HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
PALO ALTO are COUNCIL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSV - FREOUENC190.1 ON FM DIAL
Regular Meeting
Decor 19, 1988
LUX
Oral Communicatior a
Approval of Minutes
1. Contract with Redwood Plumbing Company
Inc.. for Replacement of Rinconada Pool
Boiler
2. Contract with Xtrasoft. Inc. for Electronic
Data Cash Registers
3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0001000
with JP Services for the Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition System
4. Rosolut 4 on Declaring Weeds a Nuisance and
Setting a Hearing
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom-
mendation re Amendments to Title 18 and
Title 21 re Flag Lots
6. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency
Report on Proposed Bus Route Changs
61-25
61-25
61-25
61-25
61-25
61-25
61-26
61-32
61-23
12/19/88
7. Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 4529 with
CH2M Hill California, Inc. for Water Quality
Control Plant Construction Management
Services
61-39
8. Proposed Ordinance Repealing Section 61-39
10.32.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Prohibiting Pedestrians from Crossing the
Overpass at the Bayshore Freeway Upon the
Embarcadero Overpass
9. Water Quality Control Organization 61-42
10. Water Usage and Conservation Update 61-44
11. Council Members Fletcher and Woolley re 61-44
Recycling Bins for Multi -Family Residences
12. Mayor Sutorius re Cancellation of December 27, 61-45
1988 and January 3, 1989 City Council Meetings
Adjournment at 11:00 p.m. 61-45
61-24
12/19/88
Regular Meeting
December 19, 1988
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci
(arrived at 7:58 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
(arrived at 7:59 p.m.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding abuse by the Palo Alto
Police Department towards lower income persons.
2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo
Alto Yacht Harbor.
APPROVAL OF _MINUTE S
MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the
Minutes of November 21, 1988, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED 6-0-1, Fletcher "abstaining," Patitucci, Woolley
absent.
OATIENTSALRIDAR
MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded 'by Renzel, to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1, 3 and 4, with Item 2 removed by staff.
1. Contract with Redwood Plumbing Company, Inc. for Replacement
of Rinconada Pool Boiler (1321-24-01) (C1R:561:8)
3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0001000 with JP Services to
Provide for Additional Services for the Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition System (270-02) (CMR:57108)
4. AssoLuTiow 6747 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OP PALO ALTO DECLARING WEEDS TO BE A NUISANCE AND SETTING A
HEARING" (1250.01) (CMR:548:S)
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Patitucc i , Woolley absent.
61-25
12/19/88
PUBLIC H$ARINGS
S. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re Proposed
Amendments to Title 18 and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code re Flag Lots (237-01) (€MR:573:8)
Planning Commission Vice Chairperson Mark Chandler said the
Commission referred to the rejection of the Seale Avenue flag lot
in June 1988, and the feeling that if a 20,000 square foot
rectangular site could not bear a flag lot, it would be hard to
design an ordinance to allow for any successful flag lot` There
was concern about having an exception process for flag lots thereby
putting the City in the uncomfortable position of essentially
designing houses. Neighboring communities either banned flag lots
outright or put on such restrictions that it was virtually
impossible to build on them. Concern was expressed about those
people who combined pieces of backyards to create new lots to bear
homes that were not previously possible_ The Commissi a could not
determine how it would occur or the resulting problems. The
Commission concluded the proposed ordinance would have no effect
on the total amount of housing in the community since each of the
lots which could previously bear a flag lot would continue to be
allowed to have a 900 square foot cottage under the cottage
ordinance.
Zoning Administrator Nancy Maddox Lytle corrected page 8 of the
proposed ordinance, Section 18.12.040(h), paragraph (3) , line 3,
to read, "...a maximum of twenty feet..." rather than "seventeen"
feet,
City Attorney Diane Northway understood the Planning Commission was
also reviewing the cottage ordinance. Originally, the proposed
amendments and the cottage ordinance were combined but they
currently were separated. Therefore, it was inappropriate to
include the change in height to 17 feet with the proposed amend-
ments.
Council Member Cobb queried what an exception procedure might look
like.
Ms. Lytle said an exception procedure was possible, and if that was
Council's desire, she recommended the natter be referred back to
the subcommittee with direction to establish findings.
Council. Umber Bechtel e nderatoud the proposed ordinance was an
outright prohibition of flag lots in R-1 districts. Page. 2 and
3 of the ordinance indicated the Director of Planning could approve
flag lots. She queried whether that meant in RE and RCS districts
only.
61-26
12/19/88
1
Ms. Northway said yes.
Council Member Fletcher said the 17 -foot height limit was also
mentioned on pages 9 and 10 of the ordinance. She asked for
clarification.
Ms. Northway said the 17 -foot height limit applied to the flag lot.
The corrected Palo Alto Municipal Code (FAMC) Section
18.12.040(h)(3) related to cottages.
Mayor Sutorius queried whether an absolute prohibition was
appropriate and whether a modest change in the area size require-
ment might still permit a reasonable flag lot creation without some
of the difficulties created by a few of the flag lots.
