HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-11 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
MIF1UT€s
Regular Meeting
August 11, 1986
CITY
o�
pAlo
ITEM PPGE
Minutes of July 7, 1986 7 5 3 5
1. Appointment of Planning Commissioner to Fill 7 5 3 5
Term Expiring July 31, 1990
2. Santa Clara County Traffic Authority Measure A 7 5 3 5
Program - Strategic Plan
Consent Calendar 7 5 3 6
Referral
3. ;ales and Use Tax Auditing - Use of External 7 5 3 6
Sales Tax Auditors - Refer to Finance and
Public Works Committee
Action
4. Amendment to Agreement for Public Works 7 5 3 6
Inspection Services
5. Award of Construction Contract for Installation
ofof a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of San
Antonio Road and East Bayshore Road
7 5 3 6
6. Award of Contract for Swimming Pool Equipment 7 5 3 7
Maintenance
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 7 5 3 7
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation r_ a Application of Clement Chen
and Associates for Modification of Planned
Community District 2637 to Expand the Holiday
Inn Hotel, 625 El Camino Real
7 5 3 7
7 5 3 3
8/11/86
ITEM PAGE
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance
PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Application of Mr. and Mrs.
Marty Weiner for a Preliminary Parcel Map, with
Exceptions, for Property Located at 1124 Byron
Street
7 5 3 8
7 5 4 1
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated 7 5 4 2
11. Golden Triangle Task Force - Monthly Status 7 5 4 3
Report
12. Status Report on Mountain View Amphitheatre 7 5 4 4
2. Santa Clara County Traffic Authority Measure A 7 5 4 9
Program - Strategic Plan
Request of Councilmember Fletcher re Use of 1/2 7 5 5 4
Cent Sales Tax to Fund Construction of Expressway
Commuter Lanes
Adjournment at 9:40 p.m. 7 5 5 5
7 5 3 4
8/11/86
Regular Meeting
Monday, August 11, 1986
0
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue: at 7:30
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein,
Levy, Patitucci, Renzel
Sutorius, Woolley
on this date in the
p.m.
Mayor Cobb said a Special Meeting to interview Visual Arts Jury
candidates was held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room.
Mayor Cobb showed a beer mug presented to the City by the City of
Hamburg, Germany, via the Palo Alto Soccer Club who recently
traveled to Hamburg.
MINUTES CF JULY 7
1986
Councilmember Renzel had the following correction:
Page 7439, first paragraph, line 7, should read, "...masquerade of
a real for-profit business as a..."
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the Minutes of July 7, 1986, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED uneniscesly, Sutorius, Woolley absent.
1. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO FILL TERM EXPIRING
JULY 31, 1990 (COU 5-4-2)
!MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to continue.
item to the August 18, 1986 City Council meeting.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius, Woolley absent.
2. SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY MEASURE A PROGRAM
STRAT GIC PLAN PLA 4/PRE 3-2-6) (CMR:435 :6 )
City Manager Bill 2aner suggested postponing the item until the
arrival of Will Kempton, Executive Director of the Measure 'A'
item.
the
Mayor Cobb said Councilmember Fletcher's traffic -related matter
would be treated as part of #2.
7 5 3 5
8/11/86
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTION: Councilmesber Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein,
approval of the consent Calendar.
Referral
3. SALES AND USE TAX AUDITING - US!: OF EXTERNAL SALES TAX
AUDITORS - REFER TO FINANCE ANA, PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
(FIN 4/FIN 2-1)
Action
4. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS INSP:CTION SERVICES
(PWK 2-4) (CMR:416:6)
Staff recommends that Council:
o Authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment to the
agreement with Barrett, Harris & :associates, Inc. for
inspection services amounting to $40,500.
• Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement
of up to $6,000.
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 4592
BARRETT HARRIS & ASSOCIATES
5. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC
SIGNAL AT THE •INTERSECTION OF SAN ANTONIO ROAD AND EAST
BA?SHORE ROAD (PLA - CMR 4 28 :6)
Staff recommends that Council:
Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Steiny
and Company, Inc, , in the amount of $123,500.
4 Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract
of up to $12,350.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Steiny And Company
RESOLUTION 6548 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO O ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A NEM WO
PARKING ZONE ON SAN ANTONIO ROAD°
? 5 3 6
8/11/86
6. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SWIMMING POOL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
?PAR 4-4) (CMR:431:6) .._.r
1
Staff recommends that Council:
O Authorize the Mayor to execute a two-year pool equipment
maintenance contract with Boyett Waterworks in the amount
of $38,862 for the first year and $28,550 for the second
year, with the option to increase the second -year contract
by $12,230, contingent upon continued operation of Jordan
Pool.
A Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $4,500
for each year the contract is in force.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Boyett Waterworks
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius, Woolley absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
Request of Counciimember Fletcher re use of 1/2 cent sales tax to
fund construction incorporated under #2.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPLICATION OF CLEMENT CHEN AND ASSOCIATES FOR MODIFICATION OF
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT 2637 TO EXPAND THE HOLIDAY INN
HOTEL, 62 EL CAMINO REAL (Continued from 4/7/a6) (PLA 3-1)
(CMR:427:6)
Mayor Cobb said the applicant requested a deferral of the item.
