in the community. MOTION PASSED 5-3, Andersen, Fazzino, Wheeler Αno,≅ McCown absent. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-5, Policy T-4 be revised to reflect the status of the station in terms of its construction and that the language be reflected in the text on White Page T-4. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Fazzino said a correction was needed on White Page T-11, between Program T-21 and Program T-22, to reflect that the Stanford Research Park was built in the 1950s. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-
11, text next to the second photograph be revised as follows: ΑWhen the Stanford Research Park was built in the 1960s1950s, automobiles were seen as the only sensible way to travel and streets were designed without sidewalks. Today, many employees walk to work and
exercise at lunch time, but they must do so in the traffic lanes.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Fazzino referred to the Transportation Element, White Page T-15, and noted several references to narrow residential
arterials. With regard to Program T-30, ΑDevelop comprehensive
roadway design standards and criteria for all types of roads,≅ he asked whether that was the place where that concept would appear or would there be a general statement with respect to narrowing of roads to reduce speeding and protect neighborhoods. He wanted to see a strong statement with respect to narrowing widths of streets, particularly residential arterials to reduce speeding.
11/03/97 85-118
Senior Transportation Planner Carl Stoffel said that White Page T-20, Policy T-34 covered neighborhood streets, and there was a clear decision not to include language to narrow residential arterials. Council Member Fazzino said that Embarcadero Road was a residential arterial. It was inconsistent with the action of the Council to ask staff, to address the need to narrow Embarcadero and other residential arterials, as part of its infrastructure study. Ms. Cassel referenced White Page T-19, Neighborhood Impacts,
Program T-39, that read Αuse landscaping and other improvements to
establish clear >gateways= at the points where University Avenue
and Embarcadero Road transition from freeways to neighborhoods.≅ Mr. Stoffel understood using Embarcadero Road as an example, that they were not to reduce the number of through lanes. Council Member Fazzino wanted to see a stronger statement with respect to narrowing residential arterials. Mr. Stoffel said that would be done in White Page T-18, Policy T-29.
Ms. Cassel said White Page T-18, Program T-38, ΑThe following roads are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets with landscaping and other visual improvements to distinguish them as
residential streets,≅ did not specify what to do. It visually gave the feeling that it was a place to go slower. Council Member Fazzino wanted to see a statement that reflected the fact that it was a Council priority. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-18, Program T-38 be revised as follows:
ΑThe following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds.
∃ Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)
∃ University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)
∃ Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road)
∃ Charleston/Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and
Fabian Way)≅
11/03/97 85-119
MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Mayor Huber queried White Page T-3, Policy T-2, where the direction
was to ΑIncorporate economic, environmental, and social cost issues
in local transportation decisions.≅ He said that was a nice concept, but questioned how it would be done.
Ms. Cassel suggested changing Αincorporate≅ to Αconsider.≅ MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-3, Policy T-2
be revised as follows: ΑIncorporate Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation
decisions.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown. Council Member Eakins noted that many programs mentioned improvements to the superwide postwar streets could only be done when the streets were redesigned. She could not imagine how that
would happen. Policy T-34 on White Page T-20 read, Αwhen street
modifications are made,≅ which was self-canceling. She thought it would take a natural disaster to force the street modification
program. She suggested dropping Αwhen street modifications are
made≅ from Policy T-34. Council Member Kniss said the Council had many discussions about how to keep up with street repaving and sidewalks. If the Council discussed reducing the street and intersection widths and widening the planting strips, she wondered how it would be done. She recalled that Greenmeadow used large planters in the middle of the street. The problem was that the plantings died out and were removed. What the Council was talking about currently was something more permanent that would be woven into the Capital Improvement Plan. She was concerned about the infrastructure costs. Ms. Fleming said the infrastructure costs were large. Her
interpretation was it was appropriate to say, Αas it is
appropriate, do it.≅ It was a policy decision of the Council. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-
20, Policy T-34 be revised as follows: ΑReduce neighborhood street and intersection widths and widen planting strips as appropriate
when street modifications are made.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent.
11/03/97 85-120
Council Member Rosenbaum said in the staff report (CMR:444:97), page 4, there were seven items, the first two were dealt with. With the remaining five, he did not find anything controversial and suggested incorporating the last five. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, Map T-4 be modified to eliminate the representation of the extension of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard into Mountain View and that White
Page T-10, Program T-20 be revised as follows: ΑImplement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of
the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard into Mountain View.≅ INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page
T-20, text under Policy T-35 be revised as follows: ΑVertical curbs prevent drivers from parking on sidewalks, a common and undesirable practice in areas where rolled curbs are not separated from sidewalks by planting strips. When conversation from rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the minimum area should be a street
block and not individual properties.≅ INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-23, text under Goal T-8, first paragraph be revised as follows:
ΑParking is allowed on most streets in Palo Alto, and large tracts of land in commercial areas are devoted to parking. The City regulates parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts. Public lots in these areas are paid for by property owners through annual assessments levied by the City.
Most public and private parking is provided >free= to drivers, although most business owner costs are ultimately passed on to consumers in the pricing of goods and services. In 1995, the total cost of each new parking space in a parking structure averages $160 per month, including construction, financing, maintenance, insurance, and enforcement, but excluding the cost of land. Based on a 1996 feasibility study completed for new parking structures in Downtown Palo Alto, the cost of a net new parking space is approximately $26,000 $30,000, including design, construction and financing, plus an on-going annual cost of approximately $220 per
space for maintenance and enforcement.≅ INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-24, text under Policy T-46 be moved under Policy T-45 as follows:
ΑPalo Alto=s policy in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas is for most new development to provide its own parking, as the existing demand exceeds the existing supply. Under certain circumstances, some development is allowed to pay in-lieu fees instead of actually providing parking spaces. The fees
11/03/97 85-121
are used to provide future public parking spaces.≅ INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page
T-28, Program T-54 be revised as follows: ΑEncourage Santa Clara County to Rrelocate the terminal building away from the Runway 31
clear zone, allowing for construction of a new terminal.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue the item to the Monday, November 10, 1997, Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Vice Mayor Andersen supported the comments made under ΑOral
Communications≅ with regard to the campaign materials submitted by the supporters of Measure M with respect to Measure O. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
11/03/97 85-122