HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
c-�--F: ' O AL TOCITY COUNCIL MEETENGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KCZSU-FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL
1. Resolution Expressing
H. Kenneth Ai. sman
2. Resolution Expressing
Carolyn George
3. Resolution Expressing
Don Mullen
Oral Communication
Minutes of May 15, 1989
Consent Calendar
4. Resolution Expressing
Elizabeth Kittas
5. Resolution Expressing
Linn Winterbothame
Special Meeting
June 19,-1989
Appreciation to
Appreciation to
Appreciation to
Appreciation to
Appreciation to
7. Contract. with Harper & Associates, Inc. to
Provide Specifications for Specific Reservoir
X*prove nti
8. Contracts with O'Brien & Associates, Energy 61-401
Resource Associates, tad ENCON for Engineering
Consulting Services to Utilities Energy Services
for Commercial/Industrial Program
9. South Bay Dischargers Authority - Approval of
Budget
JAGV
61-400
61-400
61-400
61-400
61-401
61-401
61-401
61.401
61-401
61-401
61-398
6/19/89
ITEM
10. Planning Commission Recommendation re Appli-
cation of George Brook-Kothlow Architect for
Site and Design Approval for Property Located
at 701 Los Trancos Woods Road
18. (Old 6) Contract with Contra Costa Electric for
Installation and Removal of Utility Poles
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom-
mendation re Application of City of Palo Alto
for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Change and
Zone Change for Property Located at 3005-3009
Middlefield
Road
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom-
mendation re Addition of Nonconforming Use
Termination Provisions to the Palo Alto
Municipal Code
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom-
mendation re Appeal of Christopher Treble
for Property Located at One Crescent Drive
14. Finance and Public Works Committee re
Utility Users Tax
15. Planning Commission Recommendation re Pro-
posed Santa Clara County Use Permit for
Stanford University
PAGE
61-401
61-402
61-403
61-406
61.408
61.412
61-419
16. Agreement with Digital Equipment Corporation 61-426
for Hardware Maintenance for Supervisor
Control Data and Acquisition Syntum
17. Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program 61-426
Adjournment at 11:46 p.m. 61-426
61-399
6/19/89
Special Meeting
June 19, 1989
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 8:15 p.m.
Mayor Klein announced that a Special Joint Meeting with the
Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Conference
Room.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy (arrived at
8:17 p.m.), Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
(arrived at 8:16 p.m.)
LCI S OF
MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Menzel,
approval of the Resolutions of Appreciation.
1. tESOLUTZQN 87§1 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO H. KENNETH ALSMAN
FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES BOARD" (702-02)
2. tESOLUT QN 6789 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION OF CAROLYN GEORGE
FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES BOARD" (702-02)
3. $ESQLUT4ON 6790 entitled "RESOLUTION OP THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DON MULLEN FOR
OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A mum OF THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES BOARD" (702-02)
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
OEM.• C0I J 4ICAT ;ONS
1. Richard Rundell, 859 Lytton avenue, spoke regarding religious
freedom.
2. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto
Harbor.
3. Jacqueline Stewart, 1580 Walnut Drive, spoke regarding support
for keeping the libraries open.
4. Bob Dose`, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding libraries and
hours of operation.
61-400
6/19/89
APPROVAL.OF_ulijaES
!NOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seernded by Fletcher,
approval of the Minutes of May 15, 1989, as submitted.
MOTION PARSED 9-0.
CQNSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
approve Consent Calendar Items 4 - 10, with Item 6 removed by
Council Member Woolley.
4. AZSOLUTION 6791 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ELIZABETH KITTAS
FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES BOARD" (702-02)
5. jtESOLUTIQN 772 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO LINN WINTERBOTHAM
FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SEi3VICE AS A MEMBER OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD" (702-01)
7. Contract with Harper and Associates, Inc. to Provide
Specifications for Specific Reservoir Improvements; Change
Orders up to $230 (1120) (CMR:309:9)
8. Contracts with O'Brien & Associates, Energy Resource
Associates, and ENCON for Engineering Consulting Services to
Utilities Energy Services for Commercial/Industrial Program;
Change Orders up to $6,750 (1105) (CMR:307:9)
9. South Bay Dischargers Authority - Approval of Budget (1122)
(CMR:318:9)
10. Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval,
with amiwied findings and conditions, of the application of
George Brook-Kothlcsw Architect for Site and Design approval
for a single-family residence and site improvements for
property located at 701 Los Trancos Wood Road (300)
NOTION PA1 AED 9-0.
City Manager Bill Zaner announced that Item 6 would tacos. Item
18.
61-401
6/19/89
i
NOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to bring forward Item
18 ahead of Item 11.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
18. (Old 6), Contract with Contra Costa Electric for Installation
and Removal of Utility Poles (110 1) (CMR:311:9 )
Council Member Woolley understood there was , need to replace 24
telephone poles due to deterioration, and all of the electrical
attachments would be transferred to the new poles. The old pole
would be topped just above the telephone and cable television- lines
leaving 48 poles remaining in the area. She asked for clarifica-
tion.
Director of Utilities Rich Young said it was a temporary situation.
The difficulty was the telephone and cable companies had to do
their own work on their own schedules. Eventually there would only
be one pole.
Council Member Woolley queried whether the City could pass an
ordinance to ensure that within a reasonable period of time the
transfer to one pole was made.
City Attorney Diane Northway deferred
MOTION TO CONTXMUE: Council Member
Levy, to continue the matter for staff
information regarding the change over
response.
Woolley moved, seconded by
to return with more complete
to one pole.
Council Member Renuel preferred for Council to approve the staff
recommendation and request the other information. Unsafe poles
needed to be dealt with. She opposed a continuance.
Council Member Patitucci referred to the latest underground
district and said the poles were still there after two years.
Mr. Young said the poles were in the process of being removed.
Council Member Patitucci said if a two-year delay was indicative
of the process, it was unacceptable. He opposed the continuance.
Council Member Levy asked whether a continuance was in order or
whether time was of the essence.
Mr. Young said the concern was a matter of how long the bid had
been out. While he deferred response in terms of when the bid was
received, there was a certain amount of days in which it was valid.
The poles were deteriorated and the work would have to be done.
He hesitated losing a good bid unless absolutely necessary.
