The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-01-07 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY COUNCIL Minutes Reg u1 a January ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of Dctour 15, 1984 7, ting 1985 Item 11, Election of Mayor for 1985, Election of Vice Mayor for 1985 Consent Cal ender Referral Item 12, Ci ty Auditor' s Work Program » Refer to Finance and Publ is Works Committee CITY OF PRLO ALTO PAGE 5 3 5 9 5 3 5 9 5 3 5 9 5 3 6 0 5 3 6 0 5 3 6 (' Item f4, Contract for Legal Services 5 3 6 1 Item 15, Travel Services 5 3 6 1 Item 16, Tree and Stump Removal 5 3 6 1 Item 18, Amendment to the Sign Ordinance 5 3 6 1 Item 19, Ordinance re Hot. Tub, Sauna, and Massage 5 3 6 1 Establ ishraents Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 5 3 6 1 Item 110, Planning Comsri'ssion recommendation to deny the application of the Santa Clara Valley Water District for Site and Design Review of the proposed Flood Basin Project in the Palo Alto 8ayl ands Recess Item, 111, Finance and Publ is .Works Committee recommendation re Inflow/Infiltration Source Detection Study - Engineering Consul tan Contract Item 112, California Avenue Area Parking .`Permit Program Item 113, Request of Vice Mayor Levy re Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Contributions Item 114, Request of Vice Mayor Levy re Animal Services Advisory Committee 5 3 61 5 3 7 3 5 3 T 3 5 3.7 3 5 3 7 6 • 3 .7 7 5 3 5 7 1/07/85 ITEM PAGE Item #15, PUBLIC HEARING: P1 arming Commission recommendation re Appl ication of Frahm, Edier & Cannis for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Property located at 285U Middlefield Road Items to be. Considered After 11:00 p.m, Return to Item #15, 2850 Middlefield Road Item #16, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission unanimous recommendation of approval , with conditions, of the application .of Pacific American Company for a Tentativ Subdivision Map for property located at 3065 Middlefield Road Item #17, Palo Al to Bikeway Priority Projects: Transportation Development Act Funding for Fiscal Year 1985-86 Item #18, Emergency Ordinance re Peddling and Sol is i ti ng During Super Bowl Adj our ninent: 12: 50 a.m 5 3 7 9 5 3 8 6 5 3 8 7 5.3 9 4 5 3 9 6 5 3 9 8 5 3 9 8 5 3 5 8 1 /07 /85 Regular Meeting January 7, 1985 The City Counc i1 of the City of Pal o Al to met on thi s date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamil ton Avenue, Pal o Alto, California, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel , Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel , Sdtori us , Witherspoon, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15 , 1984 Co unc ilmember Renzel had the following correction: P a 5170,, last paragraph, first sentence should read, "Council- men er enzel said when the moratorium was adopted, Council took great pains to clarify that it wanted the exception to begin at the point of final ARB approval as opposed to an ARB recommenda- tion for approval , which would incorporate the appeal .4 Last sentence should read, "The Council already made the distinc- tion about the ARB recommendation." reaPe 55133, first paragraph, seventh 1 ine, word "1' oeil s" should oeil s." MOTION: Ceenc 11 member Cobb moved, seconded by Fl etcher, approval of the minutes of October 14, 1984, as corrected. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #1 , ELECTION OF MAYOR FOR 1985 , ELECTION OF VICE MAYOR FOR Mayor Klein said the City Charter stated that the Mayor and Vice Mayor would be elected at the first meeting in January to serve for one year or until their successors were appointed. The first Councila+ember to receive five votes would be elected Mayor. Councilmeamber Sutorius intended to vote to reelect Mayor Klein and to reel ect Vice Mayor Levy with the foreknowledge that Mayor Klein did not seek reelection to a full term, but in the bel ief that he would serve for an additional' two week period ein order to suffer the trials and enjoy the tribulations associated with the Super Bowl. He understood from the City Charter that when Mayor Klein resigned,. Vice Mayor Levy would automatically take the position of Mayor and the Co unc 11\ would then elect e new Vice Ma yo r . He supported Mayor Klein' s and Vice Mayor Levy's reel ection vi th the anticipation that Vice Mayor Levy would then succeed . to Mayor Levy. Mayor Klein said he did not intend to seek reelection as Mayor, but could. be honored to serve as Mayor for the two weeks `leading pp to and incl ud ing the Super 1300 . As he read the Char ter, when he resigned on January 21, 1985, there would hale to be a new election and that the Vice Mayor did not autom4tical1y succeed. Ci ty► Attorney Diane Lee said a vacancy in the posi tion of Mayor or Vice Mayor would shall be filled by the Council for the telexpired term which required another election. Counc.ilmmber Sutorius intended to create a 14 day extension of the Mayor's term and .did not intend to diminish from chat he anticipated would be the election Of Mayor Levy on January 21, 1985. Councilmember Reneel appreciated the sentiment on the part of some of her colleagues to respond to the Super Bowl , but believed the Council's business should remain the same. She appreciated the fine job done by Mayor Klein and had he indicated his intent to serve a full term she would have considered voting for him for a second term. Vice Mayor Levy indicated his intent to serve for a full year, and Mayo,' Kl ein indicated to the contrary and for that reason, she intended to vote for Vice Mayor Levy for Mayor. Vice Mayor Levy appreciated the comments of Councilmember Sutorius and said Mayor Klein was an excellent, wi se and el oquent leader of the City Council. He respected his views even when he disagreed. al though he mostly agreed. Mayor