Mr. Chandler said two of the three Commissioners on the
subcommittee believed a modest change would be the appropriate
direction. In the case of Seale Avenue, two Commissioners felt
given some of the restrictions the developer was willing to accept,
including a single" -story height limit and much larger setbacks that
would normally be required, it should have been allowed. The
overriding arguments were, for example, in the case of Seale
Avenue, both lots, which were 10,000 square feet each, would have
been 67 percent larger than the minim glee lots in R-1 districts.
It was a perfectly rectangular lot without any irregularities.
Rather than do what neighboring communities had done in terms of
requiring extaaordinary sizes and all kinds of turnaround areas for
fire trucks which made flag lots practically impossible or directed
toward only one or two parcels in the urban area of the community,
it would be better to be straightforward. The biggest debate was
whether there sI:.ould be an exception for pa-cel.s which met certain
requirements be it size or proximity to other developments.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open.
Henry Wacker, 2036 Emerson Street, lived on a substandard flag lot,
and was concerned about the prohibition on a second story and the
privacy provision contained on page 12, paragraph (c) of the
ordinance. He urged removal of the privacy issue or that the
language be changed to allow a reasonable development of his
property. His lot sins was 50 feet by 100 feet.
Council Member Woolley referred to the issue of second -story houses
in some areas, and the possibility of allowing greater coverage on
the first floor and possibly prohibiting a second floor. She
queried whether such a situation would help Mr. Wacker if he wanted
to enlarge his property.
Mr. -Wacker said if he could not have a second story, he would be
happy to have the additional space on the first floor.
61-27
12/19/88
Heather White, 1177 Lincoln Court, supported the elimination of
flag lots. It was too hard to make agreements with developers on
a case -by -case basis.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
Ms. White's letter of December 10, 1988, was received. Staff
continued to try and work with Ms. White and Mr. Fleming.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed.
Ms. Lytle referred to page 12, PAKC Section 18.90.050(4) (b) of the
ordinance, and said the word "additional" should have been
"excessive."
Mr. Schreiber suggested the words "additional driveways" be deleted
and the word "excessive" be inserted. The second line would then
read, "...result in excessive paving, parking, potentials,.."
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt
the Negative Declaration and the ordinance for first reading based
on the following findings and determinations:
1. The Ordinance will not cause significant environmental impacts
as documented in the Environmental Assessment; and
2. The Ordinance is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, Housing Element, Policies 1 and 3, which state that the
City will maintain the general low -density character of
existing single-family areas and protect and enhance those
qualities which make Palo Alto's neighborhoods especially
desirable; and the Urban Design Element, Policies 1 and 3,
which state that the City will maintain the present scale of
the community, but modify those elements which by their
massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable, and promote
visual aesthetics through tree planting; landscaped areas, and
removal of visually disruptive elements on ma j or City streets;
and
3. Make the following two revisions to the Ordinance as follows:
1) On page 8 of the Ordinance, Section 18.12.040(b) (3) change
"seventeen feet" to ° twenty feet " ; and
2) On Page 12 of the Ordinance, Section 18.90.050(4)(b),
delete tb.a words "additional driveways" and insert the word.
"excessive . "
61-28
12/19/88
ORDINAKCI FOR FIRST R$ADINQ entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING SECTIONS 21.04.030(16.1) AND
21.04.3 01 TO AND AMENDING SECTIONS 21.04.030(33) AND 21.20.300
OF TITLE 21 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE; AND AMENDING
SECTIONS 18.04.030(84), 18.12.040, 18.12.055 AND 18.90.050 OF
TITLE 18 OF SAID CODE, RELATING TO FLAG LOTS, AND RESCINDING
ORDINANCES NO. 3822, NO. 3833 AND NO. 3838"
Vice Mayor Klein supported the motion. He agreed if Council could
not approve a flag lot on Seale Avenue, which he believed was in
order, there were no additional appropriate sites in Palo Alto
without having such an approval be on a case -by -case basis with no
consistent standards. Flag lots were not a mejor issue in Palo
Alto and they would not have an effe:t on the City's housing
sepply. He urged support.
Council Member Cobb preferred to see an exception procedure but did
ecat know what directions to give to draft one. He agreed there
were probably few situations where a flag lot would be supportable
au►d the question was whether to create an exception procedure for
one or two cases. He understood the existing regulations could
lead to more nderground garages and plantings, etc. He was
concerned about unforeseen effects of the second -story prohibition
and creating undue hardships.
Council Member Patitucci opposed the motion. He believed the
proposal was a little "heavy handed." There were hardly any
procedures in the City of Palo Alto without some type of an
exception. The citizens deserved to have exceptions to especially
heavy-handed rules. He was disappointed staff and the Planning
Commission did not recommend an exception process. His comments
were more in line with those of Commissioner Pan Marsh.
Council Member Woolley queried whether consideration was given to
prohibiting flag lots created by lot line adjustments. She
believed the most objectionable flag lot was when a developer
bought bits and pieces and created a new lot through adjusting lot
lines.