61-402
6/19/89
Mr. Zaner confirmed the concern about the bid remaining valid. It
would take the City Attorney some time to research the question of
how to assure change over in an expedient manner. He recommended
Council award the contract and retain the assignment to the City
Attorney.
Mayor Klein opposed the continuance.
MOTION TO CONTINUE FAILED 2-7, Woolley, Patitucci voting "aye."
MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
approve staff recommendation adding Recommendation 3 as follows:
1. Execute a contract with Contra Costa Electric, Inc. in the
amount of $79,953 for the installation and removal of twenty
four (24) utility poles and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction
contract up to $8,000; and
3. Request the City Attorney to report back to the Council on
what methods are available to persuade the telephone company
and the cable company to transfer their utility lines to the
new poles,
Council Member Sutorius requested the motion be divided for
purposes of voting since he could not participate on the question
of how to persuade the telephone company.
MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING
FIRST PART OF MOTION PASSED 9-'0, regarding Items 1 and 2.
SECOND PART OP NOTION PAuSEO 8-0, Sutorius "not participating,"
regarding Item 3.
EUBLICAAABINO
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re
Application of the City of Palo Alto for a Comprehsasive Plan
Land Use Map Chafe for Property Located at 3005-3009
Middlefield Road (hinter Lodge) (300) (0:315:9)
City Attorrey Diane Northway referred to a letter dated June 8,
1989, from t'he 3065-3077 Middlefield Road Homeowners' Association,
(on file in the City Clerk's Office), and the applicable noise
ordinance regulations. The property in question was public and,
therefore, the public property noise ordinance applied. The
significant question was not the noise ordinance but what would
61-403
6/19/89
1
i
happen with the property should Council rezone it PF. Luring the
process there would be an opportunity and requirement for a hearing
regarding a conditional use permit. The Zoning Administrator could
impose on such a use permit stricter requirements than those
contained in the noise ordinance.
Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle corrected Finding 2 on page 3 of
the staff report (CMR:315:9), by changing the word "perpetuation"
on line 3, to "continuation."
Council Member Levy said some of the Planning Commissioners wanted
to leave open the question of whether the property or at least the
non -Winter Lodge portion, could still be used as residential... He
queried whether the Comprehensive Plan designation could be either
PF or residential.
Ms. Northway believed the property would have to be referred to as
both PF and residential rather than an "in the alternative."
Council Member Renzel clarified whether the current designation of
dedicated harks was PF.
Ms. Northway said that was correct as required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
Council Member Renzel queried whether the Winter Lodge could be
treated as a concessionaire if the pcoperty was park dedicated.
Ms. Northway said yes.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing Open.
Jeremy Newberger, 3 065 Middlefield Road, #204 , was a member of the
Middlefield Road Homeowners, Association, expressed concern about
the effects of a zoning ordinance change on the noise ordinance,
and the fact that the Winter Lodge would be allowed to make more
noise 'without mitigations.
Genevieve Dean, 3077 Middlefield, was concerned about retaining
her rights as a citizen in terms of noise and the Winter Lodge.
Patti Price, 3069 Middlefield Road, 1203, wanted Council to reserve
maximum ability to specify and enforce reasonable noise limits.
If the Winter Lodge was to enjoy the proposed changes in the
Comprehensive Plan designation, it also be held accountable for the
associated responsibilities to its neighbors.
61-404
6/19/89
Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, #101, believed the noise
generated by the Winter Lodge was at a much higher level than that
normally acceptable in a residential zone. She urged considera-
tion.
Susan Kelso, 2125 Emerson Street, represented Community Skating,
Inc. (CSI), and referred to their plans to apply for a conditional
use permit in connection with facility expansion. An important
part of the application package was the sound report which included
documentation of the sound mitigation measures completed while the
adjacent condominiums were being constructed, the reductions in
measured sound levels, and CSI's efforts to work with neighbors of
the Winter Lodge, and plans for further mitigation beyond the
requirements of the noise ordinance.
Bill Rosenberg, 820 Bruce Drive, represented CSI. The Winter Lodge
land was acquired by the City as part of an exchange for some land
adjacent to the Golf Course. He urged the property be rezoned PF
to maintain the public facility land,
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve
the staff recommendation and findings of the Planning Commission,
as follows:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration;
2. Adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment redssignating the
property from Multiple -Family Residential to Major
Institutions/Special Facilities; -und
3. Adopt the Zone Change Ordinance from RM-15, Low -Density
Multiple Family, to PF, Public Facilities.
Findings
1. The rezoning and redeaignat. n of the property is in the
public interest in that it is consistent with a 1985
voter -sponsored and adopted initiative and the current public
ownership.
2. The rezoning and redesignation will not create significant
environmental impacts, as evidenced in the attached negative
declaration, in that it will allow continuation of existing
land uses and improvement of facilities that house those uses.
Any future expansion would be subject to the Conditional Use
Permit and the Architectural Review Board process.
61-405
6/19/39
1
f
3. The Major Institution/Special Facilities land use designation
is intended to be applied to publicly owned land, as described
in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3005-3009
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD"
ISOLYON 6793 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF CITY-OWi:ED
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3005-3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD"
Council Member Cobb did not believe housing should be developed on
the balance of the Winter Lodge property because it would be
virtually impossible for the Winter Lodge to continue to operate.
He supported the PF designation fer the existing uses and there
were some alternatives to consider, which might enable the City to
make better use of the PF zone. He referred to discussion of
having tennis as part of the long-term plan at Greer yet the four
eourte on tie Winter Lodge property already existed and were in
excellent condition with lights. The location of the tennis courts
might enable Council to look at the Greer situation a little
differently. The proposed zone change would not preclude future
use for housing. If the Winter Lodge went out of existence, the
zoning could be changed to residential at that time. So long as
the Winter Lodge was in operation, to retain the housing zone on
the site made the Lodge's ability to get along with its neighbors
even more difficult.
Council Member Renzel supported the PF designation. She believed
the property should ultimately be dedicated as parkland to replace
the parkland which was borrowed to pay for the land.
NOTION FMCS 9-0.
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re
addition of two provisions to the nonconforming use termina-
tion provision, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (237)
(CMR:325:9)
Cot`ncil Member Renzel referred to the indefinite postponement of
amortization for Merlin's Magic Kitchen/ and was concerned the
words "primarily involved in preparation of food for seniors" night
eventually redult in someone wanting to construct a different
building in order to have a combined restaurant operation which was
51 percent producing meals for seniors and 49 percent a commercial
restaurant. She queried the definition.
