HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-11 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting May 11, 1998 1. Acknowledgment of Recreation Awards...................86-243 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Historic Resources Board..............................86-243 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................86-243 3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation...........................86-245
4. Ordinance 4500 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Accept a $34,896 Grant From the Public Fund of the State Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $34,896".............86-245
5. Ordinance 4501 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $60,000 for Overhead
Maintenance Work on the Electric System≅ ..............86-245 6. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C7094779 between the City of Palo Alto and Resource Management International, Inc. for Consulting on Gas and Electric Industry Restructuring.86-245 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $17,983 to Palo Alto Community Child Care in Support of a Pre-Kindergarten Program.................86-246 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Finance Committee recommendation re the Final 1998-99 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan..................................................86-248 9. Recommendation to Submit an Appeal of Proposed Flood Elevation
Determination in the Federal Emergency Management Agency=s Revised Flood Insurance Rate Map for the San Francisquito Creek.................................................86-252
05/11/98 86-241
10. Status Report on Flood Protection Activities for San Francisquito Creek and Transmittal of the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) Report on Flood and Erosion Control Alternatives..................................86-259 11. University Circle Redevelopment Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report...........................86-264 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m............86-272
05/11/98 86-242
05/11/98 86-243
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Acknowledgment of Recreation Awards Mayor Rosenbaum said the City of Palo Alto had received four awards from the California Park and Recreation Society (CPRS) at its Pacific Northwest Conference in Long Beach, California: The Fun Guide was honored as the best single brochure in California for cities with a population of 50,000 to 100,000 and also received the Award of Excellence given only to a few select cities for far
exceeding all award criteria; the May Fete Childrens= Parade received the Outstanding Award in California; and the Omega Club for adults with special needs was recognized as the Outstanding Therapeutic Recreation Program in California. He presented the awards and congratulated Director of Recreation, Open Space and Sciences Dan Williams and Recreation Superintendent Barry Weiss and the staff who had worked hard. The awards were difficult to obtain and were of great value to the community. Karen MacNamara, President, California Park and Recreation Society, said the CPRS bestowed awards of excellence each year at its annual conference to those agencies whose programs and facilities rose above the rest who had achieved distinguished and superior
prominence within the profession. Palo Alto=s Recreation, Open Space and Sciences Division not only procured the awards but now set a standard of excellence for other agencies. Palo Alto had won more awards than any other agency. Pal Alto had won 12 awards over the previous three years and was considered a leader in the profession and predominately in the Bay Area. Such programs instilled community pride, promoted sensitivity to diversity, brought neighbors together, strengthened family unity, and taught new skills to the participants. On behalf of CPRS, she congratulated Palo Alto on the awards. 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Historic Resources Board City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Harold (Ken) Alsman, Kathleen Coakley, Susan Haviland, Mildred Mario, Kevin Wagner, Caroline Willis, and Shirley Wilson received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Tuesday, May 26, 1998.
05/11/98 86-244
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding historic preservation. Lisa Levine Sporer, 2351 Carmel Drive, spoke regarding historic preservation. Hamilton Hitchings spoke regarding the flood. Maureen McNulty, 2340 Carmel Drive, spoke regarding the flood. Fran Adams, 1801 Fulton Street, spoke regarding Cultural Center ventilation. Annette Glanckopf-Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, spoke regarding residential construction. George Stern, 705 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding residential construction. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government.
Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, spoke regarding the Council=s approval of public toilets in the Downtown area. Marilyn Buariedel, 3673 South Court, spoke regarding historic preservation. Michael Sporer, 2351 Carmel Drive, spoke regarding flood victims status. Iris Kriegler, 1607 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding flood related issues. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding the historic preservation ordinance. Barbara Spreng, 1585 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding KIDS COUNT - PAUSD fundraising. Tony Hughes, spoke regarding KIDS COUNT. Kathleen Coakley, spoke regarding the appointment to the Historic Resources Board (HRB). Lois Smith, 2300 St. Francis Drive, spoke regarding the flood. Raymond Hebert, 2339 Sierra Court, spoke regarding flood information.
05/11/98 86-245
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-6 3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to: 1) approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $325,000. The funds would be added to the balance of $216,486 in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 19109 for the purchase and installation of a CAD system, to purchase personal computer work stations needed for the system, and to upgrade the existing mobile data channel infrastructure; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Public Safety Systems, Incorporated (PSSI), in the amount of $406,537 for the purchase and installation of a CAD system; and 3) authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders, if needed, to the agreement with PSSI for related, unforeseen additional work, which may develop during the project, in the amount not to exceed $46,000
Ordinance 4499 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $325,000 to increase the Police Information System Master Plan CIP Project #19109" Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Public Safety Systems Incorporated for Purchase of Licensed Software and Support Services and Associated Hardware
4. Ordinance 4500 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Accept a $34,896 Grant From the Public Fund of the State Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $34,896"
5. Ordinance 4501 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $60,000 for Overhead
Maintenance Work on the Electric System≅ Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C8101269 between the City of Palo Alto and Utility Constructors for Overhead Construction Services 6. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C7094779 between the City of Palo Alto and Resource Management International, Inc. for Consulting on Gas and Electric Industry Restructuring MOTION PASSED 9-0.
05/11/98 86-246
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $17,983 to Palo Alto Community Child Care in Support of a Pre-Kindergarten Program Council Member Wheeler said she would not be able to participate in the item because of a conflict of interest due to her employment with Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC).
City Manager June Fleming realized that it was not the Council=s practice to entertain Budget Amendment requests or to make funding requests that were not budgeted, particularly so late into the budget year. It was with due consideration that she had instructed the staff to prepare the report. It was a critical timing issue with the recommendation before the Council, and there were other agencies that did not have the same fiscal year designations that the City had. For that reason, the request came at an unusual time and was just designed. It crossed two fiscal years and needed some consideration in the current fiscal year in order for the program to be initiated. She respectfully requested the Council consider the item even though it was within a month of fiscal year closure. Manager of Child Care & Family Services Ilene Hertz said the item was a request from PACCC to amend their contract budget by approximately $18,000 to enable PACCC to implement a kindergarten readiness program in collaboration with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Both PACCC and PAUSD would like to implement the program in the summer of 1998 enabling families targeted for the program to reap the benefits in time for the new school year. PACCC had emphasized that it would be a one-time only request for start up funds and, in the future, the program would be funded through sources other than the City. Maryanne Welton, 660 Kendall Avenue, said for the past four years she had been parent and classroom volunteer at Juana Briones School. She could attest to the impact that children with no preschool experience brought to a kindergarten classroom. The teachers did their best to serve a wide range of experience, and the purpose of the program would be to narrow that range of experience for all of the children in the classroom. Failing kindergarten set up a life time cycle of failure, and one of the goals was to reduce the number of children from repeating a grade of kindergarten. Over time, the program would have a positive impact on the entire community because an important component was parent education. She urged the Council to support the appropriation.
