Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1988-09-12 City Council Summary Minutes
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting September 12, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of Jul; 18, July 25, August 1 and August 8, 1988 1. Contract with Mathaw►y Associates for Downtown Transportation Coordination Program 2. Contract with Joyce Adams Secretarial Service for Transcription of Planning Commission Meeting M=nutes 3. Amended Contract Mo. 4638 with John J. Shooter, Inc. to Include Landscape Maintenance at Jordan School Site 4. Contract with for Custodial 5. Contract with for Materials Central Maintenance Company Services Sleinfelder and Associates Testing Services 6. Amendment Mo. 1 to Contract No. 000209 With Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County of Advocacy cervices for the Elderly 6. Resolution Approving Cooperative Agraement RN -7 with the California Department of Transportation PAGE 60-260 60.260 60-260 60-260 60-260 60-261 60-261 60.261 6A--261 6n-258 9/12/88 Resolution Approving Execution of a Supplemental Agraeaent to Agreement for Easement for Improvements at Churchill Avenue and Southern Pacific Transportation Company Right -of -Way 60-261 9. Budget for Golden Triangle Task Force 60-261 10. Resolution Adopting Salaries for Council - Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution No. 6544 60-261 11. Ordinance Amending Exhibit A-21.5 to Chapter 22.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Map of El Palo Alto Park, to Conform with the Park's Legal Description 12. Ordinance Amending Ordinance 3819 to Record the 1986-87 and 1937-88 Water Utility Back Rent as a Long -Term Liability U. the Water Fund and a Corresponding Loan Receivable to the General Fund 60-261 60-261 13. Ordinance Amending Chapter 6.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Exempt Licebsure Fees for Certain Dogs 60-261 14. Levee Ad j acent to the ,Palo Alto Airport 60-262 17. Planning Commission re University Circle, East Palo Alto 60-267 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Conforming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of Respective Properties 60-277 16. PUBLIC 'OARING: Resolution Approving an Increas l in the Solid Waste Management Fee 60-277 18. Ordinance Amending Sudget for the fiscal Year 198* -es to Provide an Additional Appropria- tion for a Landfill Bulldozer 60-277 60-278 19. Water Usage Update Adjournment at 11:16 p.m. 60-278 60-259. 9/12'de Regular Meeting Monday, September 12, 1988 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:33 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:50 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Bechtel Mayor Sutorius announced the need for a Closed Session to be held at some point during or after the meeting to discuss litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. ten Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding Palo Alto Police Department complaints. 2. Edm'ind Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding an article in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Yacht Harbor. 3. Dr. Harvey Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, spoke regarding emergency care service provided by the paramedics. MINUTES OF JULY 18,_ JULY 25, AUGUST 1 AND AUGUST 8, 1988 MOTION: Ccnncil Member Pletcher moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Minutes of July 18, 1398, as corrected; and the Minutes of July 25, A'aguct 1, and August 8, 1188 as submitted. Mayor Sutorius corrected page 69-175 of the July 18, 1988 Minutes. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-0, Bechtel, Patitucci absent. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of Consent Calendar Itemn 1-13, with Item 7 removed from the Agenda by staff. 1. Contract with Hathaway Associates for Downtown Transportation Coordination Program (720-06/116e:) (CMR:433:8) 2. Contract with Joyce Adams Secretarial Service for Transcription of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (720-06/ 702-03) (C R:448:8) 3. Amended Contract . No. 4638 with John . J. Shooter, Inc. to Include Landscape Maintenance at Jordan School Site (720-06/ 300) (CMR:442:8) 60-260 9/12/88 4. Contract with Central Maintenance Company for Custodial Services (720-06/810-01) (CMR:444:8) 5. Contract with Kleinfelder and Associates for Materials Testing Services (720-06/810) (CMR:439:8) 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 000209 with Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County of Advocacy Services for the Elderly (720-06/1037) (CMP:416:8) 8. RESOLUTION 6732 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT RM-7 BY AND BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO" (701-04/1164) RESOLUTION 6733 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT CHURCHILL AVENUE AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RIGHT--OF-WAY" (701-04/720-03) Cooperative Agreement RM-7 with the California Department of Transportation for the purpose of transferring funds for construction of improvements to the Peninsula Commute Service of Grade Crossing at Churchill Avenue Supplemental Agreement with Southern Pacific Transportation for improvements to Churchill Avenue g. Budget for Golden Triangle Task Force (1045-01) 10. RESOLUTION 6734 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING SALARIES FOR COUNCIL -APPOINTED OFFICERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6544" (701-04/501) 11. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING EXHIBIT A-21.5 TO CHAPTER 22.08 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE, MAP OF EL PAW ALTO PARK, TO CONFORM WITH THE PARK' S LEGAL DESCRIPTION (1321-11) 12. ORDINANCE 3825 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE 'OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAW ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE 3619 TO RECORD THE 1986-87 AND 1987-88 WATER UTILITY BACK RENT AS A LONG-TERM LIABILITY TO THE WATER 2'UMD AND A CORRESPONDING LOAN RECEIVABLE TO THE GENERAL FUSD" (701-03/1120) (C!lR:434:8) 13. ORDINANCE 3826 untitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 6.16 OF THE: PALE} ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT LICENSURE FEES FOR CERTAIN DOGS" - (1ST READING 8/08/88, PASSED 9-0) (701-03/409) UOTION MAUD 8-0 for Itu.a 1-4, 8, 8, and 3U-13, Bechtel went. MOTION PALBID 7-1 for Item 10, Levy voting "mo,910 Bechtel absent. 