61-406
6/19/89
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said 90 percent of the
business operation was service to the elderly and shut-ins. If a
change in use constituted 49 percent catering and 51 percent food
service to shut-ins and senior citizens, it would not be considered
in keeping with the intent. "Primarily" meant primarily and
substantially. In terms of the physical aspects of the property,
the subject lot was substandard at 3,700 square feet. Any reuse
of the property under the zoning could be for one single family
dwelling under the substandard conditions which would limit it to
single story. She did not believe there was a lot of redevelopment
potential on the site.
Council Member Renzel queried how someone would be precluded from
doing some restaurant business.
Ms. Jansen said the building was very small. The kitchen facili-
ties were inadequate and the kitchen could only be used for
catering purposes in between the preparation of the meals for
delivery. In that case, the kitchen was subcontracted to someone
who did small events of 10 or 12 people. She guaranteed the
kitchen was not large enough to do any kind of production food
service for Palo Alto restaurant or catering standards.
Council Member Renzel said once the use became lawful, she
clarifies the building could be modified to include a loft or a
bigger kitchen.
Ms. Jansen said a loft would constitute expansion which was not
permissible. Any added square footage would constitute an
expansion of the existing structure.
City Attorney Diane Northway said there was a limitation on
increased floor area, and a loft would be defined as increased
floor area. She clarified the physical constraints of the property
would make the kinds of concerns raised impossible.
Council Member Woolley was concerned about the structure located
to the roar of 265 Homer. Several years ago it was labeled a
eeismicaily dangerous structure. She queried its status.
Ms. Janson said the City's Human Services Administrator Margo
Dttton was looking at ways to assist the business owner in removing
the structure. If the use was to remain in operation, the City
would provide assistance to the building and property owners in
removing the structure.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open.
61-407
6/19/89
1
Dena Nossar, 1024 Emerson, urged support in not allowing the
businesses to remain beyond November, 1990.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Cobb, to
approve the staff recommendation as follows:
1. The negative declaration; and
2. The following added provisions to the Nonconforming Use
Termination Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 18.94.070
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) including:
a. A requirement that nonconforming uses resulting from the
1974 Fire Zone I Study shall terminate on November 23,
1990; and
b. An exemption from the above required termination for any
nonconforming use within the Fire Zone I Study Area whose
primary purpose is to prepare and deliver food to senior
citizens, shut-ins and other individuals with limited
mobility. Such a use would be allowed to continue
indefinitely provided that it does not expand.
GRDINAKE FOR FIRSmin REApos entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.94.07 0 OF CHAPTER
18 (ZONING) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING USES
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
13. PU 3LIC NEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re Appeal
of Christopher Treble for Property Located at One Crescent
Drive (300) (CMR:316:9)
Council Member Cobb would not partic!pate in the item due to a
potential conflict of interest.
Council Member Patitucci queried the fence located next door to the
subject property and whether it was the result of a variance.
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said up until about. 2-1/2
years ago the City had a *fence exception process* for tLoss
situations where fences did not meet the required setbacks. If
there were no comments or protests, the fence was automatically
approved. If there was a protest, the application automatically
went to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Chief
Building Official. The process was cumbersome and difficult. The
ordinance was completely restructured in order for fences to be
61-408
6/19/89
treated like structures. If a fence was located within setback
areas, it required a variance. The application before the Council
was the first fence variance since the new regulations were
adopted.
Council Member Fletcher referred to the second condition which
spoke to the retention of the already -existing hedge. She queried
why there was not a condition to extend the landscaping over the
corner area.
Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle believed it could be made a
condition.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open.
Christopher Treble, One Crescent Drive, was the applicant, said the
project attempted to reconcile the requirements of the City in
preserving the University Avenue corridor as an attractive entry
to Palo Alto. Under existing regulations, he was permitted to
construct a six-foot wall around the property, 16 feet in from the
property line. He did not believe till requirement produced an
attractive result for his property or for the City. He proposed
to take the University Avenue side -yard portion of the property and
extend the six-foot wall out to a line approximately five feet in
back of the property line a distance of approximately 70 feet.
The overall result was several hundred feet less of wall area and
substanttzelly less enclosed area. He believed the overall result
provided a better architectural foil to the house because it left
the main frontage of the house open and retained a substantial
grove of red cedars in the front area. He urged support.
Council Member Sutorius asked about proposed exterior landscaping.
Mr. Treble said there were three subsections of wall. One section
of wall was substantially masked by an existing hedge six to seven
feet high. One portion of the frontage contained hedge which was
lower than the rest because it was planted later, but the intent
was for the hedge to grow to the height of the wall and that there
be a consistent hedge on the entire University Avenue frentege of
the property. One area of the wall along the Crescent Park
frontage hooked in with an old brick wall which was the front
terrace of the house, end it was under the cedar trees. The intent
was to plant the entire area with azalea type shrubs to be the full
height of the wall at that point and then it would scale down
towards the street. While a wall could be seen through the
foliage, the object was to mask the wall from the street frontage.
61-409
6/19/89
David Cases, 1690 University Avenue, did not oppose a four -foot
fence constructed in accordance with the regulations but was
concerned about a variance to construct a six-foot fence on top of
a two -foot area of dirt which would essentially provide an eight -
foot fence,
Mary Gullixson, 1661 University Avenue, supported the Treble's
project. There was no security in the Treble's backyard with a
four -foot fence. She urged support of the variance.
Lucy Berman, 535 W. Crescent Drive, supported the variance.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to
approve the variance and overturn the decision of the Zoning
Administrator with findings and conditions as follows:
Findings
This property does have exceptional circumstances in that:
1. There is an existing hedge that will substantially shield the
fence; and
2. The location of the house is oriented toward Crescent Drive,
and the side yard which is the only useable portion of the
outside is closest to University Avenue. Therefore. there are
definite reasons for approving the variance.
Conditions
1. The wall shall be finished in a muted, non -reflective color.
2. The existing mature hedge shall be retained.
3. The sub j ect property shall be restricted from any further
fencing of the street yards, other than that shown on the
attached plans.
Council Member Woolley did not see any adverse visual impact on
University Avenue because the fence, with the condition of a muted
color. would nit be visible. The condition that there would be no
further fencing would allow the front of the property to remain
viewable to the public.