05/11/98 86-247
Gail Price, 4082 Orme Street, said the staff report (CMR:224:98) clearly stated all of the issues before the Council, and the staff recommendation supported the request for one-time funding. The critical importance of early intervention, support, and encouragement for families not having pre-kindergarten experience, could not be overstated. It was a complex issue which had been identified for many years but not adequately addressed for many years in the Palo Alto community. As a member of the Barron Park community and PACCC Board, she strongly encouraged the Council to
support PACCC=s request for one-time funding for the summer pre-kindergarten program. Both the PACCC Board and the staff were very enthusiastic about the proposal and looked forward to working together with the PAUSD and the City to implement the program. Joyce Osagiede, 125 Ferne Avenue, applauded the community for having a pre-kindergarten program which was very important. She hoped that, if City government was going to be involved, children who were unable to attend preschool would not get tossed out. She had always supported PACCC and been involved in community volunteerism. The previous year had been hard for her and she had not been financially able to afford to have her child in preschool even though she had pleaded her case to PACCC. PACCC hurt her family deeply. She asked the Council to fund the program, but to make sure that once a child was in the program they would not get left behind as her child had. She had given of herself to the Palo Alto community all her life, and when she needed help from the City, it was not there for her. It hurt families to get turned away from programs, and she asked that families, regardless of their situation, not be turned away once they had been in the program. Emily Osagiede, 125 Ferne Avenue, said she wanted to be able to return to her preschool. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported the funding for the preschool program. For years the Juana Briones School had been heavily impacted by children who could not speak English or spoke limited English and were not well prepared for school. The PAUSD had not had the resources in the past to adequately fund the program. He felt it was an important program. The amount of money was relatively small, and the benefits would be significant. Henry Page, 50 Embarcadero Road, Principal of the Adult School and Director of Child Development Services for the Palo Alto Unified School District, supported the proposal because he had given much time, both paid and volunteer, to the community in which the program would be located. He was concerned that the type of resources necessary to support children and their families be provided. Along with being a collaborative effort, groups of people that came from a variety of organizations and institutions, would make it very cost-effective as well as giving the community
what it needed. He was concerned about Ms Osagiede=s comments and
05/11/98 86-248
noted she was one of his students when she was 16 years old. He supported the City staff but hoped the City could find a way for Ms. Osagiede to be able to have her child in some type of program. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to approve
an amendment to the City=s 1997-98 contract with PACCC to provide additional funds to PACCC in the amount of $17,893, to support a pilot pre-kindergarten program developed by PACCC and PAUSD at Juana Briones School during Summer 1998.
Ordinance 4502 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $17,983 to Palo Alto
Community Child Care in Support of a Pre-Kindergarten Program≅ Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. C5053189 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Community Child Care for Support of a Pre-Kindergarten Program Council Member Ojakian thanked the people from PACCC and the PAUSD for putting in the time and energy involved in the proposal. Sometimes people in Palo Alto forget that there is a segment of the population that was at risk and not always in the position to take advantage of the system. The programs were not new. In the 1960s when he was teaching school, there were similar programs in place. The advantages of the programs were well known, and he was happy to see the proposal. It was an interesting project for the Council because it was a collaborative project where everyone did their part to try and make the program work better. He felt the project would work well for the City. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Wheeler Αnot participating.≅ PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Finance Committee recommendation re the Final 1998-99 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan Council Member Wheeler said that City Manager June Fleming in her overview presentation of the budget had said that it was ironic that in a time of a very healthy economy there was more need in the community for those who were not benefitting from the economy. As could be seen with the CDBG funding received for the year, there seemed to be fewer economic resources allotted to helping the very poorest people in the community. The City incurred a loss of funding for the year which made what was normally a difficult job for the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) a next to impossible job.
The Committee followed the Council=s direction in allocating most of or the entire portion of the capital funding toward the purchase of the Sheridan Apartments. Thus, none of the other worthy
05/11/98 86-249
projects submitted under the capital funding portion of the CDBG were able to be considered. There were some minor differences between the CAC recommendation and the staff recommendation which arose because after the CAC concluded its meetings and recommendations, staff received additional information which freed
up an additional $8,000 from one of the recommended Αto be funded≅ programs. Staff then proceeded to allocate those funds to a few different organizations. She added, on behalf of the Finance Committee, thanks to the citizens who served because it was a very intense job. They devoted themselves to the task and did a very thorough and commendable job. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, that the Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Adopt the Resolution and the Annual Action Plan establishing funding allocations and a funding contingency plan for the 1998/99 CDBG Program.
Resolution 7757 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 1998-1999" 2. Authorize and direct staff to carry out any further required environmental assessments and certifications for each project under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), prior to the commitment of any funds for each project. 3. Authorize and direct the City Manager, or her designee, to execute and submit the 1998/99 CDBG application and other documentation necessary to file the application with HUD, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the application. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open.
Georgia Bacil, representing Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA), 160 E. Virginia Street #260, San Jose, said SALA provided free legal services to elders throughout the county. SALA was the only program designated by the Council on Aging to provide such services
under the Older Americans Act. SALA=s services were targeted to persons 60 years or older who were low-income or at risk of institutionalization. It was the second year for SALA to request CDBG funding from the City and regrettably were not being recommended for funding. She was not asking for reconsideration of the funding recommendation because SALA realized that funds were limited and would not advocate the programs they worked with be cut in order to be funded. SALA planned to return in 1999, and she
05/11/98 86-250
wanted to express some concerns SALA had with the process. The concerns were expressed at the Finance Committee meeting on April 7, 1998, asking that the process for CDBG funding and general human
service funding be reviewed to insure that the City=s application process and the criteria used to evaluate programs were clearly specified in all materials. Also, to insure that the mechanism for prioritizing needs was meaningful, objective, and independent. She
thanked the Finance Committee for listening to SALA=s concerns and directing the staff to begin to review the process. She hoped SALA would have some input in the process. She assured the Council that SALA would not continue to return if they did not feel the need to expand the services at the Palo Alto Senior Center, which was why the funding was requested. Of the Palo Alto clients served by SALA for the first three quarters of 1998, 84 percent were very low-income, 54 percent were age 75 or older, 69 percent were female, and 26 percent were minority seniors. Of the primary issues presented, 13 percent involved public benefits, two-thirds of which
involved Medi-Cal, California=s medical assistant program for indigent people; 20 percent involved housing, either landlord tenant problems or subsidized housing issues; 21 percent involved planning for incapacity, powers of attorney, advanced directives for health care decision making or conservatorship; 4 percent involved elder abuse or family law matters; 13 percent involved consumer matters including bankruptcy and debt collection; 24 percent involved estate planning, probate or trust issues; 3 percent involved simple wills; and 2 percent were fee generating matters which could not be handled because SALA could not charge fees or accept fee generating cases. Services were provided by sending staff and volunteers to 23 senior centers to see clients at appointments. Five years prior, SALA was visiting the Palo Alto Senior Center twice monthly, offering five half-hour appointments at each session. In the years that followed, reductions in county- wide funding forced SALA to cut services in cities, such as Palo Alto, that did not provide direct support. By last year, SALA was providing services at the Palo Alto Senior Center only once a month with four half-hour appointment sessions each time. Because funding was not available from Palo Alto the prior year, services had to be cut by 50 percent. Currently, SALA was servicing the Palo Alto Senior Center every other month with four half-hour appointments and a waiting time of two months or longer. As a result, only 22 percent of the Palo Alto clients SALA had served since July were seen at the Senior Center, 13 percent by telephone, and 65 percent had to travel to a senior center in another city. SALA was troubled by the statistics. It was indisputable that the number of appointments SALA had in Palo Alto was not sufficient to meet its needs. SALA was even more troubled that many elder Palo
Altans were foregoing SALA=s services altogether because of the inability of obtaining a timely appointment at the Senior Center and could not travel to another city. It had been suggested to SALA that its service statistics such as just shared were anecdotal and not statistically significant in terms of determining need.