Commissioner Chandler said consideration was given, but the
conclusion was that once a lot was legally created, it was
impossible to look back to where it came from. Amalgamated
backyards were not the whole problem.
Ms. Northvay confirmed an ordinance could not be legally crafted
to make a distinction in : terms of the Aanner in which a lot was
created if it was a legal lot.
61-29
12/19/88
Council Member Woolley referred to the recent cases where the lot
line adjustment was not made but would be made if the flag lot was
granted. The property did not actually change hands and the lot
limes did not change until the flag lot was granted. She under-
stood that all had to be done first and then the application iJr
a flag lot was made.
Ms. Northway said Council could require the property be intact
before granting an exception, but usually applicants were permitted
to apply for developments. Once the property line was created, it
could not be treated differently than other property.
Council Member Levy was also concerned about the lack of an
exception procedure.
AMENDMENT: Council Member bevy moved, seconded by Cobb, to further
direct staff and the Planning Commission to return with an
exception procedure based on the following criteria:
1. That the level of privacy remain comparable to that of the
surrounding neigh31oraood;
2. That the flag lot include adequate separation from adjoining
lot boundaries;
3. That there be minimal impact on the street appearance; and
4. That the flag lot be at least 30 percent larger than the
standard minimum lot size.
Council Member Levy was concerned that a large indivisible lot
mandated a very large Home equal to an "estates" by Palo Alto
standards. He preferred to see Palo Alto remain a community of
more smaller, homes rather than fewer large homes on large lots.
If a flag lot could be created subject to the above criteria,
incl tiding privacy and maintaining the proper street-scape, he
believed it would be supportable.
Council Member Cobb supported the amendment.
Council Member Patitucci opposed the amendment because of the level
of detail. He did not want Caun.il to get into the position of
"playing" Planning Commission. He agreed there were not many flag
lots to deal with in the future. To develop complex rules and
regulations for a few serikas of instances was inappropriate. He
could support a 30 percent standard.
61-30
12/19/88
1
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved to delete
the first three criteria and amend No. 4 to say the 30 percent
standard plus other criteria the Planning Commission might
determine to be appropriate.
AMENDUNT TO Aramaean, DIED FOR IACE OF A SECOND.
Council Member Patitucci opposed the amendment.
Vice P ayor Klein believed the proposed exception process would be
unworkable. ''he substitution of the 20 percent for 30 percent was
okay but he queried how Council could turn down the flag lot on
Seale. In terms of minimal impact on the street, moan flag lots
were located significantly back from the street. He believed Items
1 and 2 were vague and unworkable. In virtually all applications
for flag lots which went before the Coun il, the existing neighbors
said it would impact their privacy. Council needed to have rules
people could understand.
Council Member Bechtel said the Planning Commission already
concluded there should not be any exceptions. Council was fooling
itself if it believed the Commission would come up with more ideas.
In terms of housing, the same amount could be provided under the
cottage ordinance.
Council Member Fenzel agreed the issue was not housing. ehe kind
of housing to be built on a legitimate subiivided lot would be
totally different than what could be built as a cottage. Cottages
would address the low end of the market which was where housing was
needed. Any kind of housing built on a separate lot would be at
the high end, particularly in a newly subdivided lot Moat
subdivisions were apt to be in areas where there were inrgs houses
in front and big backyards would be proposed for another house.
The resultant housing would be expensive and would greatly impact
adjacent neighbors. She opposed the amendment.
Council Member Woolley hoped to find an exception process, but she
was persuaded Council needed to simply prohibit flag lots.
Mayor Sutorius oppose the amendment. He agreed with the
inappropriateness of Council "playing" Planning Commission. The
guidelines, if understood to be extremely broad in their direction,
would provide considerable latitude in returning with carefully
tested specifics, but it seemed the potential for new flag lots not
caused by the amalgamation of bits and ,pieties of other lots was
pretty low. de supported the main motion, When the single-family
requirements returned he would look at aspects that would be
transferrable to the flag lot, e.g., the ability .to go beyond the
35 percent building area coverage if contained to a first floor
construction, and the reverse considering that a limitation on the
61-31
12/19/88
second story should not be so severe if the building area was below
what the building area would ordinarily provide.
Council Member Levy said Sections (4)(a) through (c) of the
ordinance wer- really the basis for the exception procedure. Item
(c) said the granting of the application would not negatively
impact the privacy and quiet enjoyment of adjoining single-family
residences. Some Council Members were uncomfortable with an
exception procedure of any kind. All exception and variance
procedures necessitated the use of judgment and would be unneeded
if the condition allowed itself to conform completely to the
existing requirements. An exception procedure should not be
omitted because it made Council uncomfortable. There should be
fair standards which applied when exceptions were honestly called
for.
AMENDMENT FAILED 2-7, Levy, Cobb "aye."
Council Member Woolley referred to an existing flag lot and the 35
porcent coverage issue, and clarified there could be an increase
in the coverage done in parallel with ft similar action for R -l.
MOTION PASSED 8-1, Patitucci "no."