60-261 9/12/88 1 i4. Levee Adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport (Continued fror, 8/15/88) (1161-01) (CMR:422:8) Council Member Renzel spoke with officials of the Bay conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) when the item was previously before the Council. She asked whether BCDC's jurisdiction was confirmed with staff. Manager, Real Property, Bill Fellm►an said BCDC covered the area 100 feet above sea level. San Francisquito Creek was considered a portion of the waterway. Vice Mayor Klein said many situations and activities that occurred for citizens' enjoymeat also carried the possibility of risk. Given there was some public benefit, he asked about staff's reasoning in making a recommendation to construct barriers at the levee. City Attorney Diane 4dorthway said from a legal standpoint the levee adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport had a potentially dangerous condition on public property. She realized the City was exposed to many similar liabilities in many places throughout the City. There were two elements which established liability: 1) the fact that the condition was dangerous; and, 2) the fact that the City was on notice. In the subject instance, the City received many communications from the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) advising they believed it was a dangerous ce,idition; therefore, putting the City on notice. Such notice did not happen with a let of other areas in the City. The other factor was the City had a lease with the County to operate the airport. A provision in the lease stated the City would not maintain any of its property adjacent to the airport in any way that interferred with the operations of the airport. City Manager Bill Zaner said it was true the City operated many facilities, i.e., swimming pools, baseball fields, and sports complexes which involved some degree of risk. The argument could extend to everything from roadways to City Hall. The City tried to rule out those cases where an undue amount of risk exiszted and where the situation should be mitigated. The City was placed on notice and told of a hazard of public use of the levee separating San Francisquito Creek from the north and of the runway at Palo Alto Airport. The suggested modification to the existing facility would reduce the hazard by making public usage more safe. Council Member Rental asked whether the County respinded to Alternative B as outlined in the staff report (CMR:422:5). Assistant to tht. City Manager Vicci Rudin said the County requested further definition as to how Alternative B would be constructed, and staff wam in the process of responding. Airport Land Use Commission staff was contacted to determine whether their safety policies conflicted with the proposal. The verbal 60-262 9/12/88 response was if the uodification could be demonstrated to increase the safety of the operation of the airport and the adjacent land uses, it would not be in conflict with the safety policy. The caveat was the InterGovernmental Council (IGC) would need to make such a recommendation. Council Member Cobb asked about the costs of the alternative and how long it might take to implement it. Deputy Director of Public Works, Special Projects, Ted Noguchi said staff wig in the process of trying to define the cost of Alternative B. Alternative A is shown as being in excess of $300,000. Staff was confident Alternative B would be substantially less than $300,000. Council Member Cobb asked how lons it would take to implement Alternative B. Mr. Noguchi said staff's recommendation would be to place Alternative B in the Fiscal Year 1989-90 Capital Improvement Program (CI P) . DonalJ Flynn, Director of Aviation, County of Santa Clara, 2500 Cunningham Avenue, Lan .lose, believed Alternative B was feasible. He recommended the City and County continue to work closely with staff to achieve a permanent solution and reopen the levee. Council Member Renzel was interested to know how many airplane accidents occurred in the vicinity of the Palo Altn Airport in the last 10 years. Lynn Tennefoss, 1118 Fulton Avenue, spoke as Managing Director of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. The levee at the Baylanes and the Palo Alto Airport provided an importantlink in a loop trail currently used by the public. As more waye were sought to bring people closer to the Beylands and the Bay, she suggested more cautionary signs rather than closing such a widely used trail. Mary Gordon, 16 Roosevelt Circle, submitted petitions by users of the trail (on file in the City Clerk's office), which requested the segment of levee. *rail connecting the Geng Road area including the San Francisquito Pedestrian Bridge, and the Lucy Evans Interpretive Center area be preserved. She believed users of the trail as it passed the end of the runway were less vulnerable to an airplane accident than were the groups of people concentrated in the Duck Pond area or golfers on the adjacent course. The levee route had been used for decades without mishap. Areas Ginzton, 28014 Natalia Road, Los Altos Hills, spoke as Co - Chairperson of the IGC Trails and Pathways Committee. The IGC was proud of Palo Alto's past efforts to make bicycling and walking into, through, and around the City safe and pleasant for 60-263 9/12/88 residents and nonresidents. At a time when the City was short of mo:iey for new projects, she hoped Council could find a way to keep the levee trail open for the public. John Nichols, 563 Weeks Street, East Palo Alto, was a pilot and user of the levee trail. He believed there were minimal risks and the benefits far outweighed the risks. Alice Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, associated with the comments of Mr. Nichols. She was appointed by rormer Mayor Gail Woolley as a member of the Palo Alto Joint Community Relations Committee, which was set up to try and deal with some of the problems. She was a pilot and used the levee as a pedestrian. She did not believe the signs were clear. She suggested before Council made any decisions in terms of barricading the levee, it wait until the Airport Information Day to be held on September 28, 1988, at 10:00 a.m. Hank Barbachano, ?tanager, Palo Alto Airport Tower, 1909 Embaroadero Road, said there had been six overruns in the last two years which went 150 to 175 feet to the base of the 13 -foot high dike. The Duck Pond dike Area, which separated the runway from the Duck Pond, was on County property, and was controlled by the County. There were chains up on eithaz side of the dike and there were some violators in the area. People could be advised they were crossing a clear area close to a runway. The flight path of an aircraft coming over the Duck Pond was usually on the final approach. The Duck Pond area itself was to the side and the pond itself did not have people crossing it. The accident at the golf course was a "freak" situation. The FAA spotted the subject situation since the dike was in directly in line with the center line of the runway within the clear area and the height and proximity was determined to be an aviation safety hazard. He :'eceivad two evaluations, one from Washington, D.C. and one from their regional office, both of which reaffirmed the unsafe situation. For the protection of pilots, the airport directory pointed out that pedestrians crossed at the end, and it was a pilot advisory. Council Member Cobb clarified :he height of the dike and its proximity were in and of themselves hazards so any pedestrians made the situation worse. Mr. Barbachano said pedestrians, bicyclists, and horseback riding added to . the height situation. Council Member Cobb asked about the clearance between the dike and the aircraft. Mr. Barbachano responded anywhere from 75 to 100 test. Council Member Renzel clarified there had been about six accidents in and around the airport in the past 15 years. 