05/11/98 86-251
People who worked in the nonprofit sector knew that when service statistics were looked at, that represented real people whose needs were significant to themselves and to SALA. She hoped those statistics were significant to the City also. SALA was pleased the Council was reviewing the process and hoped the issue of need would arise which SALA looked forward to discussing. She hoped when SALA returned to the Council in 1999, things would turn out better. Allan Hikoyeda, Attorney and Volunteer, SALA, 675 N. First Street,
Suite PH-7, San Jose, said he had served on SALA=s Board for the past few years and volunteered his time to provide services for elders through SALA. As a private attorney, he knew that a great number of the matters that SALA provided services for were those which he could not meet. He did not have the expertise and neither did his colleagues in the Santa Clara County Bar who volunteered. Currently, there were 40 volunteer attorneys from the County Bar who did serve the residents of the County as well as Palo Alto. Those who participated from Palo Alto were very active and he commended them. As a Board Member of SALA, he did not understand
the funding process. He gathered from Ms. Bacil=s comments regarding the Finance Committee meeting, that a great deal of emphasis was placed on the recommendations of the Senior Coordinating Council (SCC) which suggested that their services covered what was necessary. He felt it was a mistake to suggest that volunteer attorneys who provided such services such as counseling on events directives, health care power of attorneys, or a free will or two to senior centers could cover the needs of those who were most disadvantaged socially or economically which were the
seniors that SALA served. SALA=s funding came from a variety of services. The Older Americans Act under the federal government funded a great portion of it, but SALA was also mandated to seek donations and other sorts of funding from the communities. The private Bar and clients contributed, but cities provided a substantial part of the funding through CDBG funds. Seven cities provided those funds. He encouraged Palo Alto, in its consideration of the process by which funding was requested, to give serious consideration to making the process known in advance. It concerned him that the arrangements suggested that SALA did not coordinate with the SCC or staff or make other arrangements in advance. There was a process for applying for grants or funding, but it was difficult for SALA to compete for funds where the criteria was not clear or the standards known. He hoped that when looking at the services in the future, that SALA would be considered for funding. SALA provided services that were unduplicated by any other organization. He thanked the Council for its consideration. Marcel Hawiger, representing Midpeninsula for Fair Housing (MCFH), 457 Kingsley Avenue, said MCFH was an organization that stood for equality in housing opportunity and choice and diversity in the community. MCFH had been around for a long time and responded to problems of discrimination in housing. He thanked the Council for
05/11/98 86-252
the long time support. One of MCFH=s main services was to respond to persons alleging discrimination due to race, religion, national origin, disability, or other factors protected by the law while trying to rent an apartment, buy a house, or obtain a mortgage. In addition to the investigation MCFH did to determine whether discrimination had occurred, it provided a variety of educational services to try to prevent those types of problems from occurring. One of the continuing major reasons for discrimination in Palo Alto and its surrounding areas was families with children. It especially prevented low-income families from obtaining housing. He appreciated the support of the City. For the future, MCFH was requesting additional funding because Palo Alto historically underfunded its services compared to the level of client service
MCFH provided. Approximately 10 to 12 percent of MCFH=s clients came from Palo Alto; however, historically Palo Alto funded 6 to 7 percent. Consequently, every year MCFH asked for a little more funding. MCFH did not ask for additional funding from cities who already contributed money comparable to its share of client work.
He thanked the Finance Committee for considering MCFH=s request for additional funding. However, he believed that the funding process should be looked at because MCFH, as he understood CDBG Funding Guidelines, was a Housing and Urban Development mandated service, which allowed it to be funded through the CDBG administrative budget line item. Therefore, monies that would be allocated to MCFH could be deducted from the City portion which in theory could be made up from general funds without incurring a long-term obligation. He encouraged the Council to consider that. MCFH was interested in receiving additional money because it received a grant in 1998 from the Palo Alto Endowment Fund to produce another educational video, but the grant was not fully funded and MCFH was seeking more money to complete it. Donna DiMinico, representing Catholic Charities, 2625 Zanker Road, San Jose, thanked the Council for its ongoing support for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, and she appreciated the recommendations from the Finance Committee. She pointed out that the Catholic Charities Program received a sizable cut in funding for the next year. She reminded the Council that her paid staff and volunteers served those people who were chronically ill and
elderly and living in Palo Alto=s five nursing homes and nine residential care facilities for the elderly. Those people were invisible in the community as well as throughout the county. She appreciated that they not be forgotten and that the Council recognize the value of having community advocates to speak up for them in matters of residence rights, quality of life, and quality of care. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
05/11/98 86-253
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Recommendation to Submit an Appeal of Proposed Flood Elevation
Determination in the Federal Emergency Management Agency=s Revised Flood Insurance Rate Map for the San Francisquito Creek Vice Mayor Schneider said she would not participate in the item because her home was located within the proposed flood zone area. City Manager June Fleming clarified that though her home was in the flood zone, she was able to participate in the item because, unlike Vice Mayor Schneider, her home was already in the flood zone and not proposed for any changes, and she was not directly impacted. She did not have a conflict of interest. Council Member Fazzino said regarding the conflict of interest policy, the item related to a large number of homes in Palo Alto with respect to the flood zone, and he could not understand why Council Members were being eliminated from the possibility of discussion, participation, and voting. Given the large number of homes and the large percentage of the community which were included in the flood zone, he felt there should be a threshold with respect to the order of magnitude and the impact of an issue on the community. For instance, if the flood zone were half of the community and included seven Council Members homes, would there be a recommendation that only two Council Members could participate.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council Member Fazzino=s reasoning was excellent, but the facts were different. What Council Member Fazzino was referring to was correct. The conflict of interest law barred a Council Member or other official from participating in a decision that would have a material financial effect. There was an exception when the effect on the Council was the same as it was on the public in general. The public generally was deemed to be 10 percent or more of the persons or owners affected. With regard to the item, the proposed expansion area which Ms. Fleming referred to in distinguishing herself from Vice Mayor Schneider, was not 10 percent of the properties in Palo Alto, so the effect was different on Vice Mayor Schneider than it was on the public generally. Council Member Fazzino said the total was getting close to 10 percent of the total units in the City. Mr. Calonne said that might be, but the conflict of interest law was concerned with the delta which was namely the proposed area. Council Member Fazzino said conceivably whenever there was discussion of a similar issue, the delta could relate to anyone in the flood zone.