John Newman, Palo Alto Holiday Inn, requested a continuance on
behalf of Clement Chen and Associates. Over the past several
months they participated in hearings on the Downtown Study and
represented to Council they would attempt to incorporate some of
the findings into changes for the project addition. One of the
areas concerned parking deficits. Clement Chen & Associates
looked at areas adjacent to the property to possible create a
parking structure to address the issues raised by Council, and it
was brought to their attention there might be no better place than
their own parking lot at the Palo Alto Holiday Inn. They were
examining the possibility of committint a number of the current
330 spaces and/or future spaces Or City permit parking to benefit
the City and to address and ameliorate the parking deficit. The
issue would have to be reviewed with the City and also with the
ultimate owner of the property, Stanford University. They were
requesting additional time to identify those issues.
7 5 3 7
8/11/86
Mayor Cobb a,;ked how much time Clement Chen and Associates needed
to complete the work.
Mr. Newman said a week to two weeks.
City Manager Bill Zaner said the meeting of Tuesday, September 2,
1986 would be the appropriate time for continuance of the item.
MOTION: Mayor Cobb coved, seconded by Levy, to contlnue the
item to the September 2, 1986 City Council meeting.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius, Woolley absent.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE (Cont[n eu d from 7/21/86
(PLA 3-8) ._._
Planning Commissioner Jean McCown said the Planning Commission
Minutes described their concerns. The proposed changes were
adopted unanimously with the exception of two with one dissenting
vote.
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown had a correction to the ordinance.
Page 4, first paragraph, last sentence should read: "Where the
total parking provided is located in more than one location on a
site, separated by differences in grade or by at least 3,0 meters
(10 feet) of nonpavad area, each such area shall be considered a
separate facility for the purpo<e of this requirement.
Councilmember Renzel referred to the minimum requirements for
landscaping for parking lots, and said there was an exemption from
the paved area for required accessway, driveways, and pathways.
She wondered if the exemption met the objective of a fair amount
of green space. She understood an exemption from the perimeter
landscaping if a driveway had to go through but queried an exemp-
tion from the paving requirement. It almost seemed to be part of
the building since it was a necessity to the building and was not
a landscaping element.
Mr. Brown said the point was well taken. The section of the ordi-
nance was paralleled after the City's current ordinance and was
probably the best rationale in .trying to maintain consistency. It
could be included in computations of interior landscaping, etc..
Councilmember Renzel asked if such a change would conflict with
anything else in the ordinance.
Mr. Brown said no. There would be a change in the way staff
reviewed plans, but not significantly.
Councilmember ilinember Renzel clarified the landscaping would be considered
part of the interior landscaping rather than part of the parking
landscaping.
7 5 3 8
8/11/86
Mr. Brown clarified the landscaping would be included in the total
for determination of interior landscaping. He suggested the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) also might consider the ramifica-
tions of the emange.
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open.
Linn Winterbotham, 819 Oregon Avenue, a member of the ARB, did not
believe the change would make a significant difference. The ARB
attempted to work with the adopted standards as to reasonable
amounts of landscaping and impermeable surfaces. There was a con-
cern about the way development was taking place in Palo Alto and
the associated ecological impacts. The benefits of . landscaping
were not seen for 3, 5, 10, 20 years, by which time those who made
the decisions as far as what was proper were reflecting on what
they did. It was important for the City to develop a standard
applicable - to all projects in those areas with the greatest amount
of environmental impact to the surroundiec neighborhoods. Buffers
and parking areas needed to be ar.dressed. as far as minimum
standards. The ARB tried to address general issues throughout the
landscape areas, except for plant sizes, primarily to ensure
greater compatibility in Palo Alto. Since joining the ARB, he was
concerned the City really did not have qualified personnel to make
decisions in regard to landscape items. Some sort of consistency
throughout Palo Alto in interpretation of what buffers, front
yards, and parking lots were should be app.'s is -i over time. The ARB
believed it important to be included in the zoning ordinance
because most of the items directly referenced existing require-
ments in the ordinance. The items were intended as clarification,
and hopefully it would be easier for staff, the applicants, and
the ARB to review the projects.
Councilmember Renzel asked whether excluding the accessways from
the computation of the 25 percent landscaping on interior made any
difference in how the ARB processed , the applications, or whether
the extra increment of green would be noticed.
Mr. Winterbotham clarified excluding the accesswayswould not make
a significant difference as far as the amount of green, but pri-
marily the amount of permeable surface to accept runoff to allow
for a natural percolation. Some areas of paved surface added
variety in the City, and including the .driveway would almost
penalize someone who was trying to do something in terms of a
small plaza, small sitting area, jogging path, etc.
Councilmember Renzel referenced minimum plant size and asked
whether the City required plants to grow to a certain height when
*screen planting* was specified.
7 5 3 9
8/11/86
Mr. Winterbotham said the City did not require a certain height.
He hoped the ARB looked at the quality and nature of the
landscaping to achieve desired results. Staff did not want the
ARB to get that specific. The City got a certain amount of
protection but was not going the full way yet.
Ccuncilmember Renzel believed a "screen" implied a shrub would
grow more than three feet high, and asked if that was reviewed.
Mr. Winterbotham it was reviewed. The requirements were not
intended to be blanket for projects without allowing variation,
which was where the ARB's judgment came into play. Many cities
required specific types of plants for those areas.
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearino closed.
Councilmember Bechtel referred to a letter from C. William
Spangler (on file in the City Clerk's office) concerning the defi-
nition of "grade," and he preferred one of staff's alternates to
the Planning Commission recommendation. She asked for comment.