K1ein deserved the Council's honor and he agreed with all the comments made by Counc 11 member Sutorius. He was disappointed that the action to show the appre- ciation of Mayor Klein was associated with the Super Bowl. He bel ieved the Super Bowl was a side show that would be gone the day after it came, but the problems and challenges facing the Council would remain and it was or those that Council must focus, He acted that evening with ambivol +once and would vote wholeheartedly for the recognition of Mayor Klein and would join in voting for the mayorshi p extension, but did so with rel. uctance rel ated to the rationale. Councilmember Cobb associated himself with the remarks of Council - member Sutorius. He bel ieved Mayor Klein was a superb Mayor and he was pleased to have the opportunity to recognize him with the extension. He looked forward to voting for Vice Mayor Levy for Mayor in two weeks and believed he would also make an excellent Mayor. RESULTS OF THE .FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR MAYOR Voting " for Klein : Fletcher, Woolley, Levy, Kl ein , Bechtel , Cobb, Iii therspoon, Sutorius Voting for Levy: Renzel City Clerk Ann Tanner announced that Mayor Klein had eight votes and was reelected. • Mayor Klein thanked his colleagues and appreciated the kind com- ments. RESULTS Of THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING.FOR ,VICE MAYOR Voting for Ltry: Fletcher, Renzel.; Woolley, Levy, Klein_, Bechtel Cobb, Witherspoon, Sutorius Ci ty Clerk Ann Tanner announced that Vice Mayor Levy received nine votes and was reelected. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Klein removed Item 07, Resol ution of Intent to Create Under- ground District No. 26, Arastradero Road from the Consent Cal- endar; and Item #3, El Camino Real Relandscaping COntrac t was removed from the Consent Calendar by staff. !OPTION: Csaoci1.e hsr Csba moved wooded lay Bechtel approval of Consent Cal !odor Referral ITEM #2 CITY AUDITOR'S WORK PROGRAM - REFER TO FINANCE NCE AND PUBLIC WOAK‘ CdMMYTTt�t" 5 3 6 0 1/07/85 Action ITEM 44, CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES (LEGI1) Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement wi th Wh i tea ore , Kay & Stevens. AGAEEMEMT Dick hi tmere Whitmire, Kay & Stevens ITEM #5, TRAVEL SERVICES (CMR:103: 5) (FIN 9-1) Staff recommends that Coun:c11 authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Leo T. Sides Travel Service, Inc. AVARD OF CONTRACT Lee T. Sides Travel Service, Inc. ITEM 46, TREE AND STUMP REMOVAL. (CMR:114:5) (ENV 7) Staff recommends that Council : 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Davey Tree Surgery for $64,737; and 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders not to exceed $10,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT Davey Tree Surgery ITEM 48, AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE (LEG 5-6) ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 14.2e (SIGN ORDINANCE) TO READOPT PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS" ITEM #9, ORDINANCE RE HOT TUB, SAUNA, AND MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS (2nd Ilea rngT (itG 5-4 ORDINANCE 3592 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE ODIUM OF E CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 4 (NOSINESS LICENSES AND REGQL4 PIO S CODE) REGARDING THE PERMISSIBLE NOOKS OF OPERATION ` FOR NOT TOII, SAM, AND MASSAGE ESTADL1SNl1EM 3' (1st Reading 12/17/849 PASSED 8-0, VI therspeon absent) MOTION PASSED ■pentmo sly. AGENDA CHANGES , ADDITIONS AND .DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner annoonc4td that Item -47, Underground Di strict No. 26 would •become Item I6 -A. ITEM 410 PLANNING COMMISSION REC011VENDAT1ON TO DEN'S . T1** APPLICA- i E"S I Gad' MDCWITritiiiVicued from 12 /1. 7 f84 i. s 5 City Manager Bill Zaner said the item was -carried over to give the Santa CI aria Vail ey'.Water'Di strlct (SCYWO)_'an opportunity - to evaiu- ate the ITT_ property. The report Iva s lnc.l°aided In the packet. -The stiff report. (CNR:1I9:5) listed three possible options the Council could adopt after its ,discussions. Councileewtber Cobb asked for an evaluation of -the points raise in the Dec eiber 26, 1984 letter from the attorneys for the SC VW D. . , City Attorney Diane Lee said the major point raised in the letter was that those suing the District for flood improvements would look at the inverse condemnation theory. She agreed, as it was a coming area of the law for most publ is improvements. Wi th that in mind, she did not disagree with the_ SCVWD on the points raised in their letter.' Councilmember Cobb asked if that meant there could be a basis for an inverse condemnation suit. Ms. Lee said it depended upon who undertook the. improvement. The theory of inverse -condemnation applied to the agency that was doing so. In the present case, the agency would be the SCWVD. The Council' s action that evening was to give a development type of approval to the project. However, as Council was not under- taking the project, that liability would not necessarily devolve on the Ci ty of Pal o Al to Councilmember Renzel referred to the memo from the SCVWD's attor- ney about the inverse condemnation suit and that causation was all that had to be shown, She asked <,tbout the nature of the proof needed, and how much damage had to be suffered in order to bring such a suit. Ms, Lee said any damage was damage. It was for property damage that the inverse condemnation suit would be brought. Any physical damage to real property had to be shown. The proof would be that the agency in question undertook a particul ar public improvement and, as a consequence of that publ is work, someone was injured . Councilmember Renzel said at one time inverse condemnation meant that