05/11/98 86-254
Mr. Calonne did not think so with respect to the facts. Vice Mayor
Schneider=s property was directly in the area that FEMA was
proposing to add to the flood zone, and the City=s action could be construed as having a material effect on her. He was in the same position as Ms. Fleming as his property was currently in the flood zone, and he did not believe there would be any effect in that situation. Ms. Fleming requested the indulgence of the Council with the staff. After the report was issued, a number of concerns were received through various means of communications. She thanked the members of the public who were persistent and clear with the staff about their concerns, and as a result of that, staff reviewed the work that was done and looked at the issue again. Staff continued to talk to the members of the public, and staff wanted to alter the recommendation that was before the Council somewhat in response to those constructive concerns. She did not feel the recommended changes would be difficult to follow, and the changes had been
reviewed with the City Attorney=s Office. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the item before the Council represented the culmination of approximately seven years worth of activity on the part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in conducting reviews of the flood zone for San Francisquito Creek. The item was before the Council the previous Fall when staff recommended that the Council authorize that a
consultant be hired to review FEMA=s draft revised maps. Staff retained Nolte and Associates. The basis of the analysis and appeal centered around three issues: 1) better topographical data and elevations that the City had available through the GIS System; 2) the question of potential revised hydrology for stream flow and water volumes in San Francisquito Creek; and 3) a policy question
about a change in FEMA=s policy to include all areas where any water would flow from the creek presently as opposed to the previous policy of only the depths of one-foot or greater. In the course of the analysis, the issues of the hydrology and the policy were put aside. It was determined that the changes in hydrology were not significant enough to pursue, and the policy issue for a one-foot depth was one that FEMA was applying uniformly throughout the nation as the flood maps were being updated. The technical evaluation on the appeal centered around the evaluation data. Subsequently and during the work in progress, the events of February 2 and 3 occurred as well. The City experienced some real flooding in the area which had also entered into the basis of the staff recommendation. As staff prepared the recommendation, it
considered Nolte=s evaluation and placed before the Council that
evening was a recommendation to appeal FEMA=s map, to add some areas and to delete others. It represented a fine tuning around the edges of the FEMA Draft Map. It did not represent a macro scale challenge, but staff believed that the work that had been done was of a higher quality and should go forward to produce the
05/11/98 86-255
best product possible. He expanded upon Ms. Fleming=s comments with regard to the change in the staff recommendation. Staff
became concerned as to the number of homes in the area of Αthe
Delta,≅ that there might be a significant potential for a number of projects to appear over several months ahead as the appeal moved forward. When the staff report was prepared, staff recommended that, should the recommendation for appeal be approved by Council, staff be directed to begin enforcement effective immediately. Subsequently, the community was heard from that it was a subject of concern. Thus, staff did further research and found that in the area of the Flood Zone Map there were 12 potential candidate properties that were currently in for historic review. Of those, only two represented the potential for a significant improvement that would trigger flood plane requirements. Based upon those numbers and the fact that the Council had a policy choice to make, staff modified its recommendation, withdrew the recommendation to make it effective immediately, and recommended that it not become effective until the publication of the Final Map by FEMA subsequent to the evaluation of the appeal process. Ms. Fleming added that the reason that staff chose that the policy not be enforced until the Final Map was published was because as additional research was done, that was really when it became official. Staff respectfully requested that Council consider the revised time line. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the same type of dilemma might occur when that date came about and that staff was not just putting off being asked that same kind of question. There would still be ongoing things whether it was the current version of the historic regulations or a new version. There would still be properties in the zone that would be presumably somewhere in an approval pipeline and not at building permit stage. She asked whether some sort of pipeline provision and definition of what constituted what was in the pipeline could be built into some of the effective dates of enforcement of new ordinances. Mr. Calonne said yes. The ordinance required that the Final Map be adopted by ordinance. He suggested that the staff look towards bringing an ordinance to the Council relatively soon that would adopt the proposed changes and would have a delayed effective date, that is, longer than the normal 30 days. That would provide formal and practical notice to people that the window was closing and leave ample opportunity to do what they could under the current map if they were in mid-process. Ms. Fleming said she had a conversation with Mr. Calonne that afternoon, and she was in complete agreement. Council Member Huber clarified what was recommended was that the ordinance be effective on the publication of the Final Map.
05/11/98 86-256
Mr. Calonne said under the ordinance, the Council needed to adopt the Final Map. He suggested an earlier action so the effective date would be synchronized with what FEMA did. Council Member Huber said the public needed to be advised of a date far enough out that was safe for the City and the people who had things to do. Mr. Roberts said staff recommended that September 1, 1998, be the preliminary target when FEMA would issue the Final Elevation Determination, assuming that the appeal went in a timely basis and that staff return to the Council with an ordinance that would set that or a modification to that time line as the target date for enforcement. Council Member Fazzino clarified that the City only had flexibility when it came to the issue of time line and the effective date of the rules. The City did not have any flexibility when it came to the issue of the special building requirements. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. The City was also bound by
FEMA=s progress on the time lines. Mr. Calonne said the area that the City staff had struggled with in 1996 was the extent to which federal regulations bound the City on the so-called 50 percent rule which was the threshold for flood proofing in the zone. It was based on property evaluation, and FEMA had carefully avoided giving any clear rules on how to do that. Staff had been concerned that there were different means of calculating that 50 percent threshold in different cities around the Bay Area. It was more of an issue with nonresidential properties, but staff would be remiss if it did not mention that it was an area of arguable flexibility. There had been extensive work done by the Public Works Department with regard to the issue. He did not know how that would go forward, but it was another flexibility point that the Council was familiar with from the past. Council Member Fazzino asked how the 50 percent rule should be interpreted as compared to other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Mr. Calonne said he did not have the specific details with him, but interpretation came down to the appraisal methodology used on the property. His recollection was that it was more an issue for nonresidential properties. Obviously, some appraisal methods gave a bigger number and would allow more improvements. Council Member Fazzino clarified that it was effectively a non-issue with regard to residential property. Mr. Roberts said the flexibility was much less when it came to residential because the building permit valuation were what they were and the market value of the properties were determined by the
05/11/98 86-257
sales price. The difference was with nonresidential in that market value that could be determined either on a sales price or an income basis where a number of other methodologies were used. For single- family residential homes, it was pretty straight forward. Staff had taken a fairly liberal interpretation of those valuations in trying to minimize the number of case in which the criteria would be triggered. Council Member Eakins said in looking at the maps, she did not see either FEMA or Nolte recommending the area that people had discussed at the meeting that evening for fresh water flood zone; Chabot Terrace, Sierra Court, St. Francis Drive, etc. She asked staff for an explanation. Mr. Roberts said that area was and continued to be in the designated flood zone, but it was in the designated flood zone for
the tidal influence from salt water flooding. The way FEMA=s maps were drawn, they showed the worst case scenario and where the depth of the flooding from the tidal influence would be greater than the depth of the flooding from the fresh water. The single designation was shown for the tidal influence so the St. Francis Drive and Chabot Terrace areas were shown on the maps as tidal influence and not subject to being changed by virtue of the action. Council Member Eakins said she understood but was not sure it made
sense. She asked whether they were FEMA=s rules.