Mr. Brown said either definition was fine„ The City Attorney's.
office believed the original wording as suggested by staff and
approved by the Planning Commission was enforceable and under-
standable, but Mr. Spangler's definition was just as valid.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
adopt Planning Commission recommendations for amendments to the
%oning Ordinance as follows:
a) Calculation of daylight plane at common property line when
grade differences occur between adjoining parcels;
b) Definition of grade for determining height measurement;
c) Clarification of RM-S height and coverage requirements
when adjacent to RM-4;
d) Clarification of the calculation of building height in the
CC -2 zone;
e) Addition to and clarification of landscaping requirements
in parking facilities, other paved areas and landscaped
screen and buffers;
f) Definition of Gross Floor Area;
g) Definition *f Projections and
i 5 4 0
8/11/86
MOTION CONTINUED
To amend Section 10 (2) to read, "Where the total Parking provided
is in more . than one location on a site separated by a difference
iu grade of..."
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COOIIdiL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18
(ZONING CODE) REGARDING DEFINITIONS OF GROSS FLOOR AREA,
PROJECTIONS, GRADE, AND DAYLIGHT PLANE, RN -5 DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, AND LANDSCAPING IN PARKING FACILITIES AND
REQUIRED LANDSCAPED AREAS"
Councilmember Klein. commended Mr. Winterbotham for his mammoth
effort in helping produce the amendments which were an improvement
for the City.
Councilmember Fletcher expressed her gratitude for the set of
amendments. For some time she was particularly interested in the
landscaping for parking lots and the definition of gross floor
area. The .City increasingly had uncovered space which was exempt
from calculation of the floor area ratio ( FAR) and thus created
bigger buildings. She was glad the matter was cleared up.
Mayor Cobb added his thanks to Mr. Winterbothiam. The Council
appreciated his work and that of the Planning Commissions.
MOTION PASSED•,. unanimously, Sutorius, Woolley absent.
9, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPLICATION OF MR. AND MRS. M,RTY WEINER FOR A PRELIMINARY
PARC L _MAP, WITH EXCEPTIONS/ FOR PROPERTY LOCATED A1' 11 4
BYRON STREET (PLA 3-1)
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Receiving no
requests from the publi a to 5 peak he declared the public hearing
closed.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to
adopt Planning Commission recommendations that the application for
a preliminary parcel reap to combine two lots, and thus create a
lot which remains substandard in width and area, will not have an
adverse environmental impact and find that:
7 5 4 1
8/11/86
MOTION CONTINUED
a) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the property in that it is within a subdivision created
before City zoning requirements established a minimum
width of 60 feet and _ m nizJim area of 6,000 square feet
for R-1 lots, but the property has functioned as a single
50 -foot wide, 5,750 square -foot lot for many years;
b) The exceptions are necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
petitioner in that the owner should have the same rights
to develop his property as the owners of neighboring
parcels do;
c) The granting of the exceptions will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or ire j,.:rious to other property in the
territory in that it will be larger than other lots
created by the 1890 subdivision and will, in fact, be of
benefit to the other property in the territory in that it
will eliminate two very substandard lots;
d) The granting of the exception will not violate the
requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law in
that the new parcel will be similar in size to other R-1
lots in Palo Alto;
And recommend approval of the prei imioary parcel map.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius, Woolley absent.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDERING WEED NUISANCE ABATED (PWK 5-2)
(CMR:429 :6 )
Mayor Cobb said it Was the time and place set for Public Hearing
on Resolution 6541 declaring weeds to be a nuisance. He asked the
record to show that notice of the hearing had been given in the
time, manner, and form provided for in Chapter 1808 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. He asked if the City Clerk received any
written objections.
City Clerk Gloria Young said she had not.
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Receiving no
requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing
closed. He asked the record to show that no persons appeared or
filed written objections against the weed abatement proceedings,
and any ,resolution . passed by Council on the matter would reflect
the finding.
NOTION: Oouncilmember Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt
the Resolution ordering the abatement of weeds.
01,8?
i
MOTION CONTINUED
-RESOLUTION 6546 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING WEED NUISANCE ABATED"
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius, Woolley absent.
11. GOLDEN TRIANGLE TASK FORCE MONTHLY STATUS REPORT (PRE 3)
(CMR:433:6) -
City Manager Bill Zaner said the Council packet included the first
monthly etatue report -from the Golden Triangle Task Force. The
Task F- rce requested each of the member City Councils and the
Board of Supervisors agendize the item each month as the status
report came out to discuss the report and take appropriate
action.
Mayor Cobb said he and Councilmember Klein attended the bi-weekly
meeting of the Golden Triangle Task Force the previous Friday.
There was a study session scheduled shortly, and the group was
quite active. The Task Force appreciated that Palo Alto was a
member of the Task Force. He suggested the item need not be
agendized each month, but be an informational item in the packet.
The item could be agendized as the Councilmembers wished, and
brought forth for discussion on a regular basis.
Councilmember Patitucci said many of the items before the Golden
Triangle Task Force required action by the City Council. The
first was the implementation of the .35 FAR. He asked if Council
had already taken action.
Mr. Zaner replied the action to implement the .35 FAR had not been
taken; however, it was one of the items Council instructed staff
to do. The City Attorney was drafting the necessary documents,
and the item would be before Council on August 25, 1986.