P?RTs DF 4?.FF1C
6. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency: Report on Proposed
Bus Route Changes (1510.Ol) (fit:574:5)
Vice Mayor 1'lein queried why the changes were suggested by the
County Transit District, where the County Transit District was in
terms of revenues, whether the cuts had to be made, and if so, the
general overall plan, and how Palo Alto fit in with the rest of the
County.
Transportation Planner Gayle Likens said the report was a culmina-
tion of a two-step process on the part of the County Transit
District to restructure and re-evaluate the existing bus route
system. It was alsoan outgrowth of the Bus Transportation Zlsment
of the Transportation 2000 Study. The report represented the
findings of the consultant study --it was not the rscomsandal.ions
of the Transit District staff.
Vice Mayor !Klein asked whether there was any goal to perhaps save
money or reduce miles.
Ms. Likens said the Transit District was not currently looking at
rs4uotions or a change in the existing resources. The proposal
dealt directly with the services of the existing bus fleet. The
Transit District was looking at streamlining the network, providing
61-32
12/19/88
improved coordination to serve existing and potential riders,
integration with a light rail network, and improved coordination
in the entire system.
Vice Mayor Klein asked if similar changes were being proposed in
other areas of the County.
Ms. Likens said changes were proposed throughout the system similar
to those being proposed in Palo Alto.
Vice Mayor Klein asked whether other cities were contacted to
ascertain their feelings with regard to the proposed changes.
Ms. Likens said no.
Council Member Levy clarified no improvements in service were
suggested --only reductions.
Ms. Likens said some changes would streamline the routes and reduce
duplication of service on certain streets. Some areas would be
better connected and there were recommended service reductions in
hours of operation late at night and cutbacks in service early in
the morning. Recommended changes in frequency of service would
reduce the headway. so a bus could not be caught every half hour
but only every hour or 45 minutes. In many locations the recom-
mended changes reduced duplication of service as opposed to
elimination.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the report analyzed how existing resources, e.g., numbers of buses:,
staff, budget, etc., could be most effecte'.ely used by the County
Transit System. There was currently a greater emphasis on light
rail, overall County employment concentrations were shifting to the
south away from Palo Alto, and concerns about level of congestion
were probably as great or greater to the south of Palo Alto than
in Palo Alto, and effectively the report indicated a shifting of
resources to the south. County attar had long held concerns about
many of the routes in Palo Alto and the relatively low ridership
compared to many of the other routes in the County. Part of the
overall tradeoff County,vide was reduced service on primarily
residential routes in order to enhance routes serving a higher
level of commuter traffic.
Council Member Fletcher opined the major improvement was on Routc
35 along Middlefield Road. Instead of just being a weekday, peak
hour service, it would be a seven-day, all day and evening service.
It would provide direct service to Foothill College. She referred
to pass 9 of the staff report (CMR4 874:8) and queried whether the
last sentence on the page that "evening service hours on all local
Palo Alto routes should be maintained for a minimum of one year
61-33
12/19/88
after changes on the ma j or routes are implemented
trends have had ample opportunity to develop" was
not included in the recommendations listed on pales
and ridership
inadvertently
12 and 13.
Ma. Likens said it was an oversight.
Bunny Good, Founder, International Group Organization for the
Disabled, P.O. Box 824, Menlo Park, said the Task Force on
Disability Awareness would not have an opportunity to review the
report until January or February. She expressed concern about the
elderly and disabled with the additional transfer that would be
created by the new route 35. The elderly would also be confused
by the Route number change. She was concerned about the system
being something people would use.
Alice Fiecherund, 750 Torreya, did not see any improvements with
the proposed changes. She was concerned about more transfers and
degraded service.
Herb Fischsrunce, 750 Torreya, urged that Line 23 be preserved
through downtown along Middlefield.
Tamir , Weeer, 915 Piers Court, was a teenager, who rode his bike and
the bus. County Transit installed bike racks but one had to be 16
years old to use them, and he was 15. He spent every other month
with his mother in Santa Clara and he attended Gunn High School in
Palo Alto. He rode CalTrain and took Line 24 to get from the
CalTrain station to Gunn High School, which was proposed for
cutback. Classes now started five minutes earlier, and Line 88
would arrive about three minutes before classes started. It was
dangerous to ride his bike at night and he had relied on the bus
system. With the new service, it would be almost impossible for
him to get a job at San Antonio Center and ride the bus home. The
changes were great for someone in San Jose.
Franklin Olmstead, 240 W. Charleston Road, was a private bus rider
and a member of the Menlo/Middlefield Bus Riders Committee, which
tried to promote bus service as a means of commuting to the various
institutions in Menlo Park in the Middlefield Road/Ravenswood area.
They were interested in maintaining some kind of service along
Middlefield Road into Menlo Park. Although the present ridership
was less than desirable, it compared favorably with many other
routes in north county, and ridership had increased by about one-
third in the past year and one-half. Under the proposed p ftni all
service north of Homer on Middlefield Road would be deleted and
those who now commuted into Menlo Park would be forced to find an
alternative other than public transit. They were just beginning
to get moving on transportation management demand schemes and
transportation management plans, and to cancel a service that would
be important for such a program would be a serious mistake. He
61-34
12/19/88
1
urged support in trying to maintain at least peak commuter tour
service into Menlo Park.