Mr. Roberts said it was FEMA=s methodology. Council Member Mossar asked whether a homeowner in the subject area to be added to the maps prior to the publication of the Final Maps decided they wanted to take advantage of the information and alter their home to flood proof it, and could the homeowner obtain guidance from the Public Works Department staff in how to do that. Mr. Roberts staff would be happy to work with any homeowner in the area. Additionally, another thing homeowners in the area designated to be added might wish to do would be to buy the flood insurance up-front at a discounted price before the flood zone became effective. Insurance could currently be purchased for about $260 per year, and after the designation went into effect, it would be about $800 per year. Leif Schaumann, 2640 Elmdale, said he had three issues to address. First, from his observations as to what happened during the flood, none of the maps he had seen were correct. The water damage was far in excess of what was shown on the maps. He recommended that the Council reject the FEMA map. He did not feel the Nolte map was accurate either; there were far more properties that were potentially exposed and were threatened or inundated during the flood. Second, was the money involved. He was talking about the insurance that was being collected under the National Flood
05/11/98 86-258
Insurance Program. He asked whether the City had examined the dollars involved. He wanted the City to find out how much money had been paid by Palo Alto property owners over the prior 25 years and how much money FEMA and NFIP paid out as a result of the February 2 and 3, 1998, flooding. He wanted to see the City prepare estimates as to how much money a certain segment of Palo Alto property owners who were being assessed (approximately 30 percent) with the flood insurance premium, and how much money it would total in 5-year increments over a 30-year period. He felt that would total hundreds of millions of dollars that a segment of Palo Alto property owners would have to pay. The maintenance of the sewers and the creek in November and December should be standard for the City so the drains and creek would be cleared as much as possible. Debra Messick, 1300 Forest Avenue, discussed the enforcement and when it would take effect. The prior month, there was a panel presentation shown on Cable Co-op which she watched and took careful notes because she was planning for a major remodeling of her home. What was said at the meeting, was that the earliest the ordinance could possibly be enforced was May 28, 1998. Based on that information, she went to her architect, set up a schedule, set up a soils engineer, and had been working diligently since that meeting. Then, Saturday morning she read in the Mercury News the ordinance might be enforced May 12, 1998. A fundamental component of the due process clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendments was the concept of notice. She felt it applied to the situation. If the City did not follow what the public was told and they in turn acted upon that, that would be a violation as well as an arbitrary and capriccios action on the part of the Council. Cathie Lehrberg, President, Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, 1085 University Avenue, said the majority of affected homes were in Crescent Park. The work of the City and Nolte Associates to accurately describe the flood zone was appreciated. There were over 2000 homes affected. For those who had a mortgage, flood insurance costs were about $1000, which was approximately $2 million per year, leaving the local economy and a large burden to the affected homeowners. Many owners bought there homes when they were not in a flood zone. Crescent Park hoped that pushing forward for an environmentally sound solution to San Francisquito Creek Flood Plain would remain a top Council priority until resolution was reached. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper Street, (submitted a letter) spent eight months in the HRB process before receiving approval the prior week and it would be months to go through the permit application process. Traditionally, the building application process was used as the triggering event when regulations were changed. In the new regulatory world, by the time a person applied for a building permit, that was the end of the process rather than the beginning of the process. A triggering mechanism geared toward the
05/11/98 86-259
preapproval process should be looked at because the process was extremely lengthy. The staff modification was appropriate but it was unfortunate that the recommended deadline ended where it did. Council Member Huber asked whether December 1 was an adequate time frame for anyone who wished to proceed in light of what Mr. Pierce said about other processes. Mr. Calonne said the Council could give policy direction to implement the revised map at the latest possible date under Federal regulations, and staff would report back when that was. Staff was not in a position to tell the Council the latest possible date map became effective and needed to work backwards from the Federal date to integrate it with the City processes. Ms. Fleming was concerned that if the Council gave a date at the
present meeting, that date would remain in people=s mind. It was hard to undue information once it was in the public. She supported the philosophical approach and asked that the Council give staff the general direction to come back with the correct date. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation to direct the Public Works Department to submit an appeal of the revised San Francisquito Creek Flood Insurance Rate Map in order to refine the boundaries of the new maps. Further, that staff be directed to report back to the City Council on the latest effective date, including a triggering mechanism on adopting the regulations that would apply to the affected properties with respect to the revised FEMA Maps. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider Αnot participating,≅ Kniss absent. 10. Status Report on Flood Protection Activities for San Francisquito Creek and Transmittal of the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) Report on Flood and Erosion Control Alternatives Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the City Managers of Menlo Park and Palo Alto took a leadership role in trying to bring together all the agencies to develop a consensus on flood protection alternatives. A number of activities were underway, including the circulation of a draft joint powers authority (JPA) agreement, a study of erosion control and bank stabilization, a public meeting scheduled for May 22 in the Menlo Park Council Chambers, and participation from the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County Public Works Department. There was a tremendous amount of progress towards consensus on the issues. The CRMP Alternatives Report represented a timely culmination of about two and one half to three years worth of work in the CRMP process. The City Council in 1994 and 1995 gave staff authorization and direction to proceed with studying San Francisquito Creek and working with the CRMP process to develop flood control alternatives. The report was a historical summary of
05/11/98 86-260
a number of potential types of flood protection alternatives to the creek. It did not represent a final design or engineering report but laid out concepts for further study and direction. Staff heartily endorsed the report and recommended the Council direct staff to send a letter to the Santa Clara Valley Water District requesting those alternatives be studied further. Pat Showalter, San Francisquito Creek CRMP Coordinator, said the
title of the report, ΑReconnaissance Investigation Report of San
Francisquito Creek≅ was confusing because it could apply to many things, but it applied only to flooding. The alternatives listed in the report were chosen from past engineering documents that had been completed during the prior forty years. There was interest in the creek after the 1955 flood which led to about six engineering studies that never came to fruition because of the complex jurisdictional situation that existed along San Francisquito Creek. There were two counties, five municipalities, and Stanford to deal with. When the CRMP process began, flood control was identified as a major problem. People involved in the process felt that information brought together in one place would help stimulate discussion about flood control alternatives. It seemed like the first place to start was the studies that had already been carried out. The alternatives from those past studies were pulled together, but those studies were conducted between 1955 and 1979. The environmental laws and values had changed dramatically during that period. The alternatives were described in the report, and descriptions of the environmental and social impacts of each were added. Because of the change in laws, the idea of concreting the channel, putting in the concrete trapezoidal channel that many people associated with flood control, was not a reasonable possibility on the creek because it was the home of a run of steel head trout. In order to put in a trapezoidal channel, over three miles of stream had to be mitigated. The report brought together information for an informed discussion. There was no final answer. There could be many alternatives. People involved in the San Francisquito Creek Coordinating Committee were pleased to see what was going forward. During the prior four or five years, the CRMP served as a voluntary collaborative effort. The potential for a JPA was the next logical step. Council Member Huber said the suggestion was made to continue the joint meetings to consider a JPA. His concern was funding and what would happen in the year 2000 with the Northwest Flood Control District. Mr. Roberts said the current tax would expire in the year 2000, and the Water District was contemplating an election in November to ask for reauthorization and extension of that increment. Council Member Huber clarified the Water District was the entire County of Santa Clara.