Council Member ?letcher had viewed the property and had discussion
with the applicant. She supported the motion.
61-410
6/19/89
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved to add to Condition 2,
"that additional landscaping intended to obscure the view of the
wall shall be planted."
AMENDMENT DIED POit LACE OP A SECOND
Council Member Patitucci supported the motion.
Council Member Renzel spoke with Mr. Treble and visited the site
on several occasions. It appeared the six-foot fence would be
fully screened and there was the condition restricting Aurther
fencing from the front of the property. She was concerned about
a "walling" off of University Avenue,and the four -foot walls had
juat as much of a wall effect as the six-foot ones when they had
no screened planting. Because the short side of the property was
on University Avenue and because the building was so visible upon
entering the City, one did not get a sense of a walling effect.
She suggested Condition 2 might be changed to read that full screen
planting shall be maintained to cover the full height of the fence
so that it was at the owner's option.
Council Member Sutorius also visited the site and had contact with
the applicant. He was confident in the objectives and design plan
of the property owner and the support provided by the .landscape
architect. He did not believe a condition onlandscapingwas
necessary.
Council Member Levy concurred with the City's fence ordinance, and
was concerned about a precedent to allow for a six-foot fence
because he believed all property owners on University Avenue might
like a little more privacy, and he did not want a wall effect. He
also did not believe the Treble's property was significantly
different from other properties on University Avenue. He was
concerned about Condition 2 regarding the retention of the mature
hedge because there could be . reasons for it being taken down, e.g.,
future property owners might want something else, or it might die
off, and the six-foot fence would remain. He would not support
the motion.
AMEN: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Pletcher, to
add to Recommendation 2 "The existing mater edam or other
artasuipsue ,Aranamingjahailkjasetained along the University Avempit,
Council Member Patitucci could not support further ersforcelent
requirements.
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3f Klein, Patitucci, Sutorius "no," Cobb "not
participating."
61.411
6/19/89.
MOTXOW AS Al MDED PASSED: 7-1; Levy "no," Cobb "not
participating."
7E9ESS1 9;30 -- 9:45 PAL
REPORTS 9P COMMITTEES D COMMISSIONS
14. Finance and Public Works Committee forwards Utility Users Tax
to the City Council without Recommendation (408-02-03)
(CMR.278.9)
Council Member Woolley had not previously participated in Utility
Users Tax ('JUT) discussions because she was an employee of the Palo
Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the discussions focused
on the lease between the City and the Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) and the transfer of funds from the City to the
PAUSD. When the UUT was recently before the Finance and Public
Works (F&PW) Committee, discussion focused on the expenditure of
funds remaining with the City, in which item she did not have a
conflict of interest. She would participate in the item.
Council Member Menzel referred to a letter from Herb Borock (on
file in the City Clerk's Office) which expressed concern that
Council had been substituting the UM coney for the previously
allocated funds for streets and sidewalks repairs, and suggesting
the UUT money augment funds already allocated. She asked if Mr.
Borock was correct.
City Manager Bill Zaner referred to revised Exhibit "E," attached
to the staff report (CM,R:278;9). He believed staff had followed
Council's direction and retained the previous level of expenditure
and augmented the General fund with UUT moneys. He clarified the
term "street maintenance" had alwaya referred to a series of
possible activities, including pavement, intersection improvements
and traffic barriers. Mr. Borock's letter also raised the question
of 88300 moneys, which represented one-time money received by the
City. Staff had provided Council with a series of reports wherein
advice was given that money was advanced for 88300, and that the
City would be reimbursed.
Council Member Sutorius clarified the figures shown in Exhibit "E"
reflected the budgeted appropriations, not actual expenditures.
Expenditures could fall in a different time period because of the
size of the protect or the overlap in fiscal years.
Mr. Saner said that was correct. Often, funds would be accumulated
for two or three years in order to have sufficient money to do a
project in a subsequent fiscal year.
61-412
6/19/89
Council Member Patitucci asked about the Full Maintenance Plan for
the draft ten-year plan for use of UUT revenue, which was attached
as the last page of the staff report (CMR:287:9).
Mr. Zaner said Alternative I represented full maintenance of the
Cubberley school site. The "balance" represented a cumulative
balance.
Council Member Patitucci referred to the "Difference Revenue -
Expenditures," and clarified the average was about $900,000 to
$1,000,000 per year of what might be called "revenue from the
Utility taxes in excess of what was expected."
Mr. Zaner said that was correct.
Council Member Patitucci said the exhibit did not contain a
subtotal of the actual tax receipts and he could not take it as a
percentage. If Councilwanted to reduce the tax and have the
balance be closer to zero on the chart, he queried the rate of
reduction.
Mr. Zaner believed a rough guess would be four percent.
Mayor Klein said while the figures shown on the chart were far
larger than anticipated almost exclusively because of the extra
revenue above the projections of the telephone company, approxi-
mately $2 million to $2.5 million was built in to be used for
capital improvements at Jordan and Jane Lathrop School (JIS), and
now the money would be used for capital improvements to Cubberley.
The original surplus was intended to arise because the tax would
be collected immediately but since the intended school sites would
not be received for several years, the City would not be paying the
PAUSD $3 million per year, and the difference would have produced
the "surplus." He suggested money midst be subtracted on that
basis because under almost any conceivable scenario, there would
be capital needs at Cubberley and the only source apparent to him
were the balance figures at the bottom of the page.
Council Member Patitucci clarified the figures represented
maintenance requirements but not any capital requirements.
Mr. Zaner said that was correct.
Council Member Patitucci hoped Council might consider a reduction
of taxes and keeping the amount of utility tax. He saw the UUT as
a regressive tax. .
Council Member Renzel said prior to the UUT, Council implemented
a 20 -year ongoing street maintenance program, acknowledging the
need to do some major repairs in order to rotate on a 20 -year
61.413
6/19/89
cycle. She understood more work would be done if the UUT passed.
Ignoring all the funds into which the UUT money went, she queried
whether more streets were in fact repaired than were being repaired
over the last years and whether repairs represented a $1,000,000
worth.
Director of Public Works Dave Adams said Fiscal Year 1988-89
represented the first year where the program used UUT moneys, and
street repairs in the amount of $1.8 million representing 13 miles
were soon to commence. At the present rate, the street maintenance
would be up-to-date in about ten years.