Mayor Cobb believed there would be ample opportunity for Council
to discuss the actions. Council would follow the procedure out-
lined but would agendize the item for discussion when necessary.
Councilmember Klein said the first meeting as a member of the
Golden Triangle Task Force was an education in hew difficult it
would be to achieve some of the goals. The sr Erring between some
of the member cities was obvious, and Pei() Alto's participation
might be helpful in resolving some of the disputes. The task had
to be done but would not be eaey:
i.5 4 3
8/11/86
12. STATUS REPORT ON MOUNTAIN VIEW AMPHITHEATRE (Et -NV 5)
(CM R : 4 3 6 : 6) ._.
City Manager Bill Zaner said staff invited representatives from
Bill Graham's organization to attend that evening's meeting. He
showed transparencies which reflected where the problems occurred
in Palo Alto and how the problems shifted areas. The Amphitheatre
was located on Stierlin Road, two miles from Palo Alto's southern
City limits. The first two concerts were held on June 29, 1986
and July 6, 1986, and no complaints were received. The first com-
plaints were received about the Jeffrey Osborne concert on July
13, 1986. Between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.-, about 75
complaints were received. The complaints were clustered between
the Oregon Expressway and the creek, close to the freeway. The
Stevie Nicks concert was on Monday, July 14, 1986, and the City
received 84 complaints between 6:15 p.m. and 11:45 p.m., most of
which were concentrated by the Oregon Expressway, out toward the
creek, and clustered in toward the freeway. One or two complaints
were received around Loma Verde and Colorado. A substantial
amount of work was done on Thursday, July 17, 1986, by the
Shoreline Amphitheatre to adjust the volume, and change the angle
of the speakers for the Beach Boys concert, and Palo Alto received
no complaints. The Julian Lennon concert was on July 26`r 1986,
and the City received no complaints. For the Ronnie Deo concert
on July 27, 1986, the City received two complaints. Staff
believed the problem was under control. On August 2,, 1986, the
Jimmy Buffet concert, the City received 135 complaints between the
hours of 8:30 p.m. and 11:10 p.m. Many of the complaints were
complaints
south of the Oregon Expressway and for the first time, complaints
were clustered around Colorado, Lorna Verde with a large number
north of the Oregon Expressway and a couple in Barron Park. On
August 5, 1986, the Bob Dylan concert, there were 90 complaints
centered above Embarcadero, The City did sound tests using its
own equipment and readings were taken on each night complaints
were received. After recalibrating the equipment to ensure
accuracy, the City was convinced the sound meters did not register
any increase over the background noise in the neighborhoods in
which the testing was done. The music was audible but did not
register on the machines. The City received cooperation from both
the Mountain View City staff and Mr. Graham's organization. Palo
Alto was kept up to date on what was being done. Speaker loca-
tions, directions, and volumes were changed, and many experiments
were done. Mr. Scher of Bill Graham Pcesents and his consultant
could give more information. While the location of the complaints
stayed in the northern part of the City, they tended to spread.
Between then and September 22, 1986, which marked the end of the
current scheduled concert season, 13 concerts remained.
Mayor Cobb welcomed Jim Zesch, a Councilmember from Mountain View,
who was present to hear Palo Alto's concerns. -
7 5 4 _4
8/11/86
Councilmember Ren zel asked about the City's course of relief if
the problems could not be resolved.
Mr. Zaner said staff was looking for a "technical solution" to the
acoustical problem. The first course was to work with the City of
Mountain View and the developers who re required to solve the
problem. The City of Mountain View was adamant that the problem
be solved. The operators were spending a lot of time and money on
consultant assistance to solve the problem.
Councilmember Patitucci asked about the level of complaints, the
types of sound causing the complaints and whether Mountain View
had the same problems.
Mr. Zaner said the problem appeared to only be in Palo Alto.
Mountain View received a few complaints, but nothing like Palo
Alto. Palo Alto's complaints varied. He deferred to Mr. Scher
for the acoustical information.
William T. Leaser, 964 Colonial Lane, believed the Amphitheatre
was a nice addition to the area, but he was concerned about the
noise problem.
Danny Scher, Vice President of Special Events, Bill Graham
Presents, said the music appeared to affect the quietest neighbor-
hoods, but if the sound was turned off, the sound meter would not
go down. They wanted to solve the problem, but it was not as
simple .as turning the sound down. On the nights when there were
no complaints, the concerts were the loudest. The most complaints
were received on nights of the quietest concerts. He referred to
"inversion .layers, t' which were layers of warm air over cooler air.
It acted almost as a mirror and bounced the sound back. The
higher the inversion layer, the greater the angle which meant the
sound went farther away from the source bypassing everything
between the point of origination and where it ultimately ended up.
Generally sound went up, and by the time it came down, it was like
a meteorite and was totally dissipated. He wished turning the
sound down one decibel
seem to work that way.
and somehow the music
neighboring community.
people to call so they
problems seemed to be
then returned the next
concert season would
October.
would cause a domino effect, but it did not
It was a phenomenon they never dealt with,
needed to be less than the ambient in a
It would take time, and he encouraged
knew where the sound was coming from. The
solved one night in one neighborhood, and
night in another neighborhood.: The annual
be from mid -April through the end of
Councilmember Patitucci asked who decided how loud music would be
for a particular performance.