60.264 9/12/88 Mr. Darbachano knew of six accidents but could not speak to the time frame. Council Member Fletcher spent some time at the levee and believed it was clear to pedestrians when en airplanes was preparing to take off. The runway was very visible and one could net miss the sound. She suspected the reason "Do Not Trespass" signs were ineffective was because the safety hazard was obvious when a plane was taking off. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Ressel, to replace the old Kilo Trespassing signs with signs which read 'Beep Clear During Airplane Takeoffs.' Council Member Fletcher believed it was safe to walk on the levee at any time when no airplane was taking off. The City needed to alert people to the dangers of aircraft taking off. Council Member Cobb asked about the City's liability if someone was injured by low flying aircraft even though signs were posted. City Attorney Diane Northway said the City's position would b better than if no signs were posted. She did not believe the City would be absolved from liability, however. The comparative negligence would probably come into play and it could be said that any damages suffered were partially the fault of the defendant. The courts would second guess the City and the jury would be bombarded with all kinds of evidence about the City being put on notice of the condition. Council Member Woolley asked about the City's liability in the event someone cut a hole in a fence and people regularly went through it. Ms. Northway reserred to the second element necessary to establish liability on the basis of dangerous condition, which was notice. The City would be requir:d to have knowledge of the hole in the fence, and not take any steps to repair it after a reasonable period of time for the City to be liable. Council Member Woolley asked about the City's relative liability if it cams up with a more elaborate device such as a railing where tles opening was not very wide. Ns. Northway referred to the underpass on California Avenue as an example. She believed it was more of an effort (' the City's part to deal with a dangerous condition and to 4et people's attention. Mama a public agency went to great extremes sometimes, it did not satisfy the courts who looted at everything a public agency did with hindsight. Council could, however, find there wear* overriding policy considerations it preferred to see prevail. -. 60-265 9/12/88 0 0 • r 1 O SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to (1) ditact staff to design a warning device(.) which would involve both signs and physical apparatus. Council Member Woolley was concerned that fences would be broken quickly. If the City could do something to make it clear it was trying to warn people of the danger, perhaps it would be more of 3 service in the long run. The capital expenditure of Alternate B was not something the City wanted to do if it could be avoided. AMENDNENT s Council Member Cobb moved to add (2) that staff pursue exploring Alternative B and, if it proves feasible, report back to the Finance and Public Works (Flea) Committee with project description, cost estimate and time line. AM EMDMENT INCORPORATED INTO SUBSTITUTE NOTION BY MAJER AND SECOND Council Member Patitucci supported the substitute motion. Council Member Renzel had trouble with the City position as a self -insurer and always being put on notice by potential defendants and having to curtail its public activities simply because of the notice without regard to a valid analysis of the real risk. In the subject instance, the City was told the typical height crossing the levee should be 75 to 100 feet. The chances of someone getting hurt were slim especially considering that in the past 25 years there had not been one crash on the levee. She believed the safety risk was far overblown. She concurred with Council Member Fletcher that one could see for great distances on the levee and would be well aware of the air traffic in the area. She believed the public benefit of having a trail loop and a connection with East Palo Alto and Mountain View f a r outwe ighec the potential r i r'c . If the City accepted the safety hazard as given, it would not be long before there were requests to modify the golf course, duck pond and t`he trail which ran parallel to the runways because they all were also in the vicinity of the airport in a similar configuration. She preferred Co=uncil Member Fletcher's motion because part of being on a trail system was the free and easy access. However, Council Member Woolley's motion provided a little more insurance that first users of the trail and youngsters might take heed of the warning 'and have a. better opportunity to absorb it. She clarified Council was authorizing staff to go ahead and pursue the first part of the motion and that the second part of the motir.:-r would return to the F&PW Committee. Council Member Cobb saw the first part of the motion as being a short-term solution to the problem, but Council should know what a long-term, better solution would cost in tens of time and money. Council Member Levy said serviLg the public often resulted in conflicting needs and risks. The City was obliged to reduce the risk as much as possible ardt still give the public access to an 60-266 9/12/88 enjoyable area if possible. If the City had a combination of signs and devices all of which warned mews of the public on the levee about the danger they faced, the City made a strong case that it warned the public while at the same time facilitating access to an area which z.dearly was in the public interest to remain open. Council Member Fletcher did not believe the alternative was warranted. Vice Mayor Klein was distressed by the second part of the motion because he was skeptical about Alternative B. The cost would have to be very low for him to support it. He found the risk at the site to be very low. He agreed with Council Member Fletcher, and if Council applied the standard implicit in the subject proposal, the City would be building safety nets at every possible intersection and athletic field in town. Council Member Fletcher suggested that any apparatus be accessible for bicycles iau1ing trailers. She requested the motion be divided. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Council Member Levy clarified the "quick fix" part of the motion would be so inexpensive it did not need to return to Council for approval. Mayor Sutorius said that was correct. He associated himself with the co ients of Vice Mayor Klein. He supported the motion. FIRST PART OF NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. BSCOND PART OF NOTION PASSED by a vote of i-2, Fletcher, Hensel v€ ting ',noes Bechtel absent. COUNCIL MASSED TO A CLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:00 p.m._ TO 9:4S p.m. NOTION: Council. Cobb moved, seconded by Stenzel, to bring forward Its 17. Planning. Commission re university Circle, East Palo Alto (231)= City Manager Sill Zanier referred to the draft Environmental Impact Report (OEIR) regarding the University Circle Redevelopment Plan for East Palo Alto. The time to analyze the document had been short and the analysis was not yet completed and needed to be sent to the City of East Palo Alto by the September 22, 1988 deadline. He introduced Thomas Packard from EDAM, who was hired to do the visual analysis of the project. b0-267 9/12/88 city Attorney Diane Northway introduced Roger Biers who was a consultant for the City Attorney's office on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) legal matters. i Mr. Zaner noted for the record material received from the City of Menlo Park (which is on file in the City Clerk's Office). Mayor Sutorius queried the "dates" under which the City h:.3 been operating particularly the "do by date" referenced in the material submitted to the Ilanning Commission. Mr. Zaner said the original date under which the Planning Commission had been operating was changed. The City of East Palo Alto advised that day that it had not calculated the dates properly and the new date was September 22, 1988, The State confirmed that date. The September 22, date represented the last date on which written comments could be provided to the City of East Palo Alto on the DEIR. Simultaneously, a public hearing was scheduled for the East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency on September 19, 1988, at 6:45 p.m. in the East Palo Alto Council Chambers. The meeting world provide an opportunity for anyone to comment on the DEIR. A staff member would attend the meeting and make an oral presentation summarizing the material the Redevelopment Agency would subsequently receive in writing, Planning Commissioner Doe Huber said the materials received by the Commission were generally vague and ambiguous in terms of what was projected to ha peg. and mitigations. With regard to traffic, intersections further away from the project needed to be studied. The project had not considered the effects of a possible Sand Hill Road connection. Traffic counts on University Avenue in East Palo Alto seemed to be exceedingly low. Assumptions were made with regard to changes and additions to lanes on Bayshore Freeway (101) without any indication as to when that might occur and who would fund it. There were also suggestions that changes be made to intersections in other jurisdictions such as Palo Alto without any review of materials previously generated where the City indicated it would not be doing such things. Data was weak for peak periods of traffic operations i.e., they looked at au hour's time and everyone believed they should look at two or three hours. The interchange at Sayshore (101) and University, as a solution, seemed to be nonspecific end of quest;onable help to what was anticipated to h the traffic. With regard to housing and employment, the data provided did not indicate the number of employees currently in the area, where they came from, what jobs were available to them, how many people lived in the area, and how many people who currently lived there uortd there. If the goal was to provide additional employment for Zest Palo Alto residents there were no guarantees in t'-,eproject that jobs would be available for those residents. 60-268 9/12/88 Tom Packard, Landscape Architect/Environmental Planner, EDAW, Inc., 753 Davis Street, San Francisco, said one area of expertise for their company was visual resource assessment and visual analyses. They were contacted approximately two weeks ago by the City of Palo Alto and asked to conduct a visibility study of ateuctures that could potentially be located within the East Palo Alto/University Circle Redevelopment Project site. They were asked to assess the potential visibility of structures that would be 275 feet in height and to conduct the study from 12 individual viewpoints all located within the City of Palo Alto within the residential area immediately adjacent to the redevelopment project site. He used an overhead map to show the specific viewpoints to be evaluated. Viewpoints 1 through 6 were the points where visibility of 275 -foot high structures was found to be possible. Viewpoint 1 Viewpoint 2 Viewpoint 3 Viewpoint 4 Viewpoint 5 Viewpoint 6 was was was was was was located locate located located located located at 1586 Charming Avenue at Eleanor Pardee Park on Channing Avenue at 560 Center Drive at 1710 University Avenue at 1771 University Averuo at 1800 University Avenue Viewpoints A through F were situations where due to local viewing conditions relative to intervening vegetation and existing structures, 275 -foot high buildings within the redevelopment would not be visible. Viewpoint Viewpoint Viewpoint Viewpoint Viewpoint Viewpoint A was located H was located C wes located D was located E was located F was located at 1610 Hamilton Avenue at 475 Newell Road at 1408 Pitman Avenue at 1400 Hamilton Avenue at 980 Lincoln Avenue at 1195 Hamilton Avenue In conducting the study, EDAW utilized a technique where it created a three --dimensional computer model of a hypothetical conceptual building 275 feet in height. They then generated true image perspectives which precisely corresponded to baseline photographs taken in the field. They were then able to determine the extent of visibility at each individual location. The distance to the project from Viewpoint 1 was approximately 4,100 feet. There was only an extremely small a unt of the building that would be visible above the existing structure and in amongst the existing vegetation. The distance to the project from Viewpoint 2 was approximately 3,760 feet. A hit of the building might be visible but probably not a significant amount of the building. There might a casein the site specific conditions where it appeared to be a notch in the existing vegetation that provided for visibility of the building. If the tree line were extended directly across, the building might not be seen. 60-269 9/12/88 The distance to the project from Viewpoint 3 was approximately 1,440 feet. The overlay revealed that moving closer to the project resulted in more of the building being seen. The distance to the project from Viewpoint 4 was approximately 1,075 feet. Viewpoint 5 was located about 790 feet from the proposed project. Viewpoint 6 was one of the first residences along University Avenue and was located