there wa s no longer any reasonable val ue left to one's prop- erty, Ms . Lee said the " reasonabi a value" aspect had to do with down - zoning , Inverse condemnation was treated differently, depending on the operative facts. When a governmental agency downzoned property, diminution of value of the property was insufficient to start a suit for inverse condemnation. It resulted from a case brought against the City of Tiburon, and was confined to damages as a result of downzoning, not from constructing a public improve- ment under non -emergency _conditions. Jim Lend hen, a member of the Board of Directors of the SCVWD for District 5, said the SCYWD responded to the Council's request wi th their letter of December 26, 1984. The matter was discussed at l ength, and they hoped it would be concl uded that evening to all ow the -Di strict to go ahead. Counc ilmeaiber Sec htel referred to the levee along Matadero Creek. On one pl an it was shown as 18 feet wide, and she asked if that was the absolute minimum possible. The wider the creek at the top, the wider it would have to .be at the bottom] so that more excavation would be involved in constructing such a levee. Mr. McNealy for the SCVWI said the 18 -foot width at the top .of the levee received considerable SCYWO staff discussion. The 18 -foot width was the minimum, needed to ensure they had access to the top of the levee. From experience in the Saylands, they -found that if a levee was built it had to be large enough to 'withstand the - impoundment of water behind it. It al so had to ,be wide enough to all ow equipment —bottom dump trucks and grade 'equipment —to -gain access to the levee for necessary repairs. They al so learned that if an 18 -foot levee was constructed in kfhe 8ayl.ands, within e- mitter, of a year -or two it would be narrower..., Maintenance staff -continua asked for more than 18 feet.. A several projects. where the levee we s . subject to. F1other Nature, as in the. present .case, the -wid.th was between 22 and 24 feet. He bel ieved..18 feet was the a%iniau$._ 5 3 6 2 1/©7/85 Councilmember Bechtel asked about the width of the existing levee around the flood basin itsel f. Mr. McNeely had riot checked , but from an aerial photograph and discussion with maintenance staff, he believed it was quite a bit more than 18 feet in many pl aces. Count ilmember Bechtel . asked about the timing of the upstream improvements to Adobe and .Barron creeks. Adobe Creek was first on the priority list, whereas the improvements to Barron Creek might not be started for a further 10 years. She asked for the ration- ale, when there was existing flooding on Barron Creek, although she was unaware of flooding en Adobe Creek. Bob Smith, Flood Control Manager for SCIND, said the SCYWD prior- ities were based on flood damage reduction, average annual damages --the summary of damages occurring from the one and two year events up to 100 -year events. .0n Adobe Creek, the average annual damages were approximately 2.5 to three times greater than those expected on the average on Barron and Matadero Creeks. Adobe had the highest priority.in the flood basin watershed. It would be fol lowed by improvements on Matadero and then Barron Creeks Councilmeraber Bechtel asked about the maximum height of water in the 1983 storm in the flood basin. Mr. Smith said the District's calculations showed it to be eleva- ti on three. Councilmeanber Bechtel asked if he remembered the figure Linsley, Kraeger Associates, Ltd. gave as the 100 -year, one percent flood maximum. Mr. Smith bel ieved that based on developer/ conditions, it was 3.1. In terms of frequency, the . figure varied according to whether one talked. wi th the U. S. Geol ogical Survey or used the. SCIND's records. It was between a 17 and 20 year return interval . Counc 11member Cobb referred to Mr. O'Hal l oran' s 1 e tter of January 3, 1985, which said the District could design and' proceed simul- taneously with construction of the flood basin and the first unit of Adobe creek in the summer of 1986. He was.pleased to see it, and asked if tie Council could affirm that as a part of what it might act upon that .evening so it could be made a pol icy of both bodies that +roar,, would begin at that time, Mr. O'Halloran said they looked at their financing and engineering capabilities, and believed there was no question. He could say that they would do so. Councilmember Cobb asked if it was reasonable in the relatively near future, afters that work was underway, to begin discussions about the +choke points upstream on the other creeks. He was not aiming at Cecil ating improvements for which the Di strict had long- range plans,. but rather to give short-term relief cons/ stent with the, capacltill existing el sewhere in the basin. r O'Halloran said the District would be happy to work. with City staff to get some input and review the basin again so that the City staff could report back to the Council. The District went throJgh an Advisory Committee when listing priorities. They were mainly concerned with, the legal problem, and did- not want to do anything upstream that created flooding downstream. He was sure Council understood their point: Councilraember Renzel referred to the Matadero levee. As the Environmental Impact Report (EZR) report indicated that the Matadero Creek /riparian habitat would remain, she asked what kinds of maintenance would necessitate taking vehicles into the levee. 