05/11/98 86-261
Mr. Roberts said that was correct, but he understood the Water District could choose to go zone by zone if it desired. They were not bound to do it countywide. Approval by two thirds of the eligible voters was required. Council Member Huber asked whether there was anything on the horizon for San Mateo County to develop a similar funding mechanism to deal with parts of the creek. Mr. Roberts said he was not aware of anything, but preliminary discussions at the staff level had begun. Council Member Huber asked whether a JPA would have the ability to fundraise itself with bonds, tax, etc. Mr. Roberts said it would depend upon the specifics of the JPA which was not contemplated currently with the initial JPA. Council Member Eakins said the watershed was 45 square miles for San Francisquito Creek and asked what the square mileage for Adobe Creek might be. Mr. Roberts said it was approximately one-quarter as much. Council Member Wheeler said the report pointed out that regardless of which alternative or combination of alternatives the affected communities selected, the ultimate solution was a long way away. Many of the creekside properties were owned by individuals. She asked what the City could do for those property owners to get assistance in the maintenance issues with the creek. Ms. Fleming said currently Menlo Park had an RFQ out to address having a consultant look at bank stabilization because Menlo Park had so many private property owners who had asked the City of Menlo Park for assistance and recommendations as to what could be done along the banks for stabilization. The idea had come about that Palo Alto join in that effort because of some private properties also. It would be beneficial if everyone were doing the same thing. The discussions had begun regarding how that would work, how to get input, whether it would be beneficial, what the costs
would be, and whether Menlo Park=s RFQ would meet everyones needs. Menlo Park was willing to cooperate with Palo Alto, and Palo Alto was looking at ways to make that work. One issue that would need to be addressed was whether or not those standards, once developed, would do two things: 1) be standards the municipal organization could use as well as private land owners, and 2) suggest to private property owners that was what they should do. Council Member Wheeler said there were a number of proposals for development or redevelopment along the creek that would be discussed at the present meeting and future meetings. She
05/11/98 86-262
questioned what the City and others could do so that property owners did no harm in the meantime. Ms. Fleming said the best the City could do in the interim was to be vigilant. The staff would watch projects with a commitment to
raise people=s sensitiveness about the projects. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified Stanford was the only non-governmental body participating in the CRMP Committee. Ms. Fleming said Stanford was a private landowner on the Committee. She had discussions with Stanford Management Company, and they were committed to the process. The City may have to be cautious if a JPA was formed, in terms of membership and structure. Everyone understood the issue required cooperation. She did not believe that anyone would stand out as the group or entity that prevented the JPA from working. Council Member Fazzino asked who would take the responsibility for managing the JPA effort. Ms. Fleming said one of the things that had to be done was to have a discussion with someone from Santa Clara Valley Water District. They were cooperative in the process, and their manager agreed to meet with Jan Dolan, another member of the group, and herself, to begin giving serious discussion to the subject. There was a
reality about the Santa Clara Valley Water District=s authority and responsibility. Ms. Showalter said working together on the bank stabilization study would be a nice demonstration project for how a JPA might work and would allow everyone to start out with a small, discreet project and work out the kinks of what a JPA would undoubtedly cause through a small project. From a process point of view, that was another good argument for taking part in the study with Menlo Park the following summer because it would allow a lot of the problems to undoubtedly come to the surface. Ms. Fleming said staff realized the need for short-term effective steps while waiting for the longer solution. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Water District was committed to the process. He heard conflicting perspectives on the issue and nothing would be successful unless the Water District took a leadership role. That meant public official leadership as well as staff resources. Ms. Fleming said the current experience was that many people from the Water District attended the meetings that were held every other week. Stan Williams had been the most cooperative executive director that she had seen at the Water District. He participated
regularly in the Santa Clara County Managers= Meeting and was
05/11/98 86-263
cooperative, excited, and willing to have the discussion on organizational structure.
Council Member Fazzino asked whether it was the City Manager=s understanding that the group was going to develop a shared set of objectives and expectations with respect to the entire process. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the JPA could be set up in such a way to allow for the possibility for joint funding of a project. Mr. Calonne said yes. He was not sure to what extent the managers had decided whether that was advantageous to have the entity operate as a fundraising entity. Council Member Fazzino asked about raising revenue for a major project. Mr. Calonne said that was a policy question, but the issue was whether or not it would be advantageous. Ms. Fleming said the Council had supported the funding requests for
CRMP, and she included funding for CRMP in the next year=s budget. There were many complex issues to be worked out. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there would be dedicated staffing to the effort. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the process would involve both elected officials as well as staff. Ms Fleming said the process involved elected officials because the Council had representatives and liaisons on the Santa Clara Valley Water District Staff continued to report to the Council and continued to meet with neighbors and the Council. Council Member Fazzino said there was no question the effort would be successful if staff resources were in place to provide leadership at a technical level. The reality was that no political solution was possible unless public officials and the public were directly involved in the process. Ms. Fleming said she would let the Council know whether she got to a point where the work that needed to be done was beyond the capacity for staff to absorb with existing staff. Mayor Rosenbaum said although the benefit assessment, in theory, would sunset in the year 2000, the Water District was planning to
05/11/98 86-264
issue as large an amount of bonds as the benefit assessment approved in 1986 would allow. That did not contain money that was sufficient to do any construction on a San Francisquito Creek project. That would require a future election. The JPA was the organization that would represent the agencies in the area and would be in a position as to what type of project was acceptable to the member agencies. From that point on, the Council should be happy to let the Water District do the actual construction, with the caveat that the Santa Clara Valley Water District would insist that San Mateo County pay its proportionate share of the project. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Endorse the Reconnaissance Investigation Report of San Francisquito Creek prepared through the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) process as the basis for further study of flood and erosion control alternatives for San Francisquito Creek. 2. Direct the City Manager to continue the ongoing cooperative efforts with other San Francisquito Creek stakeholders to form a joint powers authority to oversee development and implementation of flood and erosion control measures for the creek. 3. Direct the City Manager to submit the letter to Stan Williams, General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD), reaffirming Palo Alto=s support for the study of flood and erosion control options for San Francisquito Creek, and requesting that the SCVWD take a lead agency role in preparation of such a study. Council Member Fazzino said he was delighted with the progress that had been made and pleased that the City Manager played a leadership
role in moving the process along. He agreed with the Mayor=s expectations that the North County and Southern San Mateo County had to decide what type of project was desired and, at that point, the Water District would play a leadership role with respect to technical, engineering, and perhaps a major part of the funding. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Council Member Fazzino said he understood there would be a discussion not only about the creek but about other aspects of flood management, the emergency response system, etc. He had heard that changes had been made in schedules, and he asked for confirmation of those changes. Ms. Fleming said it was announced in the last flood update, that the meeting would be delayed until June 8, 1998, due to too many competing assignments. A recap of how the City responded the night of the flood and the plan itself would be going to Council on June
05/11/98 86-265
8, 1998. The Emergency Response Plan would be referred to Committee. 11. University Circle Redevelopment Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Anne Moore said the report concerned the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the University Circle Redevelopment project in East Palo Alto which was a 665,000-square-foot office/retail/hotel project. There was currently a public review period through May 14, 1998. There had been a multi-departmental review which resulted in the comments included in the staff report (CMR:230:97). The most important thing to remember about the project was that it was a subject of a 1991 settlement agreement which resulted from litigation initiated by the City in 1988 based