about adjacent to the sign welcoming visitors to Palo Alto. The distance to the project was approximately 785 feet. The study was conducted from 12 individual vie points within the City of Palo Alto which were provided by the City Planning Department. The visibility from each viewpoint depended highly on the specific conditions at each location relative to existing vegetation and buildings, their proximity to the particular viewer at the particular point he was standing, and also it bore some relationship to the overall distance the viewer was to the project location. The study revealed the closer in viewpoints --those which were closer than 1,500 feet --did have visibility of 275 -foot high structures. When one roved in closer than 1,000 feet, and in those instances within 785 feet --apparently no amount of foreground screening or existing structures would be sufficient to block views. Beyond approximately 1,500 feet from the redevelopment project site, existing vegetation and structures were sufficient to completely block views of 275 -foot structures. EDAW's study was only an assessment of the potential visibility of 275 foot structures. It did not address the issue of visual or aesthetic impacts, either positive or negative, that may be associated. Their study did not address any urban design issue associated with the project or an image of the project as a gateway to the region. The study was conducted from a limited number of viewpoints within the City of Palo Alto. The results of the study could not be generalized to apply to any other locations other then the 12 studied particularly ioeations that might be outside of the residential area. Council Husker Fletcher asked whether there would be a shadow effect on the backyards of Palo Alto homes. Hr. Packard said a shadow study was not within the scope of the analysis conducted. Council Member Levy acid Level 2 called for 958,000 square feet and it would also include parking structures containing approximately 2,426 spaces. He assumed the structure would then be added to the total square footage shown at Level. 2. 60-270 9/12/88 Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen believed the total square footage would be approximately 1.2 million square feet including the parking structures. Council Member Levy asked how much was usually calculated per car in a parking structure. Ms. Jansen said it was around 300 to 350 square feet per vehicle. Council Member Levy believed the total square footage for Level 2 would be in the range of 1.2 million. Ms. Jansen said that was correct given the particular calculation. Council Member Levy said page VD 67 showed traffic at University, Middlefield and Embarcadero with proposed mitigations. At University and Middlefield it showed the level of service would be "V" in the a.m. and "A" in the p.m. At Embarcadero and Middlefield it showed levels of service "A" and "B." He asked f staff agreed with the level of service calculations. Associate Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said staff looked at University and Middlefield and found that level of service "B" would probably z t be realized before or after mitigation. It would be worse Staff had r.ot specifically looked at Embarcadero and Middlefield, but he au. pec,,ad the levels or service "A" and "B" might be achieved with the proposed mitigations to add a lane heading towards downtown. It meant widening University Avenue and removing some trees to do so. They also proposed the same mitigation for Guinda which meant ail added lane from Guinda to Middlefield. It would mean .renoving the street trees at least on one side. At Embarcadero and Middlefield, the mitigations would be to widen Embarcadero to add a left -turn lanes, which mitigation was recommended as an eventual improvement with the Citywide study. It also meant taking out some of the landscape area and possibly a few trees. Rick McMichael, 79 Crescent Drive, represented the University and Crescent Park Neighborhood Association. He urged support of the Planning Commission recommendations and commended their efforts in such a limited amount of time He believed the project at level 2 needed about 3,700 parking spaces versus the 2,426 proposed by the developer, and staff suggested 3,500 parking spas. He was concerned about the deficiency and that parking would spill over to the residential area. John Busterud, 60 Hamilton Court, spoke individually and as a representative the Crescent Par Neighborhood Association. He supported the staff and Planning Commission recommendation as well as the transmittal letter to the Council. CEQA and the case law interpreting it r:Quired the systematic identification of project alternatives and feasible mitigation measures, which was not done in the rEIR. While there was no such thing as "no 60-271 10/12/88 i alternative presented" the state act and case law required that "no alternative" be considered end carefully analyzed as a possibility. A lower intensity development was more in keeping with the Palo Alto community standards as well as East Palo Alto. Many of the mitigations were beyond the power of East Palo Alto to implement. The "program Ellie' suggested it could also be used to support a specific building project. If the particular project plan was adopted, Section 21.080.7 of CEQA appeared to contain language which would permit another project developer to propose a project without doing another EIR if he could establish that hie project was sufficiently the same as the subject project. There needed to be a detailed analysis in the first EIR. Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana, was concerned because of the excessive size of levels 2 and 3 alternatives, mitigations were essential to diminish the consequences. Palo Alto would experience further congestion of University Avenue and Middlefield; a 20 to 24 percent increase in traffic east of Middlefield, and a 10 percent increase in traffic west of Middlefield.`. Despite the improvements, the level of service at Embarcadero and Middlefield and University and Middlefield would be "E" with level 2 development. To accommodate the additional traffic on University and Guinda and Embarcadero and Middlefield the DEIR suggested Palo Alto widen University Avenue by removing its planter strips and parking stalls. The City of East Palo Alto would have enormous traffic growth on Woodland Avenue because of the planned dosing of O'Connor. Between the University Circle intersection and the existing intersections with the University overpass, there were projected increases in average daily trips fzom 30500 to 13,400 at level 2 and 22,700 at level 3. She was concerned about the increased levels of carbon monoxide and other toxins. She urged that Council take a firm position and do whatever was necessary to keep the project within reasonable bounds. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, concurred with t,e comments of the previous speakers as well as.the staff and its report. In the sections on population/housing/employment, he saw no effort to relate the type of jobs created in the proposed project with the people who lived in East Palo Alto. He queried whether the residents of East Palo Alto would be qualified for the kinds of jobs created. There was existing rousing in part of the area some of which was affordable. Not much attention was paid to what happened to the people when the housing was replaced. He understood when affordable housing or low-income housing was demolished, there needed to be a higher standard in terms of replacing it and taking care of the displacad people. Regarding seismic stability, there was a one -sentence statement that the area was not subject to liquification without any supporting data. The area was close to the Bay and historically t'le area was marshlands. Ho suggested Council accept the recommendations in Mr, Newmankap's letter where twice he recommended the City of Palo Alto needed to use administrative and judicial remedies available. He suggested the City begin proceedings to require the DEIR be delayed for an additional 30 days for the public to s%i2/88 review and evaluate it and have a fair opportunity for d iscussion. Denn Hughes, 2262 Capitol Avenue, East Palo Alto, supported tb.: project and spoke of its possible revenue generating possibilities. He understood the grievances of the citizens of Palo Alto especially in terms of aesthetics, but he did not see a concerted effort toward supporting East Palo Alto and changing the University Circle. Palo Alto needed to support East Palo Alto in terms of creating a better community. He feared lawsuits and the communities never becoming supportive neighbors. Alice Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, referred to Federal Air Regulation 77.13, which defined certain surfaces where if buildings were built above, it might violate air space and hurt aircraft approaching or departing from an airport. She was concerned about the potential problems for the airport, and suggested the federal regulation be forwarded to the Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties Airport Land Use Commissions. John Kelly, 1750 University existing traffic problems on addition of one more car would Avenue, referred to the already University Avenue, and said the make it impossible to deal with. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Mansell Council endorse the draft letter prepared by staff and the City Manager and as amer*ded by the Planning Commission which is in response to the Zug; Palo Alto University Circle draft MIR (attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference). Council Member Cobb complimented staff an3 the Planning Commission for a great job under a short set or time constraints. He found the DEIR to be the single -most inadequate document he had ever seen since his tenure on the Council. It seemed all the potential impacts referenced were essentially brushed away as something which could be mitigated or dealt with although the mechanisms were not specified. If an adequate DEIR was prepared, Council would find the "DeMonet" project could not be mitigated within the financial constraints. There were not sufficient resources to deal with roads, ramps, lights, etc. Any future complete DEIR must look at some lower scale alternative. The City's ability to mitigate such a project became more difficult to consider when one looked at the other possible projects in the East Palc Alto area, i.e., Giant's stadium, marinas, commercial buildings, etc. He was concerned about the possibility of buildinghigh-rise buildings so close to an operating airport. Council Member Woolley arprociatmed the comments made by Mr. Hughes. When she was Mayor, one of her goals was to enhance the relations between the Cities of Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and Palo Alto. Mott, the Menlo Park and Palo Alto City Councils meet *very three months. One concrete development vas the Sand Hill Road Corridor Task Force made up of members of the Palo Alto and Menlo Park City C cils and Stanford staff which was trying to 40-171 9/12/88 establish and recommend a plan to the respective City Councils. A joint meeting was held with the Palo Alto and East Palo Alto City Councils in East Palo Alto in November, 1987. It was suggested that a subcoarittee of each Council be established to meet on a regular basis. She made such a proposal to East Palo Alto but was advised that East Palo Alto did not want to meet with Palo Alto alone. The hope was to set up a subcommittee of Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Palo Alto but so far that had not materialized. There were many ways to work together and she was pleased to see in the DEIR in the mitigations for traffic growth, that one measure was for East Palo Alto, Palo Alto and Menlo Park to form an interjurisdictional traffic coordinating team. She was pleased to read in the paper that Mayor Sutorius had been working with the Mayor of East Palo Alto on recreational opportunities for children. Council Member Fletcher commended the Planning Commission for its efforts in meeting the time constraints. Council Member Levy associated with the comments of Council Member Fletcher. He was concerned about the communications related to the DEIR. Although the Eaet Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency indicates to the Stete Clearing House that all local agencies were kept 'fully informed, he believed the fact was the City of Palo Alto was not apprised of the Redevelopment Agency's intentions or progress. When the two Councils met in November, 1987: East Palo Alto specifically requested there be no discussion about the plans of its Redevelopment Agency. Another inadequacy in the DEIR was the size and bulk of level 2 of the project, which was listed at approximately 1,00©,000 square feet. Apparently, it would be more like 1.5 million square feet because of the substantial size required for a parking structure. The comments that parking might well spillover to Palo Alto was important. There was no question of the effect of the project in simulating further growth, and there was no discussion of those effects. Page VD 42 indicated additional local roadway improvements would be required but that they were not part of the specific mitigations connected with the specific project. The reasoning seemed to lay the groundwork for additional kinds of roadways some of which were likely to involve the City of Palo Alto. If the improvements were likely to occur, they should be spelled out more concretely. He strongly endorsed the letter written by staff. Council Member Patitucci concurred with the comments. He asked what would happen next. Mr. Saner said the material as adopted by Council would be incorporated into a final letter and exhibits. In addition