53.63 1/07/85 A member of the SCVWD .aid the lcve€ tended to be subject to ero- sion by the el emen ts--waves and especially wind. Crews would have to go in and restore the levee as needed. It had to be cleared for at least the first 800 feet and out to a point approximately coincident with the northerly edge of the Munfcfpal Service Center, as loose debris caught in the area immediately downstream to the culvert under Highway 101. Basically, they had to ensure that the levee remained stable. Burrowing animals caused prob- 1eras , and there was a continual maintenance inspection procedure to ensure the levee was maintained in its proper configuration. Councilmember. Renzel asked if the maintenance program was under- taken on the current levee. The SCVWD staff member said the maintenance staff recently went tc the area just downstream of Highway 101 adjacent to the Mun is i pal Service Center, but would have to check on the area further north down stream al ong the 1 evee. Councilarember kenzel asked for confirmation that crew, were able to go in and maintain the levee in its present state. The SCVWD staff member said that generally they were able to do so. The width was not optimally sett sfactory. Councilmember Renzel asked what kind of probl ems would be pre- sented by the circle route --using the continuation of the levee running up past the landfill and out. A road was contiguous with the continuation of the levee that exited through the l and fi l 1 gate onto a paved road. The SCYWD staff member said that in order to maintain the levee between the 1 and fi11 and the 8ayshore Road, the crew presently entered from the Bayshore Road and extended from there. Most of the activity was towards maintaining the levee and the area imme- diately downstream and north of Highway 101 and 8ayshore Road, as. a sedimentation problem sometimes cropped up there. Councilraember Renzel said it was right at the edge of the Bayshore Frontage Road. Further inl and, the same width levee would not be necessary as the type of equipment needed to maintain the levee itself was different from that used to maintain the channel fur- ther north toward the rind fi l l along Matadero Creek. The SC VC/ staff member said they would use the same type of equf p- ment. The levee would be higher and more substantial than the present one. Councilmember Renzel understood that, and assumed it would be built with proper footings on either side to make it of proper stability. She obtained .confiscation from the SCUD staff member tha t the equipment wa s currently able to en ter and leave to main- tain the 1 evee. Page 3 of Mr. O'Ha1loran' s letter indicated that the City approved the project in 1976, and she understood that in 1976, the City only certified the EIR, while it specifically dis- ci aimed approv el of any project. A SCYWD staff member said the EIR and the attached engineer's report mentioned several items and specifics about the project. A. plan and profile of the prof ect was attached to the EIR and made a part of the parcel . The Di strict, and he bel ieved al so ; the. Ci ty staff, continued, to interpret that the prof ect concept was approved in the 1970 ° 5. Counc ilracerber Suto rt us asked if the project cost in the 1983 time - frame would cost approximately $650,000 to . $700,000 Wr McNeely ea id that wasthe approximate cost when : It was sub- mitted to the City in 1982. Councilmember Sutorius said the current project at a maximum seven foot el evation, which substituted levee work for flood wall work, would currently cost $562,000. Mr. McNeely agreed that the current figure was $562,000, plus approximately $50,000 for the landscaping. Councilmember Sutorius said the 6.1 foot maximum elevation would cost approximately $462,000, plus the landscaping. The bike path alternative, by the SCVWDrs most recent evaluation and responses to questions and discussion at the last Council meeting, was esti- mated at $68,500. As it wo ul d be at the seven foot elevation, he obtained confirmation from Mr. McNeely that there there would be a small reduction for it at the lower el evation of 6.1. Mr. McNeely also agreed that the project cost at a 6.1 foot maximum elevation, including locating the Bayshore Frontage portion at the present bike path which meant el evating the bike path, should cost not more than $462,000, plus some portion of the $68,500. Councilmember Fletcher asked what length of the bike path would have to be raised if the bike path alternative were adopted. Mr, Dave McIntyre, Project Engineer, said the approximately. 2,000 foot portion adjacent to the East Bayshore Road in front of the entire frontage for the flood basin would have to be raised. At the request of Councilmember Fletcher, he showed the alternatives on a model of the existing si tuation. The existing ground level around the bike way was approximately elevation four, but varied as the bikepath undulated. A second presentation reflected the original proposal to elevation seven, with an earthen levee on the flood basin side of the bikeway, the fill of which projected into the flood basin, extending approximately three feet at most above the level of the bikeway. A dashed line on the side of the model showed the 6.1 elevation, compared with the seven foot the model was constructed to. The third portion of the model was the raised bikeway. The cyclists .would be up on a combination bikeway/flood control levee, most of which could be located on the flatlands above the wetlands area, thus decreasing the fill into the ret- lands by approximately .5 acres. Of the total fill of approxi- mately one acre, about half was located adjacent to the bikeway in that area. The proposal would save almost all of that. Councilmember Fletcher asked if City staff could estimate how many linear feet of the bikeway were below 6.1 feet. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said that after checking the plans, there were about 1,300 feet below five feet of bike path, and below 6.1 feet, the figure would be closer to 2,000 feet —possibly 1,800 feet. Councilmember Kenzel referred to the letter from Linsley, Kraeger Associates in the Council packet which suggested the SCUD might erroneously have used a more conservative discharge coefficient at the tidegates than was warranted by the type of tidegate in exis- tence there. As a result, using the SOYWO` s hydrology and the tidal circumstances described by Professor Beard, the water level would. be brought down considerably. Mr. McNeely said they had :•any years of experience dealing with the tide gates. The theoretical equations given in textbooks did not always apply in reality. He personally saw tidegates blocked by ti hers, and were the debris barrier in front of the tidegates was clearly blocked by debris and became urnfunctional. His bottom lime was that he looked at Linsley, Kraeger's analysis, but saw no reason to change the SCYWD's analysis. The SCYWD believed that their analysis reflected the state of Ulm, art. It was checked against what they considered sound ;professional sources and their own Judgeent. The Di stirist stood by its anal ysi s.�.. 5 3 6 5 1/01/85 Counciimember Renzel asked if he bel ieved they? was a sharp -edged weir rather than a flat -edged weir in the tidegates. Mr. McNeely said the Di strict agreed wi th the Li n sl ey, Kraeger anal ysi s in that respect but disagreed wi th the City' s consul tent on the. conclusion. There was an analysis of losses through sev- eral parts of the structure, the sum total of which equalled the coefficient the Di strict included in its equations. In each one of the parts of the equation, they checked and rechecked against the Corps of Engineers' criteria, the Bureau of Reclamation cri- teria and their own judgment, and found that the total overall co- efficient satisfied the Di strict' s evaluation of how the gates would operate. Councilmeiber Renzel asked if he concurred that more than 50 per- cent of the trash rack would have to be clogged to sheet the Di s- trict's standard of discharge. Mr . McNeely said no . The Di strict bel ieved the standard would be met with 20 to 30 percent, but that was only one element of the trash rack. The gates themselves on the outbound side were not treated in the same way by Linsley, Kreger as by the District. The overall analysi s was v al id. The Ci ty' s consul tan t might dis- agree with one part of it, be more conservative in some parts, and less conservative in ethers. Overall, the analysis reflected a degree of conservati sm that was apprcprlate for the gates but did not reflect the theoretical textbook analysis. Del bert Franz, 752 Ormonde Drive, Mountain View, was a Vice President of Linsley, Kraeger, and said it was possible to model hydraulically the tidegate structure to decide what reasonable co- efficients were to be used. He had not discussed the SCVWD's methodology in detail , but from the discription he had in writing, he bel ieved the detailed anal ysi s of the various loss elements was not done. He wanted to see such an analysis. Councilmember Renzel referred to the outflow rate mentioned in Mr. Franz's letter. He indicated that he used a textbook coeffi- cient for that type of tidegate, pl us a 20 percent loss due to the trash racks clogging, and four other parameters. She asked what he considered the probability of the overall loss rate being as high as the .4 percent used by the Di strict as an overall coeffi- cient. Mr. Franz said he made an analysis in the original study using the Manual_ of Practice of the U.S. Bu..eau of Recl amation and several offer-- sources and —not the so-called "theoretical textbooks." He took the low val saes of each of the component loss coefficients in sequence and recomputed the -eutfl ow characteristic and found it still considerably higher than the characteristic derived by the District. He looked at the 1 ow extremes before II eking his state- ment. He used the same equations as the District. There was nothing theoretical abeut the as they were in use for a couple of hundred years. The question was what was a reasonable state to assume for the structure at the time of a flood. It was quite likely that debris would jam a flap gate open. It was quite un- 11ke1y in the case of high water in the flood basin that debris would jam a flood gate closed. For a flood gate to remain closed under a considerable head of water it would need a tremendous amount of debris, but he did rat see where the debris could come from as debris would come from wit ai n the flood basin, not from the bayside. The critical assumptions that made the difference were what one assumed would happen during a flood. As he stated in his write-up, the only reasonable uncertainty remaining was the amount of clogging of the trash racks. Everything else was well defined by common practice Douglas Graham, 984 II ima way, a member of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Advisory Committee for Northwest Flood Control ; Zone and also chairman of the Barron Park Association considered the 5 3.6 6 1/07/85 trade-off' between loss to the environment versus public gain in flood control protection. The loss of marsh! and was approximately one acre, mitigated by restoration. of approximately one acre, so there would be no important change. The loss of riparian habitat along Matadero Creek was raised by Nancy Holmes. The District pl an showed that grading of the levee would be done on the ITT side. The District planned to take out one dead and three live trees, as identified - and labelled on the map, from clumps of 60 trees. He found the trade-off came down heavily on the flood pro- tection side. Many environmental groups spoke about the project, and did a real service. The new proposal was more environmentally sound, due to the Save the Marsh Committee and other groups. Without constant monitoring, anal ysi s and pressure, the Di strict' s proposals would not be so environmentally