on the City of East Palo Alto=s approval of a prior project. What was currently before the East Palo Alto City Council and undergoing public review was a revised less intense project which had been approved in 1988. The project had been reviewed by the City Attorney for consistency with the settlement agreement. The main considerations in the settlement agreement concerned maximum square footage, building height, and setbacks of various features of the project. The proposed project was the maximum allowable square footage, but it was significantly less in terms of overall height from the maximums allowed under the terms of the settlement agreement. Input resulting from a Crescent Park Neighborhood Association meeting brought up several questions and concerns with regard to the DSEIR detailed on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report (CMR:230:97). Those concerns were service methodology at the University Avenue interchange, how existing and future trips were projected, the analysis of parking demand, and the reconfigured University Avenue interchange. Council Member Wheeler asked what effect, if any, the construction of the project would have on the hydrology of the creek and surrounding areas, did staff feel comfortable in its review of the project design and had the hydrology aspects been addressed and resolved in the DSEIR. Ms. Moore said the pertinent sections of the document were referred to the Public Works Department staff for review, and staff reported there were no concerns about the drainage aspects of the project which would affect the City of Palo Alto. The City of Menlo Park had some concerns which were of a different nature than any concerns Palo Alto had. Council Member Mossar referred to page 4 of the staff report (CMR:230:97), second item under Transportation, and said she was unclear whether the language addressed the interests of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association to include neighborhood
05/11/98 86-266
streets such as Lincoln Avenue, Crescent Drive, Hamilton Avenue, Newell Road, and Center Street. Ms. Moore said the item did not. However, when staff first received the DSEIR, she corresponded with the Community Development Director and asked that the Transportation Department staff be able to consult directly with the Traffic Engineer who had prepared the analysis included in the document. Planning Division staff received that authorization the prior week. Traffic Engineer Carl Stoffel had contacted Corvey Engineers and specifically requested information regarding those residential streets which was generally consistent with what had been requested by the Neighborhood Association. Staff did not have data available that evening and expected that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) would contain that information. Council Member Mossar referred to Comment No. 5 on page 5 of the
staff report, ΑThe reconfigured University Avenue interchange
results in a bicycle circulation pattern,≅ and clarified it related to University Avenue and Highway 101. Ms. Moore replied yes. The Bicycle Advisory Committee had reviewed the project. Council Member Mossar said the staff report generally made a point that there had been limited staff review of the proposal. She wanted some reassurance that limited staff review was adequate. Ms. Moore said the staff review was quite thorough in terms of evaluating the project to ensure consistency with the settlement agreement which was the most important aspect for staff to determine. The settlement agreement precluded the City from opposing a project consistent with the settlement agreement or to recommend a less intense alternative. Careful review was done to make sure the project was consistent with the settlement agreement. Vice Mayor Schneider said the last time a project was proposed for Whiskey Gulch, it did not succeed due mainly to lawsuits, some being filed by business owners on University Avenue in East Palo Alto. It had been reported that there was again concern for the business owners that could be displaced because of the project. She asked whether anyone was aware of any legal action being taken by business owners in that area. City Manager June Fleming said the City had not received any official notice. She suggested talking to the project proposers. Vice Mayor Schneider asked what the time line for the project was. Ms. Moore said the project was expected to be completed some time in the year 2000-2001. The project proponents could provide more information.
05/11/98 86-267
Vice Mayor Schneider asked when ground would be broken. Ms. Moore said the proponents indicated at neighborhood meetings that ground breaking would be during the first half of 1999. Vice Mayor Schneider said East Palo Alto had changed the load limit on that section of University Avenue to three tons. University Avenue in Palo Alto was still at the seven ton limit, and she asked whether Palo Alto would be looking at changing the load limit again. Ms. Moore said that was an assignment that had been given to the Transportation Division some time back, and due to staff vacancies in the division, the project had not yet been initiated. It was something that needed to be looked at in the upcoming work program for the Transportation Division. Council Member Huber asked what the interchange would look like at University Avenue and U.S. 101. Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said the actual overcrossing over the freeway would not be affected. Everything being changed was over the ground on the Palo Alto side where widening would take place. There would be significant changes to the on and off ramps. On southbound U.S. 101 entering Palo Alto, would go directly onto westbound University Avenue. The other significant change would be to get on to southbound U.S. 101 where there would be a new signal installed and people heading west from East Palo Alto to go south on U.S. 101 would make a left turn at that signal. It was a standard configuration for new onramp design instead of the old cloverleaf design. It increased the capacity of the ramps and the freeway. University Avenue/Woodland Avenue was substantially changed also. The project was generating a fair amount of traffic that needed to be handled at the University Avenue/Woodland Avenue intersection. The project would consist of many additional lanes, several sets of dual turning lanes, a new signal, and a more complicated intersection at University Avenue
and Woodland Avenue. In staff=s opinion, it was a traffic engineering-oriented design that would to most degrees handle the traffic. With more traffic, the service would decrease somewhat, but there would be better handling of traffic at the intersections. Pedestrians and bicyclists would have probably have a difficult
time, and both Palo Alto=s and Menlo Park=s staff received numerous comments about the lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Council Member Ojakian clarified that the traffic that came off of U.S. 101 onto University Avenue in the Whiskey Gulch area would then go directly onto University Avenue. Mr. Stoffel said it would be more direct and enter onto the main part of University Avenue.
05/11/98 86-268
Council Member Ojakian said as he understood the situation, staff did not have good traffic data yet in terms of some of the streets off University Avenue. Mr. Stoffel said data was lacking on some of the local residential streets. The consultants included a number of streets at the
City=s request that were not included back in the original DeMonet project such as Lytton Avenue, Chaucer Street, Palo Alto Avenue, etc. Streets such as Newell Road and Lincoln Street were omitted. Several of the streets were included in the (DSEIR) and had traffic projections. Council Member Ojakian said because the data was not complete and would be in the FEIR, he asked whether there was an impact on Palo
Alto=s streets which was connected to but independent of East Palo
Alto=s projects, and whether staff had any plans regarding how that would be handled. Mr. Stoffel said staff was expecting that data before the comments would be made on the EIR, rather than waiting until afterwards. He said that might be more important than getting a couple more streets in the picture. Staff thought the estimation of the distribution of the trips from the office and hotel was lacking in terms of how much traffic would be going to Palo Alto. Staff had asked that the trip numbers be revised, but he did not know whether the revision would be ready to include in the comments. The revision could raise the number of trips that were on Palo Alto streets. However, the introduction was somewhat moot because the project conformed with the settlement agreement and the trip generation, the square footage, etc., conformed. Council Member Ojakian said his role as a policy maker was to look at Palo Alto streets and make sure they were still safe. Mr. Stoffel said every indication in the DSEIR showed increments of trips on streets such as University Avenue, Palo Alto Avenue, Lytton Avenue, etc., and were well within the acceptable range of increase using the standard index. He believed the other two streets which staff did not have numbers for yet would have similar small increases. The neighbors may not agree with the numbers, but staff felt it was less than a significant increase. Council Member Huber asked whether it would make any difference under the settlement agreement if the numbers amounted to 25 percent higher than anticipated. City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied no. The settlement agreement set out an acceptable envelope which was derived from the information that was available at the time. The way out of the settlement would depend on project changes that generated significant adverse effects.