Bob Moss; 4010 Orme, referred to the manner in which street repair
was being accomplished. Streets requiring extensive repair were
not being torn out and completely repaired. The contractor was
making repairs in pieces. T. % UUT' was a general purpose tax, and
Council had no moral or legal obligation to refrain from using UUT
moneys for other purposes in the City budget. He believed UUT
moneys could be used for any general public use, e.g., to retain
public safety employees or library hours. He expressed concern
about the intent to spend money on a school site such as Cubberley
before the citizens knew what would be done or how the facility
would be used. He supported the use of UUT money for actual
ongoing services to the public.
John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, urged consideration in using at least
a portion of the surplus of the UUT to preserve City services for
one year during which time a citizen's committee could be formed
to review the revenue situation and come up with a comprehensive
proposal to go before the voters.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, that Council set
a policy for the fiscal year 1989-90 Budget to:
1. Provide for any additional positions that are added back into
they budget to be funded by either some of the overall surplus
utility uses tax moneys or by reducing the amount allocated
to Street and Sidewalk Maintenance; and
2. Direct staff to use one-half of the 1990 surplus revenue as
a revenue source in preparing the fiscal year 1990-91 budget.
Mayor Klein pointed out the maximum number of positions recommended
for reinstatement was six. He suggested adopting a 1990-91 budget
guideline at that point so it could be specifically addressed by
City Council candidates in the upcoming campaign. He chose the
use of one-half the surplus revenue because there would be capital
needs at Cubberley. He was concerned the City not go overboard at
Cubberley but it was prudent to set aside some significant portion
of the surplus in order to do a reasonable job. He believed the
61-414
6/19/89
proposed maintenance budget for Cubberley was very high and he
would have a lot of trouble supporting it. He agreed with the
philosophy expressed by Mr. Moss in terms of the general tax nature
of the UUT. The voters were advised of the intent to use approxi-
mately $3 million to enter into a lease and covenant not to develop
with the PAUSD, and it was being done. The voters were also
promised that the school sites would remain as they were and that
was also occurring. The voters were promised "that approximately
$1 million extra money per year cut of the UUT would be used for
cutting into the backlog of repairs to streets and sidewalks."
There was no discussion about what would happen if the telephone
company underestimated the amount of revenue to be generated from
the telephone portion of the UUT. He believed the voters expected
Council to use its j udgwent when there were revenue shortfalls from
sales tax or property tax or when there was an unexpected increase.
He believed it was appropriate and consistent with the election for
Council to use the UUT fund where necessary. Last year Council
unanimously voted to spend $2 million on streets and sidewalks,
which was different than what was expressed to the voters. Hh
agreed UUT moneys were being used in some ways to replace money i.n
the General Fund. No City Council was responsible for system of
revenue raising imposed on local jurisdictions by the State of
California. Palo Alto voters were not unwilling to tax themselves,
but the City was hamstrung by a variety of crazy State laws, Palo
Alto was an affluent community and for Council to turn the City
inside out and do things which made no sense like turning off the
lights in the librery or cutting members of the Police Department
who raised half to two-thirds of their salary.
Council Member Wociley clarified staff would be directed to use
one-half of the yearly surplus.
Mayor Klein said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Bechtel believed it was appropriate to discuss and
resolve the issue of the UUT. She encouraged her colleagues to
support the first part of the motion.
Council Member Cobb queried whether funding for all restored
positions and services would be UUT funds.
Mayor Klein clarified UUT funds would be used to fund those
positions and services which Council ultimately voted to restore
which differed from the City Manager's. recommendation.
Council Member Cobb referred to the second part of the motion and
queried the one-half number.
61-415
6/19/89
e
1
Mayor Klein chose the ongoing additional revenue because the budget
needed to fund capital improvements or repairs at Cubherlay. He
estimated the City would spend $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 at
Cubberley. Spending one-half of the surplus each year would
provide approximately $3,000,000 at the end of 1992 available for
Cubberley.
Council Member Renzel had no problem in the flexible use of UUT
funds; however, she regarded street maintenance and the arrange-
ments with the PAUSD as capital investments. While she also valued
staff and the City's many services, she agreed with Council Member
Patitucci in terms of the regressive nature of the tax and Council
needed to be careful to not "squander" it. She was concerned about
using more than the revenue from the surplus for budgetary needs.
Council Member Sutorius had no difficulty that any net additions
Council might make to the General fund budget beyond the City
Manager's recommendations could be accommodated by reductions in
the amounts shown for streets and sidewalks. The proposed changes
were in the range of $36,000 since revenue generation would
appreciably offset the salary and benefits. He was confident the
streets and sidewalks repair budget could survive a cut of $36,000
or considerably more. The City's commitment was approximately
$1,000,000, and at that rate, and with a 5 percent adjustment for
inflation, in a ten-year period, the City's expenditures would
total about $12.5 million. To date, $2,200,000 had been spent.
The UUT tax was implemented during calendar year 1988, and no
expenditure was made during the last half of fiscal year 1988--89.
With regard to the second part of the motion, he had no difficulty
anticipating Ccauncil would reduce the streets and sidewalks
expenditures to offset the minimal recommended changes in the
proposed budget. However, it wee premature for Council to take an
action on one-half of an unknown surplus. His philosophy with
respect to the budget and expenditures were reflected in the
Minutes of the May 31, 1989, F&PW Committee meeting.
Council Member Levy said the 1987 election was well contested,
widely publicized, had substantial backing from all levels of the
community, and the newspapers were united in their editorials in
favor of the UUT. The UUT passed by a very thin margin, and it was -
clear to him the public was voting on money for the schools and
street end sidewalk maintenance and improvements and nothing
beyond. It was also clear that if Council spent everything it felt
was reasonable in those two directions, then the public wanted
Council to return the additional tax to the voters, not spend it
another way. Council was fortunate it was another election year,
and Council did not have to vote on some of the issues in order for
them to be more sharply debated. Council's job vas to represent
the public. In 1987 the voters had all the same information
Council had and it was his responsibility, as a Council Member, to
61-416
6/19/89
go along with how the public voted particularly in view of the
closeness of the vote. If any of the elements had been changed,
the UUT would have failed. When the Gann Limitation was on the
ballot again, the public would have an opportunity to restate their
priorities. Until that time, it was improper for Council to take
actions significantly different than what the voters were promised
in 1987 simply because the estimated numbers were conservative.