sensitive, but the SCVWD tried to cause the least disturbance to the environment. He worked with them for 11 years on flood and erosion control and environmental enhancement. They were al ways responsive to citi zen input, saved many trees, and used color and structure of concrete wi set y to enhance parks and other areas. They made some mistakes, and projects needed constant monitoring to ensure compliance by the contractors and environmental protections. The District was most responsive to Palo Alto's concerns and worked hard to sati sfy the City by devoting 13 months of staff and consultant time al- though concept approval was given in essence years ear', ier. Of the approximately $360,000 spent on the project to date, $200,000 was on work not usually required on such a project. A point of diminishing returns was reached and taxpayers would not get much additional environmental protection for the dollar. It was not a "black hat" versus "whi te hat" controversy. Much work was done on both sides. The Council should move from confrontation to compro- mise. The West Baysho re neighborhood should now be protected adequately so that the upstream hork could be done and fl ooding on their creeks ended. There was property damage along Barron Creek seven times in an 18 year period starting in 1955. Matadero Creek flooding occurred about three or four times in that period. His letter to the Pl ann ing Di strict on January 24, 1984 said the resi- dents of Barron Park had an interest in seeing that the fl cod basin project was not unduly delayed. They were in danger of being fl ooded several times in the nine years before the project was completed , and any delay in flood basin work lengthened their exposure to flooding. He asked for a speedy treatment and a weighing of costs of del ay. Robert Lewis, 3470 Kenneth Drive, said the area he lived in was hard to describe. They had a ditch he saw raised twice and patched. Every time it seemed to be repaired, another blast of water came which was apparently due to the drainage system, and not necessarily to the state of the creeks. He did not know i f i t was because the pumps could not deal with the water , but the water came out of the drains in his street. Once when. it fl ooded , the kids. rowed rubber boats in the street. The last time the water went over the bridges on Middlefield and flooded the excavations there. Hi s diesels car was: the only one manning. The others had water in their ignition. He had an airplane on the other side of the flood district. Bay water came over the airport- and got to the wheel s of many pl anes, which contained magnesium in the metal. of their wheels, which were ruined by the salt water. The 1 oss from that • fl ood was $60,000. The San Franc i squi to Creek had a higher embankment, but it was below the got f course.- He suggested it be turned into the Sol f course. Bonnie . Bar ksdal e, 3734 Kenneth Drive, had Barron Creek running at the end of her yard. She 'thanked the Council for its research, especially that of Councty.aaember Rental . ` She normally supported both good: use of taxpayers' , money and environmental concern:,. As the creek was. in her backyard, she bet ley ell the =final large sum of almost $1 mill ton was not too large, because the hoaxes in the neighborhood were worth between $200,000 and $.300,000. She s iwent on the field trip spansored by the SCYWD. She had a biology edu- cation, and believed the.environmental damage from the flood wall would not be too great. A seven foot flood wall would help the animal s by blocking some of the heavy freeway noise. She lived in her home for six years, and could say the SCVWD did a good job on Barron creek. The weak link in Palo Alto was the sewer system, which met only a 20 -year flood. A 100 -year flood protection would not help as the Ci ty would be flooded by its own water. Bob Moss, -4010 0rme, e:ongratul ated the Mayor and the Vice Mayor on their reelection. Page 4,, of the Linsley, Kraeger report did not give the coefficient the;t would have used, nor the difference any of it would have had on the height of the water in the flood basin. It was irrelevant unless it could be demonstrated that changing the weir coefficient would give a difference greater than a fraction of a foot as the uncertainties in the data were more than . that. The SC VWD' s letter of January 3, 1905, page 4, referred to its professional staff's reluctance to sign off on construction projects if professionally they did not agree. As a registered professional eng in eery , he Was sym pa the tic and ag reed they could not be expected to do so. The SCVWD said its findings were conservative, but that was not always so. The Matadero Creek bridge was built some eight years earlier to handle a 100 -year flood.. Two years earlier the bridge was unable to handle a 20 - year flood. The infamous pipe that carried one- third of Barron Creek under Los Robles Road was also not conservative. It would be appropriate for the District to use safety factors to take into account the unknowns. They should not be faulted for being a 1 ittle conservative. The 6.1 foot levee should not be an interim measure, but should be adopted unless new data or something indi- cated it was incorrect. He did not want to leave knowing that the 6.1 feet, if adopted, was subject to change without good reason. He did not agree that FEMA should be involved. If there was any possibility the answer would not be agreeable, a federal agency should not be involved. The differences came down to Linsley, Kraeger` s suggested five feet on an interim bass s; Professor Beard' s five or 5.5 feet; and the Di strict` s 5.7 feet. The 1 atter two wanted additional safety for freeboard, which brought the figure up to 6.1 feet. He was not completely convinced that 6.1 