Mayor Butorius was concerned that riders said ridership was up and
consultant reports said ridership was down.
Mr. Olmstead said it was difficult to get hard figures from the
County Transit District because they did not make systematic counts
which something riders did. Although ridership was low compared
with what the number should be, it was not low compared to many
other routes now proposed for deletion. He submitted a copy of a
letter which was sent to Mike Arrow of County Transit Planning
along with ridership counts and a detailed list of reasons why
alternative means should be explored (which is on file in the City
Clerk's Office).
Council Member Renzel was impressed by the staff report and its
walking Council through the advan ages and disadvantages of each
of the proposed changes. She was satisfied with the staff
recommended comments with the addition pointed out by Council
Member Fletcher.
MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to
approve the staff recommendation to direct the City Manager to
convey the comments contained in the staff report (CMR:574:8) to
the County Transportation Agency staff on the proposed changes in
bus service contained in the ATE report.
Council Member Bechtel agreed. The concerns expressed by the
members of the public parti.ularly concerning Route 35 were
conveyed in the recommendations.
Vice Mayor nein believed the County needed a far more effective
bus mist's*. There were only limited resources and it was difficult
for the County Transit Board to determine wheeze to allocate those
resources. It was insufficient to simply urge no significant cuts
in Palo Alto's service. He had no feel for the ridership on some
of the lines being cut as compared to other linos in the Coumy. .
If there were peaces where a line had less ridership and it was
being retained, he wanted to know why. Her believed it was an
opportunity for Council to act on "reional cooperation" by
entering into the process and trying to figure out in a detailed
manner what was fair and appropriate for Palo Alto. Council did
not have adequate information in the report (CMR:574:8) to make
that kind of judgment.
NOTION TO DER: Vice Mayor Mein moved: seconded by sutor ius, to
refer the matter back to staff to provide the following additional
information:
61-35
12/19/88
1. Additional data on the comparison of ridership throughout the
County;
2. The overall quantitative goals of the proposed bus route
systems;
3. What the acceptable fair share of the cutbacks of Palo Alto
should be, and which routes should be retained on a priority
basis; and
4. A letter should be sent to the County indicating where Palo
Alto is in the process and joining the City of San Jose in
requesting an extension of the deadline for comment.
Mayor Sutorius shared many of Vice Mayor Klein's concerns. It was
important to acknowledge the existence and importance of connec-
tions at CalTrain and SamTrans stations. He understood why an
individual rider wanted the bum route retained and improved, but
he observed any busts were poorly used. People could criticize
the inefficiencies and romplain about how dollars were used but if
buses continued to be empty, he did not see that the system would
make improvement. If nothing else, he hoped bike rack access could
be accessible for those who wanted to ride the bus and used a Wave
to get in between transit stops or his place or work or school
regardless of age.
Council Member Fletcher concurred with the convents made by Vice
Mayor Klein and Mayor Sutorius. The County went through the
process twice already and the only reason the proposed changes were.
not yet adopted was because Supervisor McKenna persuaded the
Supervisors to hold off implementing changes until the overall
system was evaluated. Palo Alto did not have a majority on the
Transportation Commission and the Commission was firm there had to
be cutbacks in Palo Alto.
Council Member Bechtel clarified Santa Clara. County required
comments on the item during the week of December 191 1988.
Mr. Schreiber said Sante Clara County staff requested City comments
in order to have comments available as they made their recommenda-
tions. The deadline related to the Santa Clara County.
Council Member Bechtel believed there was value in making as many
comments as possible. She understood the concerns raised by Vice
Mayor Klein and Mayor Sutorius. Council needed to be able to look
at the larger picture, but on the other hand, Palo Alto was one of
the original transit providers. . Palo Alto needed to not put its
head in the sand and the staff report (CMBa 574:8) provided pretty
good balance. In item 13, Council supported the staff proposals
61-35
12/19/88
for 22, 103, 104 and 182, and constructive suggestions were made
on other items.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Bechtel moved to also transmit recommen-
dations contained in the staff report (CMR:574:8)
lMMO:EMT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mayor Sutorius saw no reason why staff could not report to the
County staff, with a copy of Palo Alto's recommendations, and what
happened at the Council meeting. The County staff could be advised
it would be sometime before official City Council comments were
received. That Way County staff would be aware that Council had
not ignored the subject, would be aware of the nature of the types
of concerns raised and some of the positive things reported on.
They would also know Council had not taken final action and what
staff was requested to return with.
Mr. Schreiber said it would be somewhat what unusual for staff to
communicate that an item had gone to the Council with a set of
specific recommendations; the recommendations were not adopted;
yet they were transmitted to County staff; and the item was
continued for further discussion and some of the discussion might
well be related to fundamental policies and changes in the
recommendations. He believed the message would be confusing for
the County staff.