Council Member Woolley said many members of the public stated
Council should be using the UUT moneys to supplement the operating
budget, and she often wondered whether those member) of the public
represented the view of the majority of citizens. She agreed there
was not that much to go by in the 1987 election. In terms of
funding the differences in the City Manager's recommendations and
the ultimate vote of the Council by UUT moneys, having been a
member of the F&Pik Committee and going through the budget, she was
comfortable with the Committee's recommendations. The F&PW
Committee recommendations did not represent an addition or the
creation of a significant number of dollars in the budget. All but
one of the positions slated for reduction were vacant for all or
a part of the year, so in effect, the cuts were already in place.
In terms of the second part of the motion,`, she did not view the UUT
as a special tax, but rather as a temporary tax, which was
important in terms of how the tax was used. She would be more
comfortable using surplus UUT funds for capital expenditures rather
than operating expenses.
Vice Mayor Bechtel rebutted the comment regarding the impropriety
of establishing a budget guideline as set forth in the second part
of the motion. Council always established budget guidelines, and
while it might be earlier than usual, she believed it was a good
thing to do in an election year and while Council was actively
involved in the budget.
Council Member Cobb supported the first part of the motion.
Council was free to use the UUT moneys as it saw fit, and he had
no problem restoring those service cuts Council believed to be
essential. The ram Committee recommendations were good ones and
were fiscally responsible. With regard to the second part of the
motion, there mare many revenue generating possibilities to be
considered, and since Council did not yet have the answers, it was
inappropriate to put specific formulas in place for the next
budget. He also disagreed with the need for the second part of the
motion as a means of making the use of the surplus UUT moneys an
issue for the upcoming election. He intended to make the issues
of how to use UUT funds and how to resolve the City's economic
situation as major as possible during the campaign. He was struck
by the lack of public input regarding the UUT so far, and hoped to
understand the thoughts of the public in the fall. If Council went
the easy path and restored too many cuts using UUT funds, it would
61-417
6/19/89
ease the pain of the budget situation and it would be harder to
explain to people the need to re-evaluate the economic situation
in the City. He was concerned that if Council held out the
promise of the 50 percent as a fix to the budget problems, the
debate would not get entered into the way it should. He opposed
the second part of the motion.
Mayor Klein said the UUT was a "regressive" tax as compared to
income tax, but Council could not levy income tax. The UUT was not
"regressive" as compared to a sales tax, and it was probably more
progressive than the sales tax which was the City's prime source
of revenue. Municipal taxation was not progressive, and the State
limits ware by and large semi -regressive. In terms of the second
part of the motion, he disagreed it was premature to make commit-
ments to libraries and the Police Department. Even if the City
pushed to get more sales tax, it would not happen for the 1990-91
budget cycle, and it would cost about 1:.50,000 for the libraries to
be funded to a level where their hours of operation would not be
affected. The restorations made by the P&PW Committee were not
unanimous so there was work for council to do. Regarding
Cubberley, he believed it was important for Council to pre-
determine how much money it would put into it, and not let
Cubberley's needs be the driving force. While Cubberley was a high
priority item, there were higher priorities. It was also important
for there to be a statement adopted by the Council for the
election. Candidates tended to not take firm positions and rather
than have many different voices speaking in vague manners as to
what they might or might not do, he preferred to have something
focused. That way the electorate could ask a candidate how they
stood on the issue. While there would probably be a Gann limit
vote at some point in the future, changes were being proposed in
Sacramento and the vote was probably a year further away than
before. The money he spoke to in his motion would not solve the
City's budgetary constraints. It only represented about $300,000
or $400,000, which was far less than the recent cuts. He believed
Council underestimated what the public's reaction would be when
they found that their library hours were cut. Council did not
respond to needs of the public when it made cuts it did not have
to.
Council Member Patitucci opposed the motion. If the trends
experienced in the UUT actually materialised, at the point where
Council established a reasonable budget for the Cubberley situation
to most the obligations of the City/School District lease, his
first priority would be to consider reducing the tax. He did not
believe it was appropriate to reduce the pressure already experi-
enced in the budget reduction process. The last time the City
"tightened its belt" was ten year* ago, and it was not harmful for
an organization to take a hard look at itself and make what
amounted to very minor, 5 or 6 percent, reductions. He believed
61-418
6/19/89
the process would be healthy in the long run. The surplus UUT
money was what he considered to be "windfall" dollars, and its
handling was politically very sensitive. The surplus dollars
should be returned to those who paid and if Council wanted the
money for something else, it should be requested.
Council Member Renzel was concerned about returning positions to
the 1989-90 budget because personnel costs were ongoing expendi-
tures, and if there was not the revenue the following year, the
City would be in the same position. On the other hand, Council was
at liberty to use the UUT in any way it saw fit. Her personal bias
was toward capital expenditures, but it did not mean she would not
look at personnel positions which largely justified themselves by
the revenue they generated. She did not understand why Council
needed to make a statement that evening when the budget would be
before the Council on June 26, and Council had the authority to use
surplus UUT moneys however it deemed appropriate. She was not
completely comfortable with the wording of the first part of the
motion and would not support the second part of the motion.
NOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
FIRST PART 07 NOTION TO USE UUT REVEMUES TO FUND ANY RESTORATIONS
TO RECOMMUDATIONS MADE BY THE CITY MANAGER PASSED 5-4; Levy,
Patitucci, Renzel, Woolley "no."
SECOND PART OF MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO USE ONE-HALF OF THE
ESTIMATE OF TEE 1990.91 UUT SURPLUS FOR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE
PURPOSES FAILED 3-6; Bechtel, Fletcher, Klein "aye.
Council Member Fletcher asked for comment regarding the way in
which street repairs were being made in Barron Park.
Mr. Adams said the repai-*s referred to by Mr. Moss were base
failure repairs. After those repairs were made,the entire street
would be overlaid.
15. Planing Commission Recommendations re Proposed Santa Clara
County Used Permit for Stanford University (232) (CMR: 317 : 9 )
Mayor Klein could not participate in the item due to a conflict of
interest.
Council Member Cobb could not participate in the item due to a
conflict of interest.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber
introduced County of Santa Clara Chief Planner Bob Sturdevant;
County Planner Juanelle Waldo; Brian Boxer, SIP Associates who
prepared the Environment Impact Report (EIR); and Brent Ogden,
61-419
6/19/89
1
Korve Engineering who did the traffic portion. He pointed out it
was a County document and responses might well be from County
staff.