feet was the absolute answer, but believed that was what they would get from the Di strict. The cost estimates from the Di strict made it clear that the use of the ITT property would be excessive- ly expensive for a minor benefi t. It was time to consider the publ is benefit and proceed before another storm and more floods. Joyce Schmid, 3428 Janice Way, lived in the West Bayshore area. She bel ieved the points of dispute betemen the- consultant and the SCVWD were questions of\ judgment. If she chose between assump- tions, she preferred the more conservative. She saw no real basis to choose either. She preferred the Council go, wi th SCVWD. If not, she wanted It to be a matter of legal record why, specifical- ly, the Council chose to disagree with SCVWD. She thanked al l fo r their hard work. All were motivated to do well in the area. Her motives were sel fi sh but she hoped they would be respected . Vice Mayor Levy said the matter was before the Council for a long time. It was arduous to be in conflict between two jurisdictions.. He appreciated the comments made by Doug Graham who Indicated the Council should not 1 o ►k on the item as white hats versus black hats. He did not. The Council should move to -negotiation and compromise. He was not entirely satisfied with the recommenda- tions and expected his colleagues and SCVWD would also not be satisfied. The task was difficult because Po1 o Al to respected the marshlands and wanted to preserv_a: them as a natural habitat and to preserve the views and experience when walking in the Bayl ands. The Council al so had a responsibility to those residents Who. were. being flooded and needed to ,,find a way :to protect them as` well. Nt suggested' a number of el emints, many of :which were . =in line .with Mr.` Moss' suggestion. The basis of his motion was found on page 4 of the December 13 staff report (CMR 575 4) with a number of changes. NO I I 'ikon i . wr Li v,y mwww i, aweeaded by Cobb, aafollows: 1. Direct staff to advise the Santa Clara Palley Water District to proceed with processleg the Palo Alto Flood Basin Project, based on the "compromise design concept which sets the levee elevation at 6.1 feet, including marsh restoration and reloca- tion of the levee to tke bike path, with the incremental costs of the reloqatien to be shared equally between the City and the District, and said costs to be reviewed and approved by the City staff; 2. Direct staff to request the District to state to the City in writing that it is the District's official policy that the 6.1 feet height is satisfactory, and that the District will not take any official policy inconsistent with that policy; 3. Refer the specific design, including the additional wetland excavation, to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board for report and recommendations to the Council is February, requesting a specific review to minimize the width of the levee along Natadero Creek, and also to request that construction of that levee be as much as possible on the ITC' property; 4. Direct staff to regoest the District that upstream work be expedited to begin concurrently with work in the flood basin. Vice Mayor Levy appreciated that it was a conflicting and rather contentious situation. He hopes that all could move ahead in a spirit of goodwill even though none might be completely satisfied with the outcome. He said to the District that if it appeared the Council was unduly rigorous in reviewing the project, it was because it was jealous of the unique and fragile qualities of the City's bay front. The Council hoped the District would act as prudently as possible as it implemented the project. Mayor Mein suggested that Vice Mayor Levy change the language of the fourth part of his motion as it was a request and not a condi- tion, to consider expediting the upstream work so that at least some of it would begin concurrently with work on the Baylands, Vice Mayor Levy said that with concurrence of his second, and based upon affirmations made by the District, he wanted to make it a condition. Counclrmember Cobb concurred, and noted that the letter of January 3, 1985 from Mr. O'Halloran (General Manager of the SCVWD) in answer to his question confirmed that it was an acceptable condi- tion. Mayor Klein said if it were a condition, it should specify how much work, and how concurrent it should be. Counci Member Cobb suggested that the language outliied in the January 3, 1985 letter from Mr. O'Halloranbex s ad, WWI AND SECOND REWORDED TNE„ FOURTH PART OF THE. NOTION AS FOLLOWS: 4. Direct staff to request the District to begin epstreem work in the manner.suegssted on page :3, second to last paraorapkof Santa Clara Valley Pater District's letter of January 3, 1Dt5. Cogncilmember Cobb wanted _ to get the important (letter on the. table. He asked Vice Meyer Levy.to_ clarify- the condition relating to the Planning .Coiea1ssioh review of the width of the levee on Mataderh Creek and: where = the : censtucti on•would be relative to the ITT property fie gathered it was advi sort', : and if it really had to be 18 feet, it would be acceptable and they could proceed Vice Mayor Levy said that was correct. He personally desired that L r J . � them it be as mielmal de pos ible. He wdiited them to review the proj- ect with that in mind. Councilmember Cobb agreed with that caveat. Some points needed to be noted. The Council needed to be honest and recooize that for the purpose of the decision it had to make that evening, the debate had ceased to be productive. As a registered professional engineer, he could say that engineers could and did sometimes dis- agree. As a public official, he recognized that he and his col- leagues had to make some decisions in the public interest that evening. He concluded that whenever there was