7 5 4 5
8/11/86
Mr.. Scher said the artist's sound technician decided on the
volume, and every artist had his or her own sound system. The
Amphitheatre turned off its lawn system to see whether it was the
source of the problems, but more complaints were received on that
►sight. They did not know whether the problem was coming from an
acoustical property of the tent. People tended to absorb sound
and they did not know whether less people caused the sound to seem
louder. If sound traveled by the wind, there would be complaints
in Sunnyvale. It was a new situation and being ambient or turning
down the source was not acceptable. They did not know how to
rectify the problem. He called the National Weather Service in
Redwood City to ascertain the height of the :inversion layer and
was told it was 1,300 feet. He tried to find a correlation of the
inversion layer and the loudness of the music inside the
Amphitheatre to make the angle greater so by the time the music
returned to earth it totally dissipated. However, inversion
layers were measured from the Oakland Airport. Now he was trying
to fir\d a correlation between the sound inside the amphitheatre
and an inversion layer over the -Oakland Airport.
Councilmember Patitucci asked about changing the times of the
performances.
Mr. Scher said it was tried in another city, but there were more
hate letters from people who had to leave work to hear perfor-
mances or could not attend at all. They were also dealing with
the public who finally did not have to drive to San Francisco or
Oakland to see what they believed to be world class entertain-
ment.
Councilmember Patitucci asked about East Palo Alto.
Mr. Scher said there was one complaint.
Mayor Cobb referred to the artist's control of the on-stage sound
system, and he asked whether the Amphitheatre had any control.
Mr. Scher said generally yes, but the correlation between how loud
the music was on stage and how it affected Palo Alto was not yet
found. The first step was to turn the music down at the source,
which was done, and the Amphitheatre was also monitoring the top
of the lawn seating to find the critical point of sound com-
plaints. . If complaints were not going to be non-existent, they
preferred they be the exception and not the rule.
1 5 4 6
8/11/86
Joe 0. Louis, Paoletti-Lewitz Associates, Inc., acoustical con-
sultants in San Francisco, said measurements were taken to quan-
tify the magnitude of noise levels in the community generated by
the music in the Amphitheatre, which was typical with the poten-
tial for noise impacts so that sufficient mitigation could be
determined. Noise impacts were typically assessed with respect to
the difference in sound level between the intruding noise and the
existing ambient. The concert sound in Palo Alto was so close to
the ambient sound level it was not measurable with their environ-
mental instrumentation, but under certain conditions, it could be
heard. When the music could not be heard, it was partly due to
certain meteorlogical phenomena, such as wind, humidity, and
thermal effects which tended to either support or suppress the
sound as it propagated away from the Amphitheatre and into the.
community. The effects were difficult to quantify because of
weather variables and the difficulty with precisely identifying
the location and magnitude of the mcteorlogical phenomena which
constantly changed. When the conditions were right, concert
sounds were sometimes heard up to five miles away, but they were
not measurable on Me sound level meter. The human ear selec-
tively detected different frequency components of different
noises, and even when two sounds were close in terms of decibel
level, they could still be differentiated by the ear. In Palo
Alto, the ambient noise level was comprised primarily of trans-
portation noises such as cars, trucks, buses and railroad. There
was some contribution from wind in the trees and distant aircraft.
The day and night ambient sound levels were, low. Superimposed on
the ambient were relatively short duration transient events such
as aircraft , crickets, barking dogs, which were clearly discern-
able above the ambient because their sound levels were higher than
the ambient and the frequency characteristic was different from
the contributors to the general overall ambient. Even if the
other transient events were close to the ambient sound levels,
they would still be heard because the sound.. had a different fre-
quency spectrum. The concert sounds were discernable not because
they were loud or above the existing ambient, but because the
character of the sound was different from the ambient. With
respect to Shoreline and what the Amphitheatre did to address
noise control such as the .location of the facility and the posi-
tion of the loud speakers, berms and barriers which surrounded the
Amphithreater all contributed to the reduction of noise levels in
the surrounding communities. Once an intruding sound level was
reduced to the ambient and once it could not be measured any
longer, there was no way to calculate how much more reduction
would be necessary to make the sound totally indiscernable to even
the most critical observer who . carefully listened for a specific
sound. As environmental noise specialists, they were not used to
dealing with noise problems where the intruding sounds were so low
as to be immeasurable above the ambient.
7 5 4 7
8/11/86
Mayor Cobb asked if selectively using something like graphic
equalizers, rather than just turning the volume down, might modu-
late some of the offending sounds. He also asked whether it was
possible to ascertain the inversion layer in advance of a concert
to make appropriate modifications.
Mr. Louis said graphic equalizers could be used because higher
frequencies had shorter wave lengths and were absorbed more and
were more directional. The low frequencies rolled over the bar-
riers. Regarding inversion layers, the decibel level or the
amount of decibel increase or decrease created by the meteorlogi-
cal phenomena was difficult to pin down. It was not a precise
science because there were so many variables and weather patterns
constantly changed. Keeping track of the information would be
important, however, in relating to the actual sound levels,
Councilmember Levy asked what was specifically being done at each
concert.
Mr. Scher said they were currently gathering data on the inversion
layer as provided by the weather service. An inversion layer was
measured by going to the Oakland Airport and putting a balloon in
the air with transmitters, which transmitted barometric pressures,
temperature, humidity, which burst at some point. Out of the
information came an inversion layer --but not necessarily an
inversion layer over Palo Alto. On a per show night basis, they
monitored the weather as it was in Palo Alto, the inversion layer
as they were told, they had people at the sound board measuring
the loudneas, there were people at the top of the lawn seating
measuring the sound, and there were people on the eai anaa.,as
waiting for calls. Shoreline had its own map, and every show had
different color push pins. He expected to see a lot of integrated
colors, but it turned out to be spots of colors with some overlap.