Council Member Petitucci clarified the Planning Commission
recommendation was unanimous.
Council Member Fletcher asked about the opportunity for further
public comment.
Mr. Schreiber said the draft EIR was reviewed by the City as part
of the County's public review process in September and October,
1988, and that public review period was completed. The Council
received a document which consisted of the comments and responses
to comments on the draft EIR. Only July 6, 1989, the County
Planning Commission would certify the final EIR, which consisted
of the draft EIR plus the comments and the responses to comments.
Staff devoted little time to reviewing the responses to comments
because of the County procedures and its level of detail versus
Palo Alto's and because of scarce staff resources and the feeling
that it was not beneficial to spend an inordinate amount of time
reviewing a document which would almost undoubtedly be certified
by the County. After the County Planning Commission certified the
final EIR, it would consider the use permit on July 6.
Council Member Reneel said when Council previously considered the
matter, she inquired whether the population statistics included
part-time personnel. Tha response was that since the trip
generation rates were obtained by dividing the total trips
generated by the adjusted daily population, they inherently
included traffic due to part-time employees as well as dependents,
and no further adjustments were necessary. Nothing in the material
spoke to part-time employees, and as she read attachment 2, the
trip generation rate was not part of the process. She asked how
part-time employees were included in the population.
Brent Ogden, Korve Engineering, said trip rates were calculated by
the total amount of vehicles passing into or out of the central
portion of the campus divided by a population number. The
population number did not include the dependents and part-time
people so there was an assumed number of dependents and part-time
people. Figures represented trips per full-time person, which
considered any trips generated by the level of dependents and part. -
time people on campus in concert with that population. As the full
time population grew into the future, the presumption was that the
part-time and dependents would grow in proportion. If the traffic
generation had bean divided by a population number which included
dependents and part-time people, the traffic would have been
divided by a higher number of people so there would have been a
lower trip generation rate on a per person basis. Rather than deal
61-420
6/19/89
with the idiosyncracies of the exact number of part-time people and
how they and dependents might vary, the trip generation rate was
expressed in terms of a more reliable number being just the total
number of full-time population and students. Therefore, the trips
generated by multiplying the current full-time population by the
trip rates provided the total number of trips currently produced.
While trips were produced by dependents, they were computed by
multiplying the rate per full-time person by the number of full-
time people.
Council Member Renzel said if in the future, Stanford hired
everyone new on a part-time basis and there were twice as many
people arriving in the morning, leaving at noon, and arriving at
noon and leaving in the afternoon, etc., the figures representing
traffic patterns would not be an accurate reflection of what
traffic patterns might be if that were the case.
Mr. Ogden said that was correct. If the population makeup changed
radically in terms of the percentages of part-timers and
dependents, it could affect the calculations, but it would require
a big change to make a difference.
Council Member Renzel referred to the process for calculating
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) deficiencies and the
specific numbers such as "less than 325 net new commute trips from
annual TDM report. She queried whether it always referred back to
the base year or the previous annual report.
Mr. Ogden said it referred back to the base year.
Council Member Renzel said the report indicated that senior housing
which was filled by people vacating existing campus housing would
be counted ad a housing component. She asked how that added to the
housing supply versus shifting.
Brian Boxer, RIP Associates, paid the senior units were included
in the calculation of total housing available due to EIP's
understanding of how they would work in the housing market. While
they might not be the same as a singular unit and operate in the
same way one would see a standard market rate unit, by coming on
the market, someone presumably moved from another unit into that
unit, and freed up another unit so the total available supply of
housing units increased. It was no different than adding a low
income unit onto the market. It still brought up total increases
in the total housing supply within the market.
Council Member Menzel clarified the unit would be treated as a new
one if the occupant died.
61-421
5V19/89
1
Mr. Boxer said no because a death would only affect the available
demand not the supply.
Council Member Ranzel said it seemed to her a retiring employee who
shifted their residence would still generate trips as a resident
but they would no longer be an employee.
Mr. Boxer said a certain trip generation factor was built in for
housing units that were lower than for rather populations.
Council Member Renzel referred to the mitigation at Stanford
continuing as existing housing subsidy programs: and she asked how
that generated more housing as opposed to simply giving Stanford
employees a competitive edge.
Mr. Boxer said the existing subsidy programs were included in the
EIR as one element of a range of mitigation measures based on an
understanding that the program did in fact provide a subsidy for
a certain element of the population increase that would occur to
the same extent that other subsidy programs provided subsidies for
other people. It was an assistance measure for individuals to
participate in a constrained housing market. It did not attempt
to imply a solution for everyone but it was one element in a much
larger set of measures.
Council Member Renzel said Council was approving a use permit which
contained some conditions of approval that calculated various kinds
of relationships of housing and traffic. To the extent the
calculations were biased in any direction, Palo Alto could have
serious shortfalls in its projections and could end up with either
street improvements the City did not want or unsolvable traffic
problems.
Council Member Woolley referred to the cover letter from Lucas
Stenos (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and the potential for
housing on the Mayfield School site was mentioned. The letter also
included new language to be added to the mitigation section of the
final EIR that the Planning Commission will direct Stanford to
evaluate potential additional housing sites which might include
Stanford North, Stanford South, the golf course, and the Arboretum.
She did not notice any comment from City staff or the Planning
Commission, but she believed it was contrary to past policies.
Mr. Schreiber said the operative part of the first paragraph was
the first sentence which was to direct Stanford to evaluate
potential housing sites. City staff decided not to comment on the
appropriateness of specific sites and the Planning .Coammiassion was
aware of that decision. Such a level of analysis might not be what
was really sought, and there was a certain sense among Palo Alto
staff that some of the sites like the golf course or the Arboretum
61-422
6/19/89
might be akin to "bait" being tossed out by certain County Planning
Commissioners tom if Palo Alta would react. He had considerable
confidence in Stanford's comments of not proposing housing for the
Arboretum and soma of the other sensitive areas. If housing did
end up being proposed for those areas, the City would deal with it
at the time. He did not believe the City needed to make a bigger
issue of it than it already was.
Kathleen Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, represented the College
Terrace Neighborhood, which was concerned about the increases in
traffic volume, speeds and noise on Stanford Avenue, growing safety
problems, and the thrust of the EIR that the increments in the
existing situation were insignificant and did not need mitigation.