05/11/98 86-269
Council Member Huber clarified that with regard to increased traffic within Palo Alto, it was what the City could do to deal with the traffic, and the City could not really put any heat on the rest.
Mr. Calonne said it would not be that Αhands off.≅ As the staff report represented, comments could be made. He had discussed that with the special Counsel for Menlo Park. It might be worth some effort to have a policy level discussion with the various city managers and applicants to talk about how project changes might happen. The fact that the City could not go to court did not mean problems could not be worked out. Council Member Huber understood that Menlo Park was not part of the settlement agreement. Mr. Calonne replied no, Menlo Park had its own settlement agreement.
Council Member Mossar said with regard to the building Αenvelope,≅ she asked whether the settlement agreement included the entrance on Woodland Street. Mr. Stoffel said the diagram being displayed was the same as was in the settlement agreement, so it did include the entrance on Woodland Street. Council Member Mossar understood that Public Works Department staff had reviewed the DSEIR for drainage issues and asked whether the City had reviewed the document for water quality issues. The property drained into San Francisco Bay at a place that the City was held responsible by various Bay authorities. Ms. Moore said staff reviewed that section of the DSEIR and there was nothing in the conclusions that led staff to believe that there were inaccuracies in the report. It did not find any significant adverse water quality impacts from project. Council Member Mossar asked who had reviewed the DSEIR for water quality impacts. Ms. Moore said Planning Division staff reviewed the DSEIR. Council Member Mossar asked whether there was some reason why the City staff that dealt with water quality issues were not asked to review the document. Ms. Moore replied no. Ms. Moore thought it might be prudent for the staff who were responsible on behalf of the City for water quality to review the DSEIR. She would be more comfortable if that were the case.
05/11/98 86-270
Council Member Eakins asked where the pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing over U.S. 101 would be located. Mr. Stoffel said there was one sidewalk currently on the north side of the overcrossing. That sidewalk would remain and be brought over the off ramp, leaving a separation, and would go back down along U.S. 101. There was no other improvement with regard to crossing the freeway. Staff might include in its comments a request for a separate overcrossing. Council Member Eakins asked whether bicycles and pedestrians would be competing with cars for egress and ingress throughout the progress. Mr. Stoffel said previously a slide was displayed showing a pedestrian entrance to the project opposite the new intersections. There were also a couple of other locations. There were no bicycle lanes or facilities shown on the diagram, but staff would be including that in their comments. The pedestrian access points were also part of the settlement agreement. People crossing from the south side would have to cross University Avenue at Woodland Avenue where there was no crosswalk, but staff was hoping to get one placed there. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff had taken into consideration ramp metering on Oregon Avenue and Embarcadero Road, its impact on University Avenue, and the exacerbated impact based upon the project and the increased traffic in that area. Mr. Stoffel said to his knowledge, the DSEIR did not specifically get into any ramp metering issues. However, CalTrans was involved and had already approved the interchange design and should have anticipated that type of thing. Council Member Fazzino felt ramp metering was a very legitimate issue that needed to be addressed since it began south of the project and would not exist near or north of the project for five to seven years. Ms. Moore said the question was a good one, and staff would make sure to include it in the comments being forwarded on to East Palo Alto. Staff also expected to join with Menlo Park in requesting that there be meetings with CalTrans, the project proponents, and representatives of East Palo Alto to discuss those details. Staff had been particularly concerned about the pedestrian/bicycle conflicts, and discussions would be an excellent way to pose the question about future ramp metering. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, said she was concerned that the Crescent Park neighborhood had not received the traffic counts on Crescent Park streets and hoped those counts would be
05/11/98 86-271
received prior to May 14, 1998. She felt the year 2000 would have a major impact on Crescent Park because many projects were slotted to be completed that year. It was up to the Council to respond to the traffic needs in Crescent Park. Another concern was the overpass. The backup onto City streets would be incredible for both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. She was delighted that staff was getting together with Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and CalTrans to try and work everything out. She felt the Crescent Park neighborhood needed a commitment from the Council to address traffic issues in the Crescent Park area. She hoped staff would soon have a date with regard to when the three-ton truck study would be completed. Paul Goldstein, 1024 Emerson Street, he said agreed with Ms.
Lehrberg=s comments and appreciated staff=s and Council=s questions regarding the impacts of the project, particularly about bicyclists. He was a member of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) which submitted a letter for the Council packet
expressing PABAC=s concerns about the proposed design of the overpass at University Avenue and U.S. 101. Freeway interchanges were always problematic for bicyclists, and the current interchange at University Avenue and U.S. 101 was far from ideal. The University Circle project was needed by East Palo Alto which would generate revenue and jobs, but he was disappointed that the project would create even greater barriers between East Palo Alto and West East Palo Alto in that virtually the only way to get to the project was by vehicle. The pedestrian and bicycle access was severely
compromised. He welcomed staff=s intention to work with the other agencies involved in trying to improve some of the design elements. He encouraged the Council to direct staff to exercise whatever influence they had in the process to improve the pedestrian/bicycle access to the project. He believed that some things could be done at very low cost such as striping, lane changes, and reducing the turning radius in some curves to slow traffic down and at least make the project more bicycle friendly. The ideal would be bicycle lanes and a separate overcrossing which would be more costly. Harlan Pinto, 1845 University Avenue, said he was concerned about pedestrian safety in and around the 1800 block in Palo Alto. The DSEIR did not address impacts in the City of Palo Alto in terms of traffic or pedestrians. He displayed a diagram showing a crosswalk many children used to get to school which was already dangerous and without a traffic light or stop sign in the area, people would not see the crosswalk due to the curve in the road. There were some traffic impacts that needed to be addressed which were not addressed in the DSEIR. He hoped the Council would take those things into consideration and encourage the other jurisdictions to look at the traffic impacts and the pedestrian and safety issues. Council Member Mossar said that the University Corridor was a significant bicycle route from East Palo Alto into Palo Alto and Stanford for employees. The existing transit services from East
05/11/98 86-272
Palo Alto into Palo Alto were limited, and it was critically important to remember that the corridor was a linkage between the
two communities. It was in neither of East Palo Alto=s or Palo
Alto=s interest to restrict that linkage to automobile traffic. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the City of East Palo Alto conveying the City of Palo
Alto=s comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the University Circle Redevelopment Project consistent with the staff report (CMR:230:97).
Council Member Ojakian supported East Palo Alto=s building out on some of their projects due to its economic needs and explained why he had made similar comments with regard to Gateway 101 a few years prior, but there were some concerns within Palo Alto related to traffic. The City needed to be sensitive to that as other projects were occurring. It sounded like there would be better traffic counts dealing with some additional streets off of University Avenue but that information was not currently available. He would like a copy of that information made available to the public who had shown some interest in the issue. He had some concerns about the overpass and hoped staff would continue to communicate with East Palo Alto. Separate from an EIR meeting, he hoped a dialogue would be continued with East Palo Alto that would cover concerns related to the overpass, the interchanges, and the pedestrian and bicycle access capabilities to be provided in the project, along with potential counts on University Avenue. He realized some of the issues around truck tonnage on University Avenue had been delayed, and he hoped the Council would get back to that. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 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
05/11/98 86-273
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
05/11/98 86-274