The music could be turned down inside, but it did not mean it
could not be heard, but other nights, it could not be heard. The
higher the inversion layer, the less likely Palo Alto would hear
the music. He understood the inversion layer rose later in the
year. If they could_ find out on a per show basis that they would
have a low inversion layer, they would go to the artist and tell
them to turn down the music as long as the people inside the
Amphitheatre were not inconvenienced. He was trying to find the
middle ground where the people inside and outside were happy. He
hoped the next time the sound level worked it would be based on
some scientific data.
Councilmember Levy asked whether it was possible to do any weather
studies at the Palo Alto .Airport or someplace ;closer to home, and
whether anything could be done with physical construction.
7 5 4
8/11/86
Mr. Scher said in a City where they had a similar problem they
built a physical, tall wall that stopped the sound. Shoreline's
windwall--which was a very high wall with mesh material like
tennis netting --was built for two reasons: as a wind mitigating
device, and for aesthetics. They could not build a structure
because of the nature of the soil and landfill which would con-
tinue to settle indefinitely. The wind would be more adverse
inside if they replaced the tennis -netting material with plywood.
The tennis fabric totally dissipated the wind off the bay. He did
not believe a wall was the answer but hoped experimenting with
placement, distribution, and angles of the speakers, coupled with
knowledge of the inversion layer and sound at the monitor board
would solve the problem.
Councilmember Bechtel encouraged efforts to solve the problem.
The idea that such sound could occur a couple of times a week,
year after year would be irritating to people.
Mr. Zesch said the Amphitheatre took the complaints seriously, and
the City of Mountain View was looking over their shoulder.
Mayor Cobb appreciated the efforts of the people from the
Amphitheatre and encouraged them to try to find a solution.
2. SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY MEASURE A PROGRAM --
STRATEGIC PLAN PLA PRE -2-6) (CMR:435;6)
City Manager Bill Zaner said Mr. Will Kempton, the Executive
Director for the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, was present
along with their consultant. A copy of the proposed program for
the Strategic Plan that the Authority contemplated adopting was
included in Council's packet.
Mr. Kempton said the Strategic Plan was really the implementation
plan for the Measure "A" program and was an important document.
They were present that evening to alert Council to the content and
format of the docvmer. and to solicit Council's continued involve-
ment. They might have read in the newspapers of problems cropping
up with the Measure "A" program in terms of the revenues available
for completion of the work to be done. In January, it became
apparent that the original revenue projections for the Measure "A"
program were off and that the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority
would have to adjust them downward. Santa Clara County had tradi-
tionally experienced a high growth rate in sales tax revenues
which reflected .the extremely solid, strong, progression in the
County. Now the sales tax: growth rate was declining closer to the
average State wide, which resulted in the need to revise the rev-
enues available for the program. The Traffic Authority elected to
do . that through four separate scenarios: To build a program based
on essentially no growth in revenues, low growth, moderate growth,
and on the traditional high growth rate. The biggest impact was
7 5 4 9
8/11/86
the increase in the cost of building what they originally intended
to build. The Measure "A" program was restricted to three routes.
in the County: Route 101, Route 237, and Route ;?5. The routes
were owned and operated by the State of California through the
Department of Transportation. The Department had specific plans
for what they would like to see built in the corridors over the
next 20 to 30 years, referred to as the Caltrans ultimate plan.
The ;Authority had to pay attention to the plan because the state
owned the facilities. With the Measure "A" revenues, the
Authority was finding a way to get many of the improvements built
earlier. When the Measure "A" program was initially put together,
the estimate of costs for the Measure "A" improvements was
approximately $700 million in current dollars. Caltrans' ultimate
plans approached $1.3 billion in current dollar value. Almost 50
percent of the needs would go unfunded according to Caltrans'
estimate of what needed to be done. If those dollars were related
back to what was originally promised to the voters in 1984 during
the campaign, they were looking at a current dollar value of $1
billion to $1.1 billion in work needing to be done, and they were
looking at a substantially lower amount of revenues. The problem
facing the Traffic Authority in the Strategic Plan process was
determining which work was of the highest priority and the best
way to apply the funds. They were approaching the problem through
the development of five policy guidelines dealing with how the
money should be applied overall. The next stage of the process
was looking at several scenarios as to how the money was applied,
and they had difficulty because the cost figures currently avail --
able from the Department of Transportation were not solid.
Admittedly, the Department of Transportation managed well by pro-
gram. They generally did not concentrate on project specific
information.
Councilmember Klein asked why the proposed projects went from $700
million to $1 billion in a period of virtually no inflation.
Mr. Kempton said the Traffic Authority believed the numbers were
not good to begin with. There had been some increase in scope.
Over the course of the two years as Caltrans became more involved
in the project, they saw those kinds of increases, e.g., the
Lafayette/Great America interchange was originally proposed at $29
million, and the current price was $86 million. The Traffic
Authority agreed the credibility of the Transportation Department
in making those estimates was up for discussion. Members of the
Traffic Authority felt a deep sense of responsibility and wanted
to apply the available dollars in the best possible way. One of
the reasons the Traffic . Authority retained Bechtel Civil and
Mineral>s Incorporated to help manage the program was to get to the
root of those numbers, and to control and manage against those
numbers so they did not see any additional cost increases.