Council Member Fletcher attended a workshop on the subject several
weeks ago, and said the City of San Jose.made a strong comment that
it could not possibly meet the deadline and needed an extra couple
of months to do its evaluation and recommendation. She would be
surprised if the County staff went ahead and made its final
recommendations without San Jose. She deferred to Todd Elliott,
Supervisor McKenna's Office.
Todd Elliott, Supervisor McKenna's Office, believed County staff
would make some recommendations with or without Palo Alto's
comments, but they were a long way away from the time the County
staff recommendations went to the County Transit District Board in
March. Palo Alto would have an opportunity to transmit itc
recommendations to the County Transit District Board.
Council Mir Fletcher hoped is staff recommendations did not go
to the Transportation Commission before all the cities submitted
their comments. She queried whether Supervisor McKenna's office
might make that point to the staff especially if San Jose did not
submit its its.
Mr. Elliott believed the City'scomments would be incorporated
before it went to the Commission and before it went to the Transit
61-37
12/1S/88
District Board. County staff might sake recommendations without
Palo Alto's input but it would not go to the Commission of the
Transit District Board without Palo Alto's input.
Mr. Schreiber believed staff could return to Council in late
January.
Council Member Cobb supported the referral motion. It might make
sense to transmit the applicable portion of the Council minutes to
the County for its benefit of having both Council's discussion and
the public comments.
Council Member Levy believed Council should endorse the staff
recommendations that evening as being based on the best information
available. He agreed with Vice Mayor Klein in terms of the
inadequacy of the information to make a strong case. Given the
timetable, the process should be to endorse the staff
recommendations contained in the staff report =CMS; 574 : )
simultaneously directing staff to gather the additional information
outlined by Vice Mayor Klein and to return to Council with the
intent of modifying the recommendations if required. The referral
motion should be an amendment to the main motion.
Council Member Menzel agreed with Council Member Levy. The County
staff should have some comments to evaluate, and Council. could also
indicate the additional information Could be used to refine and
prioritize the recommendations.
Vice Mayor Klein did not believe there was a deadline because the
City of San Jose had not submitted its information an-i did not
intend to for a few months, and it represented about one-half the
County's population anti a substantial portion of its land area.
He believed it would be appropriate for a letter to be sent to the
Transit staff by the Mayor or the City Manager stating where Palo
Alto was ii. the process and joining with San Jose in suggesting the
time lines be extended.
Mayor Sutor ius supported the referral motion.
MOTION TO Rim PASSED 7--2, Levy, Henze]. "no."
Vice Mayor Klein believed it would be appropriate for staff to
prioritise which routes were most important.
MISS 9;53 10.16 Q1 CC s r
61-38
12/19/88
7. Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 4529 with CH2M Hill
Califjrnia, Inc. for Water Quality Control Plant Construction
Management Services (1122-01) (CMR:562:8)
Council Member Patitucci queried whether such budget changes went
first to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee.
City Manager Bill Zaner said it was not the normal procedure for
staff to first go to the F&PW Committee with budget amendments.
Normally, budget items were discussion items on the Council agenda.
HUMOR: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, as
follows:
1. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $30,000
to fund the continued retention of CH2M Hill for construction
management services associated with the Water Quality Control
Plant until January 31, 1989; and
2. Approve Amendment No. 3 to increase the CH2M Hill, Inc.
contract from $542,000 to a not to exceed limit of $572,000.
ORDINANCE 3843 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THZ BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2988-89
TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATION FCR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICE
AT THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT'S
1lOTIO$ PISSED 9-0.
8. ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 10.3 2.04 0 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING PEDESTRIANS FROM CROSSING THE
OVERPASS AT TEE BAYSHORE FREEWAM UPON THE EMBARCADERO OVERPASS
(1019) (ChM:572:8)
Mr. Schreiber introduced Assistant Transportation Engineer Bahman
Jankah.
'POTION: Council Member Levy gyred, seconded by Klein, to approve
staff recommendation to not adopt the Ordinance repealing PAMC
Section 10.32.040, which currently prohibits pedestrians from
walking on the . Embarcadero overpass. However, coordinate with Cal -
trans for the trimming of the tree branches and shrubbery along the
ramps to provide motorists with increased sight distances for those
pedestrians 4.o use the overpoiss despite the prohibition. Also,
install a barricade and signs on the east end of the overpass
prohibiting pedestrians from walking on the overpass.
Buany Good, Founder, International Group Organization for the
Disaebied, P. O. box 824, Menlo Park, suq ested a stop sign be
61-39
12/19/U
installed where the west exist from Highway 101 merged on the
overpass.
Peter Taskovich, 751 Gallen Avenue, believed the main reason
pedestrians crossed the Embarcadero Overpass at Highway 101 was to
catch the Line 86 bus at St. Francis and Embarcadero. He suggested
there be bus service on East Bayshore and the Embarcadero
Industrial Park.