She suggested the Planning Commission be directed to look at the
existing traffic situation on Stanford Avenue and evaluate what
action could be taken. She also requested the concerns of the
College Terrace Neighborhood be included when the City forwarded
its comments on the use permit conditions to the County Planning
Commission. She also suggested working with Stanford to mitigate
the existing situation on Stanford Avenue. If for some reason
Stanford's TDM program was found to be deficient, she urged
Stanford not be allowed to commence new development projects if
there were existing traffic problems not being mitigated.
Council Member Sutorius clarified the prediction that traffic would
be 8200 without the use permit or 8515 with the permit at the year
2000. Traffic was already at the 8200 level and it was 12 years
until the year 2000. He also queried whether growth would be so
slight in 12 years.
Colin Nick, 2130 Hanover Street, was concerned about how much
Stanford's growth would cost the City in terms of new services
versus the revenue generated. He believed the EIR was a much
better document than previously seen. Regarding environmental
impacts and traffic, he referred to the recurrence of the word
"critical" throughout the EIR, and a worsening situation. He did
not believe the County Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) had
the staffing level to deal with the types of projects proposed by
Stanford and the level of public interest. He urged a use permit
process which reviewed the 'current situation and mitigations
therefor before considering additional buildings.
MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
approve the Planning Commission recommendation as follows:
1. The comment in the third paragraph of the County's May 10
memorandum that the former Mayfield School site is unsuitable
for housing because of contamination should not be included
in the Final EIR, unless the County has available specific
information demonstrating its unsuitability.
61-423
6/19/89
e
2. The City Council should endorse adoption of the Proposed Use
Permit with the following amendment:
Revisa the Traffic Mitigation Plan to change the title of
Group A to "Intersections Substantially Impacted by Traffic
from Stanford Lands" and include in Group A the following
locations:
Sand Hill Road/Oak Creek Drive East
Sand Hill Road/Oak Creek Drive West
Sand Hill Road/Oak Avenue
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
3. The City Council should direct City staff to initiate
discussions with Santa Clara County and Stanford University
staffs regarding (1) updating the 1985. Land Use Policy
Agreement to reflect the adopted Use Permit, (2) clarifying
the appropriateness of referring selected ASA applications for
a public review by the City's Architectural Review Board,
Planning Commission and/or City Council, and 3) ensuring
adequate public notice of Palo Alto residents and organiza-
tions of ASA review of Stanford projects.
AMD f: Council Neuter Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to
add the request that. Santa Clara County direct Stanford University
to monitor the level of traffic on Stanford Avenue as a part of the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan twice a year.
Council Member Renzel was concerned about the ltical levels of
traffic already on Stanford Avenue and any increments could be
serious. As pointed out, the monitoring of intersections would not
occur unless it was triggered by the statistical manipulation of
the various population and TDM participants at that time. She
supported the amendment.
Council Member Sutorius clarified information obtained by the
monitoring would be a continuing record and availablai to the City
and those interested members of the public.
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The information could also
be used as a part of the annual reporting mechanism to the Planning
Commission and the City Council and it could trigger follow-np
discussions.
AMIEMJMUT PASSSD 6-0; Cobb, Klein, "not participating,' Patitucci
absent.
61-424
6/19/89
Council Member Renzel asked if there was any process short of
Stanford applying for a different use permit if the City ended up
with all the worst case scenarios and no ability for mitigation.
County of Santa Clara Chief Planner Bob Sturdevant said the County
Planning Commission essentially found Stanford to be cooperative.
If the TDM did not work, the Planning Commission already indicated
it would be continually reviewed and the annual reports would help
to do it. The Planning Commission always had the ability to reopen
the use permit if it was not working, or if the annual report
indicated the process was not working, the Planning Commission
could re-evaluate. He believed the Planning Commission and/or the
Board of Supervisors had the authority to deal with the matter.
Council Member Renzel queried an automatic moratorium in the event
of some untenable, unmitigatable situation.
Mr. Sturdevant opined it would be very difficult to impose an
automatic moratorium because the TDM monitoring program required
time, construction required time, and there were so many points and
phases of the project occurring, it would be hard to define a
threshold where an automatic stop could occur.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved to request the County
Planning Department to include a check point at 25 per:ent of
build -out at which point the wee permit would be opened for review
by the County, City of Palo Alto and members of the public to
consider whether it was working as intended.
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OP A SECOND
Council Member Fletcher requested that Eric Fertig's letter, dated
June 13, 1989 (on file in the City Clerk's Office), be forwarded
to the County.
Council Member Renzel considered the existing situation to be
serious, the statistical methods in the permit conditions of
approval were soft in terms of what information would be derived,
and the process essentially ignored what was happening in the
intersections. Widening intersections had its own impacts and she
did not consider it an appropriate mitigation. The first mitiga-
tion was usually avoidance of impact. The request was for so *much
square footage in an already congested are,x, and in the absence of
controls, she could not support the motion.
MOTION Al AMENDED PA6AED 5-13 Renzel "no," Cobb, Klein "not
participating," Patitucci absent.
61-425
6/19/89
s
RZp9RT8 OP OFFICIALS
16. Agreement with Digital Equipment Corporation for Hardware
Maintenance for Supervisory Control Data and Acquisition
System (270) (CMR:275:9)
MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
approve staff recommendation authorizing the Mayor to execute the
hardware maintenance agreement with Digital Equipment Corporation
in the amount of $19,353.
MOTION PASSED 7-0: Klein, Patitucci absent.
17. Household Hazardous Waste Disposal ' Program (1440-01)
(CMR:310:9)
MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
1. Authorize a change order to increase the contract for FY 1988-
89 with Safety Specialists in the amount of $40,000 to cover
the costs of the unanticipated large quantity of household
hazardous waste received in the April 19, 1989 event; and
2. Authorize the renewal of the contract with Safety Specialists
for FY 1989-90 in an amount not to exceed $160,000.
Council Member Levy asked about the savings referred to in the
report (CMR:310:9).
Director of Utilities Rich Young said the savings occurred with the
recycling of paint that would otherwise have to be packed and sent
to a hazardous waste landfill.
MOTION PASSED 7-0; Klein, Patitucci absent.
ADJDURNWT: The meeting adjourned at 11:46 p.m.
61-426
6/19/89
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) tyre prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council
meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years
from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works
Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are
retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the
tapes during regular office hours.
61-427
6/19/89