Councilmember Klein said with such an increase in the scope of
en interchange somebody was either eestraordinarily inefficient or
had misconstrued the facts.
l th1,5811
Mr, Kempton said he would be happy to show what was originally
planned in terms of a clover -leaf interchange against what
Caltrans currently proposed with flyovers, concrete structures,
director connectors, and direct speed connectors going in all
directions. The difference was incredible, and the difference in
cost was evident. He believed it assured they would not be able
to build the interchange. He came in September of the previous
year and found no indication that anybody was trying mislead
anybody in the program. Clearly, the people who put together the
Measure "A" program were sincere in expecting the funds raised
through the Measure "A" tax would be sufficient to fund the work
promised to the voters in 1984.
Councilmember Fletcher did not remember part of the proposal of
the Measure "A" campaign included the widening of the existing
Route 85 to six lanes, or the construction of the 101/880
interchange and the widening of ramps of the north connection from
85 to Route 101. She asked if those were add-ons from what was
proposed in the campaign.
Mr. Kempton said the only add-on of the group was the. 101/880
interchange. The interchange was also . not included in the numbers
he recited and was a costly piece of the Caltrans ultimate plans
for the region.
Councilmember Fletcher as% _c about the Route 237 completion to
eight lanes from Maude Avenue to Route 237/880 interchange.
Mr. Kempton said the Traffic Authority said ... =e Route 237 comple-
tion to eight lanes was not included in the original scope of the
program. Six lanes were all that was committed to for Route 237.
The eight lanes were part of Caltrans' ultimate plans.
Councilmember Fletcher asked for a figure for the 101/280
interchange.
Mr. Kempton said the cost was about $150 million for the inter-
change alone and substantially more for the approach .improvements
Caltrans proposed in terms of changing the grade of the facility.
Mayor Cobb about the City's protection against continued cost
growth. Obviously the system could not keep growing at that .rate
or nothing would get built.
Mr. Kempton said it was something the Traffic Authority had to
deal with. Caltrans was not in tine to menag ing by specific
project. The Traffic Authority would be working with the
Department of Transportation. The key problem in terms of
managing the program was coming to grips with the ability to
7 5 5 1
8/11/86
provide the accountability so necessary to the voters and to the
citizens of the County. The only way to do that was to get the
kind of cost information that was not readily available through
the Department of Transportation.- Caltrans was good about
recognizing the problem and had opened the doors to the Traffic
Authority.
Councilmember Renzel asked if all Measure " `," improvements were
intended to address existing traffic problems or were they also
looking \to the future. If so, were some of the improvements apt
to be impacted or scaled down as a result of the work of the
Golden Triangle Task Force.
Mr. Kempton replied the improvements were geared to the future.
The Traffic Authority was certainly looking to help resolve future
traffic problems. On the other hand, they were playing a game of
*catch up" to some degree, and perhaps in a few years as traffic
increased they might see continuing problems. He believed the
Golden Triangle Task Force had initially adopted an approach to
the Measure "A" program of assuming that Route 237 would be fixed,
that Route 101 would be fixed, and there would be a Route 85, not
considering there might be insufficient resources to do all the
work necessary on those routes. The Traffic Authority was making
the rounds to communicate to people what was happening with the
Measure "A" program.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified Measure "A" was passed based on
estimates Caltrans made for the various routes covered by the
ten -years' worth of one-half cent sales tax. Caltrans
reestimated to about $1.5 billion instead of $750 million.
Mr. Kempton said $1.5 billion related to what Caltrans ultimately
wished to do in all the routes, not to the specific Measure "A"
projects which was $1.1 billion. Part of the problem was that
Caltrans did not estimate correctly, but the other part was
the costs legitimately went up as Caltrans got deeper into the
projects and found things that worked better. It was a
combination of the two.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified the projected revenue might be
lower than originally projected because of a slower growth rate in
sales tax. Even though there was a comfortable margin to do the
projects at the price originally budgeted, they now might not have
enough dollars to do all the projects at the current estimate. He
hoped they were not, returning to the voters to ask for more
money.
Mr. Kempton said Councilmember Patitucci was correct, and
returning to the voters was not in the plan.
7.5 5 2
8/11/86
Councilmember Patitucci asked about returning to Caltrans and
ungoldplating the process. His experience was Caltrans wanted
permanent monuments and ultimate plans.
Mr. Kempton said returning to Caltrans was the heart of the
Strategic Plan process. The Authority must look specifically at
the plans to try to eliminate some of the goldplating as they pro-
ceeded through the entire program. There would . be money savings
from that. Further, they had to refocus their efforts in terms of
leveraging the highway improvement dollars to provide an addi-
tional inflow of state and federal resources into the County to
help make up for some of the shortfall. For example, the 237/880
interchange was a prime candidate for state and federal funding.