Council Member Fletcher believed the Caltrans requirements were
ludicrous. The Embarcadero Overpass as with all other overpasses
was built with a sidewalk with pedestrians permitted. It was at
the initiation of the City that pedestrians were prohibited. The
overpass was used by pedestrians daily. She called every city from
Redwood City along the Highway 101 corridor all the way to San Jose
and none of the cities had pedestrian prohib. dons on their
overpasses over Highway 101. The only overpasses with chain -link
fences were new or improves ones because it was new Caltrans
criteria. It seemed Caltrans should not make such expensive
requirements because the City was not making any improvements to
the structure.
SUBSTITUTE OTloN: Council Member Fletcher, seconded by Rennes,
moved to refer the matter back to staff and that stafk try and
persuade Caltrans to rescind the requirements for costly and
unnecessary improvements and allow pedestrians on the overpass.
Council Member Renzelcould not believe there was not some pre-
existing right of passage not adequately substituted by the
bicycle/pedestrian bridge. Council should let Caltrans try and
force the City to make the required improvements. It made more
sense to her to repeal the ordinance and simultaneously direct
staff to talk to Caltrans about the requirement.
SUBSTITUTE MOW FAILED 3-6, Bechtel, Fletcher, Renzel "aye."
AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to
delete the last sentence of the motion, "Also, install a barricade
and signs on the east end of the overpass prohibiting pedestrians
from walking on the overpass."
Council Member Woolley agreed with Council Member ?b*tcher the
requirements were ludicrous; the present situation seemed to be
operating okay; but she saw no need to put up another sign and to
try and further prevent pedestrians from using the overpass.
Vice Mayor Klein supported the amendment and main motion to
preserve the status quo. Crossing the overpass would remain
"illegal" and once every ten years someone would be arrested.
Those' who used the overpass would continue to do so and would step
61-40
12/19/68
0
around the barrier on the north amide. It was unfortunate the
requirements could not be completed for less than $86,000, which
he believed was outrageous.
Council Member Levy supported installing the barricade from a
liability standpoint but tended to agree with Vice Mayor Klein that
those who wanted to walk across would. If a barricade was not
installed at the east side since one already existed on the west
side, there could be a liability problem.
Council Member Renzel agreed with the amendment not to install the
additional barricade. Council spoke many times about unnecessary
and unenforceable legislation and it seemed ridiculous to do so in
the subject instance. Council should be making the situation as
safe as possible for those who used the overpass. She supported
weakening the main motion by not installing additional barricades.
It was incredible that Palo Alto was the only community between
Redwood City and San Jose which prohibited pedestrian access on an
eye pass.
Council Member Fletcher did not believe a barricade was required
to give notice and that citing the appropriate Palo Alto Municipal
Code section would suffice.
Council Member Patitucci supported consistency on both sides of the
overpass.
SUBSTITUTE A f: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by
Fletcher, to remove the existing barricade and to install signs on
both sides of the overpass including the findings that much
development goes in the direction of Palo Alto to Embrircadsro and
signs were appropriate and the barricades should be removed.
Council Memmber Levy asked bout liability.
Ms. Northway said liability related to whether the City created a
dangerous condition on public property. She deferred to the
Transportation Division as to whether the condition would be
dangerous. If the situation was sufficiently dangerous, the
question would be whether it warranted barricades. Existing signs
and a barricade on one side implied certain treatment, and removing
the barricade should include a finding that tha situation was not
as dangerous as once believed.
Mr. Schreiber said the barricade predated most staff members and
he could not find a change in circumstance to support the City
Attorney's suggestion.
Mayor Sutorius believed another finding would be that staff
indicated pedestrian traffic would increase if Council repealed the
61-41
12/19/88
ordinance. Further, there would not be a significant shift of
pedestrians from the Oregon, Expressway to the overpass, and the
accident history did not show any pedestrian -related accidents.
He believed there was justification for Council action to remove
the barricade.
Council Member Renzsl pointed out the finding that similar
crossings on all the other freeway overcrossings from Redwood City
to San Jose were not barricaded.
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED 7-21 Levy, Klein "no."
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-1. Renzsl. "no•°
9. Water Quality Control Organization (1122-01) (CMR:564:8)
Director of Public Works Dave Adams said there was insufficient
support, to provide the technical expertise in the field of
"compliance," e.g., those things dealing with permit actions,
industrial waste, waste minimization, capital improvements and
major maintenance, and the organization of the City did not provide
for such support in its present configuration. In reviewing the
substantial new permit requirements, he looked at how to strengthen
the City's organization and simultaneously build a unit to respond
to future needs. They needed to ensure the proper follow through
on seven major studies which required 16 different deadlines and
spanned from the present through 1991 at a cost of approximately
$800,000. Approval of the recommendation would provide a natural
foundation for the landfill compliance, nonpoint discharge, and
other regulatory needs dealing which technical expertise.
Hazardous materials would be later. In order to comply with the
new permit requirements, staff needed to gat started, and to do so,
the position was necessary.
Council Member Fletcher queried whether any of the costs would be
shared by any of the partners to the Water Quality Control Plant.
Mr. Adams said yes.