to some changes whielh would be made in the next few days, there was e little more material to be analyzed. The material would then be forwarded to East Palo Alto in time to meet the September 22, 1988 deadline. A . meter of Palo Alto's staff would attend the public hearing and make some summary comments that would then be 60.274 9/12/88 followed up by the written commente. At that point, it was East Palo Alto's responsibility to review all comments from all agencies and to determine on their own action what steps to take to eithmr address the concerns raised or to note the concerns and move forward with whatever process they believed appropriate. Palo Alto would request that East Palo Alto take note of the concerns, reanalyze and recirculate the document. There was no deadline for East Palo Alto to respond to the comments made to them. At last week's East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency meeting, the members planned to complete their process prior to December 31, '1988. In order to complete the process by that date, they would need to take some official action by the middle of November. The official action would be to issue a notice of determination, i.e., that the final EIR was appropriate and it would have been certified by the East Palo Alto City Council. City Attorney Diane Northway said certifying the EIR was the ultimate act in terms of the EIR. The Redevelopment Agency's plan would also be required to be adopted. The basis for the determination that East Palo alto would have to take its actions by November 15, 1988, was because it had to be done by ordinance which required a second reading, and a referendum period just as Palo Alto's did. In order for everything to be in place by December 31, 1988, the latest the EIR could be certified would probably be mid -November. Council Member Patitucci asked whether the Redevelopment Plan could be approved without there being a declaration that the EIR process was completed. Ms. Northway said no. In approving the Redevelopment Plan, the East Palo Alto City Council would have to find that it reviewed and considered the EIR and that it was complete. The East Palo Alto City Council could then take the subsequent action which had to do with the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Zaner said at such time as the East Palo Alto City Council certified the EIR, there was a 30 -day period during which the EIR could be challenged. Council Member Renzel concurred with the comments of her colleagues. She was concerned about the failure to carefully detail and analyze alternatives other than the Alternative 3, "DeMonet" type project. She did not believe Alternative 3 was given the care in its analysis that would normally be expected. With respect to parking, she did not recall having dealt with parking garages of a scale of 2200 spaces let alone 3,700 spaces which was suggested as being needed for Alternative 2. The Civic Center parking garage had three levels and 600 spaces in a city block. Alternative 2 would need to be approximately 12 levels in a city block to accommodate the parking. While that in and of itself had its impacts, it seemed to be an important and fundamental issue as to how the parking would relate to the building so it would be used and be efficient to the people in 60-275 9/22/83 e those buildings. The only parking of such scale she could relate to was at the San Francisco International Airport where there were tremendous logistics to get people in and out of the various terminals. The issue needed to be addressed in the EIR. Mayor Sutorius spoke of Palo Alto's efforts in terns of liaisons and efforts of contact with its counterparts in East Palo Alto. Changes in East Palo Altc ' s officials and internal problems and issues being attended to in East Palo Alto would have an impact on how frequently and how extensive dialogue opportunities might be. There were numerous municipal contacts involving both staff and elected officials of the two cities on matters dealing with cultural exchange, recreational, public safety and environmental matters. he referred to a meeting with previous Mayor Bostick and some 200 members of the Crescent Park community in Palo Alt^_ regarding the University Circle Redevelopment. Mayor Vines followed up on their commitment to the City of Palo Alto to continue the dialogue process and there were many contacts including a get together which involved City Manager Zeiler, ►'ice Mayor Klein and himself with the East Palo Alto counterparts. There were strong differences of opinion regarding the scale of the development identified in the DEIR, and he believed there was a desire to have reconciliation and a process which did not create undue delay. True reconciliation meant mutual accommodation and the question was how well they dealt with finding it. The best interests of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto would he served if East Palo Alto achieved the essential and underlying concepts behind the redevelopment proposal to eliminate blight and blighting influences, provide new and improved public improvements, assist and encourage positive commercial, private development, stimulate job producing situations that added to Fast Palo Alto's economy, reduce crime, and increase decent housing opportunities. He believed a recirculated DEIR would address all of the areas identified and the types of recommendations from Palo alto and the other agencies who respond to the DEIR. None of the commentary suggested leaving the situation status quo cr intruded inappropriately into the internal affairs of the City of East Palo Alto. As the issue proceeded, he was convinced despite differences of opinion, neither he nor Hill Vines nor their colleagues would in any way associate the honest differences of opinion on the DEIR with other activitier. and :important inter -City and intra-City and regional situations where sister cities needed to work together and could work together. MOTION PAINED unanimously, Bechtel absent 60-276 9/12/88 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of Respective Properties (701-04/1250-01) (CMR:429:8) Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. NOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the resolution confirming assessments completed for need abatement and ordering cost to be a special assessment of the respective properties described. RESOLUTION 6735 entitled +"RESOLUTION OP THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING WEED ABATEMENT RESORT AND ORDERING COST OF ABATEMENT TO BE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES =REIN DESCRIBED" City Clerk Gloria Young noted for the record that no written protests had been received. MOTION PASSED unanimasly, Bechtel absent. 