Referring to a history of the cost estimates: In July, 1984 the
original estimates were made on limited information. There had
been four iterations of estimates from the Department of
Transportation since then and each went up. It was key they began
to develop the kinds of watchdogging controls necessary to hold
the cost for the program down as quickly as possible. The draft
policy guidelines included five basic statements, the first being
an increase of highway capacity on the Measure "A" routes with
some subsets. The Traffic Authority was looking to provide
reasonable and cost-effective mitigation measures. They proposed
a high degree of mitigation for the 'program which would take dol-
lars and reduce some capital improvements. They wanted to
accelerate the implementation of the program as much as possible
to save inflation dollars. To that end, they recently completed a
successful, sale of $2 million worth of bonds which provided
upfront capital money. They wanted to integrate improvements with
the State Highway program, which was an effective way to bring
moreore dol 1 arc int,N #�he program Nnd to has p fill tjA Cis Measure "A"
WVi obi �. ei 44.V b4�er �s v�k M�ea �. J` _
was not able to finance, and they were also looking to optimize
the application of available resources. They were looking at
opportunities for joint development with some of the right-of-way
they were purchasing and for additional opportunities to purchase
federal apportionment. They would approach the Department of
Transportation about paying for tne engineering costs for the
program which over a ten year period would save in excess of $100
million. The Traffic Authority was making presentations to many
interested groups and to . all City Councils in the County. The
Traffic Authority would hold an additional work session on
September 3, 1986, and adopt a. draft plan on September 15, 1986,
which would be circulated to all the Cities and to the County for
comment. Public meetings would then be held` to obtain as much
input as possible prior to ' adopting a final Strategic Plan in
December, 1986. The final Strategic Plan would be a flexible
document. He saw the Traffic Authority adopting a range of
scenarios based on the revenue scenarios adopted earlier in the
year.
7 5 5 3
8/11/86
Mayor Cobb was concerned about the cost growth which could not be
allowed to continue.
Councilmember Fletcher mentioned Council received the agendas
after the Traffic Authority meetings took place.
Mr.. Kempton said the Traffic Authority had received similar com-
p.•.eints and was looking into the matter.
Councilmember Fletcher wondered if she might transmit a sense -of -
the -Council position to the Transportation Commission which had
the item on its agenda in two days. She clarified the position as
eliminating the goldplating and not returning for more tax money.
REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE USE OF 1/2 CENT SALES TAX TO
FUND CONSTRUCTION OF EXPRESSWAY COMMUTER LANES (PLA 4/PRE 3-2-6)
Councilmember Fletcher referred to funding for the expressway high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and said the first proposal by the
Manufacturing Group was that the County adopt a policy of creating
a network of commute lanes. Commute. lanes were defined as being
used by multi -occupant vehicles including automobiles with two or
more people. The proposal mentioned using the transit tax to fund
the HOV lanes as well as lit ' ted Federal Aid Urban (FAU) money.
At that time no decision was made about the funding, but the
policy was adopted to create a network of HOV lanes. The authori-
zation to use ..transit funds was proposed to be on the November
ballot when the transit tax would be before the voters for
reaffirmation. The original draft from County Council gave the
but wasnot by
choice of yes or no on the specific 1.sS?:�, adopted ...j
the supervisors. The wording of the new plan (on file in the City
Clerk's office) made the whole ballot measure very comprehensive.
While the wording did not specifically state commute lanes would
be. funded by the transit `, tax, since there were no other funds
available except for some FAU funds, it was evident where the
money would core from. She referred to a report from the Finance
Committee to the Transportation 2000 (T-2000) Steering Committee
(on file in the City Clerk's office). The committee met without
public announcement and the meetings were closed. Their proposal
to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that transit funds be
used for the construction of the commute lanes would go to the
Transportation Commission on Wednesday for a vote. She asked for
guidance from Council on whether it was appropriate to use transit
tax funds to construct commuter lanes.
Councilmember Renzel said there was news regularly that the
Transportation Commission would have trouble financing the
Peninsula rail service in a few more years. The rail service was
a permanent transit facility heavily used by Palo Altans and
7 5 5 4
8/11/86
people between San Jose and San Francisco. While the rail service
did not make a profit, it kept many cars off the road and provided
an efficient transportation service which would become more
valuable as gridlock advanced on the freeways. The HOV lanes were
still experimental and were likely to become ordinary lanes of the
freeway in the future. They all supported the transit tax with
the idea of keeping the SP available, increasing bus service, and
possible BART extensions. It was dangerous to extend the transit
definition to freeway lanes. She encouraged giving Councilmember
Fletcher strong support to oppose the diversion of transit funds.
Councilmember Klein was loath a take issue on a complex subject
without more time to study it, and he did not see Council had the
obligation to do so. Councilmember Fletcher was given the
authority to vote the way she saw things until Council directed
otherwise. He was sympathetic to many of the comments and to HOV
lanes. He understood from data presented that one of the best
bets to reduce the congestion on the freeways was HOV lanes. He
preferred to see the matter continued.
Councilmember • Bechtel concurred. .As a member of the
Transportation Commission, Councilmember Fletcher had an obliga-
tion to represent herself and did not .necessarily represent all of
Palo Alto or the City Council, and also had the ammunition of
Council's vote the previous fall expressing concern about using
transit money for HOV lanes. She shared some of Councilmember
Klein's concerns. People had to feel they could get to work as
fast or faster on public transportation in order to be attracted
out of their cars. and people would leave their cars if lanes
could be set aside for exclusive bus use. She believed the matter
could be returned to Council for it to take a position before the
November election.
Mayor Cobb agreed with the comments of Councilmembers Klein and
Bechtel. He urged Councilmember Fletcher to inform the
Transportation Commission that Council took the matte seriously,
but wanted to have the information and time to s; -e.-; uhe issue in
order to make knowledgeable decisions.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
C ty C.. et k
APPROVED:
Mayor
7 5 5 S
8/11/86