Council Member Woolley said the of the position was "Engineering
Manager, Water, Gas & Wastewater, and she queried whether the
person would also deal with the water and gas utility.
Mr. Adams said there happened to be a position in that category in
the present Compensation Plan. The duties were so similar, it as
believed to be reasonable to hire someone within the category and
during the budget process the job description could be redefined
to no longer include water and gas.
61-42
12/19/88
Council Member Patitucci queried whether the position cr-lld be
included with the new budget process.
Mr. Adams intended to include most of the requests with the budget
process; however, the Water Quality Control Board requirements did
not correspond with City's processes. The first deadline was
April, 1989, and staff was trying to see what could be combined
with other agencies in order to get started. He had reassigned
some Public Works effort to the compliance issues. The Senior
Engineer who worked on nonpoint discharge was diverted to the
subject efforts, and continuing in that mode would delay the
nonpoint discharg:a and associated work with storm drains.
Council Member Patitucci said for consistency in not supporting
such changes outside of the budget process, he would not support
the recommendation.
MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy,
to refer the matter of the position of Engineer Manager, Water, Gas
& Wastewater in the Water Quality Control budget to the Finance &
Public Works Committee for consideration.
City Manager Bill Za►r er sa? d the matter was not routed tc the
Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee in the first instance
because of the timing problems. Normally, a new program went
through the F&PW Committee. The subject situation was one in which
the City had to comply with the requirements imposed by outside
agencies. Staff would be in a more difficult position two months
down the road. It was imperative to have the services to be
provided by the recommended position. He urged Council to defeat
the motion and provide staff with the authority to move ahead.
Council Member Doubts' said sometimes the reason for referring to
the F&PW Committee was to gather further information or to have a
fuller discussion. She believed staff clearly outlined the needs
and why it was necessary to proceed immediately. The F&PW
Committee was not scheduled to meet until January 24, 1959. She
would not support the motion.
Council Member Renaei was Council's representative on the South Bay
Dischargers Authority and dealt with many of the permitting issues.
The Regional Board was hearing the City's permit matter on
December 21, 1958, and would be moving fnrward. She believed it
behooved the City to be prepared for the hearings in terms of
immplementihg the requirements.
Council Member Levy said normally such a position had other
associated costs, including support personnel, none of which was
detailed in the report (( R:564:8). MUch was said about the
various deadlines and required reports, and he would like to have
61-43
12/19/88
seen that detailed in a r:vort. He supported the referral for
proper review.
Mayor Sutorius shared some of the concerns about the process. He
was confident the position requirement would be sustained and that
the budget process would elaborate in terms of the balance of the
organization. He was concerned the late January F&PW Committee
meeting would not return the item to Council until sometime in
February. The City's history in recruitment, especially in the
field of engineering showed that key positions went uncovered for
an extremely long period. He opposed the referral.
MOTION TO REFER FAILED 2-7, Levy, Patitucci "no."
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to
approve the addition of one Engineering Manager, WGW in the Water
Quality Control budget for the remainder of this fiscal year.
Council Member Levy asked about the dollars associated with the
position.
Mr. Adams said the position would be supported through salary
savings for the current fiscal year. The monthly control point for
the position was $5,300.
Council Member Levy asked how much money in the fiscal year 1989-
90 budget would be connected with the proposed position, including
overhead, etc.
Mr. Adams estimated an additional $125,000 including fringe
benefits.
NOTION PASSED 7-2, Levy, Patitucci "no."
10. Water Usage and Conservation Update (1410-02) (ice)
Mr. Zaner said cc servation was down to about 2.5 percent. The
wells were cut back severely and only provided about 7 percent of
the City's water. The City was under its allocation by the San
Francisco Water District by a little better than 3.33 percen=•, To
date, no fines had been levied against the C5ty for going ov-,.c its
allocation.
No Action Taken.
COUNCIL ZATTNRO
11. Council Members Fletcher and Woolley re Recycling Bins for
Multi -Family Residences (1420)
61-44
12/19/88
1
MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
direct appropriate staff to investigate suitable designs and
ownership arrangements for mandatory recycling bins for
multi -family residences which exceed a certain number of units,
and that staff involve owners, homeowners' associations and PASCO
in the process.
Council Member Cobb asked who would be liable for penalties.
City Attorney Diane rorthway said it would depend on how the
ordinance was drafted, but she believed the homeowners' association
would be the logical choice with a condominium complex.
Council Member Patitucci supported the idea.
Irene Sampson, 3992 Bibbits Drive, Chaired Palo Alto's War on Waste
Committee, and urged support of the motion.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Bechtel absent.
12. Mayor Sutorius re Cancellation of December 27, 1988, and
January 3, 1989, City Council Meetings (701) (NPG)
MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, to cancel
the December 27, 1988, and January 3, 1989, City Council meetings.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Bechtel absent.
AnaMBIMINT
Council adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ATTF : APPROVED:
y, Clerk / ; ,A yor
NOTE: Sense mi u tet.... (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.)4.200(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 meetings tapes are
retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the
tapes during regular office hours.
61-45
12/19/88