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Approving an Increase in the Solid Waste Management Fee (701-04/1072) (CMR:442:8) Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he dacla;d the Public Hearing closed. MOTION Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the resolution approving the increase in the -olid waste management Zee from 40.07 per ton to $0.15 per ton. RESOLUTION 4734 entitled "RESOLUTION 07 TEE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAW ALTO APPROVING AN INCREASE IN TEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FBI FROM $.07 PER TON TO $0.15 PER TOW NOTION PASSED unanimously, $echtsl absent. 18. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1988-89 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for a Landfill Bulldozer (701-03/1072-01) (CMR:445:8) NOTIONII : vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Menzel, to adopt the budget ordinance in the amount of $144,000 from the Refuse System Improvement ]serve for purchase of the replacement landfill bulldozer and authorise staff to proceed with the purchase of a now bulldozer for a total amount of $273,000. ORDINANCE 3827. entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE comma Or TEE CITY OP PALO ALTO MINDING Tali BUDGET 701 TEE FISCAL MR 19*$ -09 TO PROVIDE AN EDDIT!ORAL A OPRIATION WW1 A FILL )UI LDASER" 50.277 9/12/88 1 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. I. Water Usage Update (1410-02) City Manager Bill Zaner said conservation Citywide was about 20 percent. The wells were still providing about 28 or 29 percent of the City's total water. The City was about 14 percent below its allocation from Hetch Hetchy. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:16 p.m. ATTEST: Clerk APPROVED: yor NOTE: Sense mimes (synopsie) are 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 O2fice for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Proccidures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. ATTACHMENT 60-278 9/12/88 CO of IcofUio P 0 30X 10250 ;'*L0 ALTO CALIFORNIA 94303 September 12, 1988 WNORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California TRANSMITTAL OF THE COMMENTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 REGARDING THE UNIVERSITY CIRCLE iEDEVELOPMENT PLAN DEIR Members of the Council: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 12, 1988 to review and receive comments on the Draft Fnvironm'ntal Impact Report (DEIR) for the University Circle Redevelopment Plan in the City of East Palo Alto. The Commission concurs with the findings and comments prepared by staff in the September 6, 1988 draft letter to East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency and transmits the following additional comments: 1. The DEIR is inadequate in that it is broadly defined with very few specific facts the existing conditions or proposed plans. The impacts are not fully analyzed and the mitigations are not specific enough nor tied to a method of implementation. 2. The City of East Palo Alto has no taken advantage of the environmental review process to identify impacts with realistic mitigations that will give long-term benefit to East Palo Alto. 3. The Commission is skeptical about the traffic projections and questions the conclusions due to the number of errors in the base maps indicating traffic distribution. The report deals lith the financing for these major improvements only in a cursory way and should include a more complete analysis. The DEIR claims to be a report on the legislative action rather than on a specific project, yet there is an agreement between DeMonet and the City of East Palo Alto for the etclusive right to negotiate. The redevelopment area coincides with the project area defined by the Monet plan, yet the DEIR analysis does not mention the project at all and therefore is not sufficient to stand as an environmental review of the project. The Commission was extremely frustrated with the "Program E I R' process. There is a conc-ete project being planned somewhere but the document does not mention it. The nature of the report avoids the CEQA process in that various agencies could have benefited from analyzing the impacts of the real project. The mitigations are vague and the funding analysis is inadequate. 6. The imposition of a 30 -day shortened review period for the DEIR by East Palo Alto was frustrating and inconsiderate given the nature and extent of the impacts on the adjoining jurisdiction and the limited time for public comment. 7. The DEIR was unresponsive to Palo Alto's request, at the time of the NOP, to include an alternative for a 500,000-500,000 square foot project. 8. The Carbon Monoxide concentrations that exceed the eight -hour exposure level due to traffic back-ups on University Avenue will result in significant health and safety risks for the adjoining residential areas and will not be reduced to 'insignificant levels* under the proposed mitigations. 9. Based on the Visual Impact Analysis presented by EDAW at the meeting, the finding that there is no negative aesthetic effect of the 275 foot buildings is unfounded as it relates to the adjoining residential areas of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. 10. The implication that there could be a tradeoff for a southern crossing for the Dumbarton Bridge for a reduced project should not be raised as one of the issues in this report. Respectfully, JOS PH HIRSCH, CHARIMAN Planning Commission • 9/12/88 2- dn Ceiv or alo Tittc FALL A:OC CA. ' jk ..A 9e;; September 6, 1988 17 TO: Palo Alto Planning Commission J ' FROM: Carol Jansen, Chief Planning Official () SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR OF UNIVERSITY CIRCLE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, EAST PALO ALTO Attached is a draft letter to the Redevelopment Agency of East Palo Alto in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the University Circle Redevelopment Plan in the City of East Palo Alto. The letter contains general comments with an Appendix A of page -specific comments on the DER. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1988, staff will be prepared to answer questions regarding our comments and will provide additional information regarding the visual lee is of the proposed project. EDAW, an architectural and urban design firm retained by the City, will present a graphic analysis indicating the visual impacts, at various locations in the City of Palo Alto, of a 27S -foot -tall building in the Project area. In order to respond prior to the shortened 3O -duly review period of the DEIR. the City Council will hold a hearing on the DEIR on September 12, 1988. Both Planning Commission and City Council comments will be incorporated in the final letter to the City of East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency, which must be submitted by September 16, 1988. CJ:TK:jm Attachments: Draft Letter to the Redevelopment Agency of East Palo Alto Appendix A (Specific page -by -me DEIR comments) Appendix B (Newspaper articles on the Redevelopment Plan project)