doubt, the Council had to make the conservative, cautious decision, especially where peopl w' s lives and property were at risk. He personally 1 i keo the consultant's approach as it ;was the way he approached problems when he was in a similar field, but absent the technical agreement they were unable to develop, the Council had to make the cautious decision because otherwise they would allow the decision to stag- nate. Nothing _would happen, and it put people's properties at risk, He hoped that over the months and years ahead, they would collect the kinds of data that would make it possible to make the methods of the District and the consultant more together, to the point where fiture decisions would be based on a better data base and things in which they could put more confidence. He hoped that would be part of the actions they would jointly take as time pro- gressed. He complimented Councilmember Renzel and concerned citi- zens. Their dedication to the issue and the effort they .= had put into it would in the long run bring great benefits. They reached the point that evening where they had to move ahead. The compro- mise was environmentally a sound way to go. It did not damage the Baylands. Its major impact would be to provide greater privacy to the nesting birds, which was not an environmental problem. The Council's decision had to recognize the political reality. The District made its position clear. It agreed to certain compro- mises in the interests of the people of Palo Alto and, more impor- tantly, it agreed to begin in parallel with the upstream work. It said explicitly; both at the last meeting and that evening, that based on advice from their lawyers and technical people, it was as far as it could go in terms of the decisions they had to make. Time was short. if through the Council's actions, further delays were created that put people in Palo Alto at risk, both in the West Bayshore area and Barron Park, those people would,have the right to say the Council was derelict in its duty, tie \recently walked the Barron Park area and was shocked. He grew up there, and was hurt to see his old neighborhood with such damage. The Council had to move ahead to minimize the risk of such things happening in the future. He asked his colleagues to take action to get things started. \ Councilmember Renzel said the Linsley, Kraeger report was speci- fic. Six factors affected the outflow of the Flood Basin, and only one of them was subject to engineering debate --how much the trash racks would clog. Their analysis, using the standard engi- neering judgment with respect to the types of facilities in place, was then used with the District's hydrograph and Or.. Beard's method for dealing with the tides and averaging them, which sug- gested that with a 20 percent clogging of the trash racks, the elevation would be 4.6 feet in the Flood Basin._ With 60 percent clogging of the trash racks, it would be 5.1 feet. The other five parameters were not subject to debate among engineers. They were discussing a conservative estimate by the Dis'ti*t, assuming the trash racks were 60 percent clogged. In a flood that took three days to build up in the Flood Basin, there would- be gross negli- gence if they were 60 percent clogged at the time the flood reached its peak. She also did not want the citizens of Palo Alto to be flooded, but she did not believe the flood basin was the cause of flooding in Palo Alto. There was excellent evidence that it was not so. There . was a good ,historical record of rainfall in Palo Altos and they should be able to resolve the issue without building a major facility. While the spirit of compromise was -5 3 7 0 1/07/85 -As Corrected. 2/25/85 Tine when another jurisdiction wcin involved which essentiAlly refused to budge, the Council should stand firm with the good information it had and allow the District to think, about its own methodology and review it more critically. A simple matter on the judgment on the trash racks made a difference of 1.5 feet in ele- vation in the flood basin. It was a big difference. It did not reflect on the District's hydrology, but one should look at what was apt to happen. From the standpoint of public policy, the District and the Council, as representatives of the ,citizenry, should look for a proper allocation of resources where the real sources of -flooding were. The Greer Park neighborhood would get a lot of water i f -the District's flood occurred with 4.6 inches of runoff from the entire watershed; Regardless of what kind of project the District built, Greer Park would get wet because their pumps could not handle it. The whole storm sewer and pump systems had to be vastly upscaled to allow the local drainage to handle such amounts. Some false assumptions were presented to the public as to where flooding would come from. She hoped the Council's appeal to FEMA with respect to that would validate it. She would not support the motion. lire letter from the SCYWD in the December 17, 1984 packet suggested that by excavating an acre or so of marsh, they would create wetlands. It was• offered as an addi- tional compensation. She preferred it be left alone and unexca- vated. AMENDMENT: Connciloeioberl Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to add as aaidi tl veal condition that the District remove from its plans the proposal to excavate land at the entry of Adobe Creek into the Sayl aad purportedly to create additional marshland. Councilmember Renzel explained that the map at the back of the District's December 26, 1984 letter showed the big area to be ex- cavated where Adobe Creek entered. The District spoke of :lxcav,a- ting the area to create wetland, but what they would excavate was marshland to create water area. It was far better to leave things as they were. Any other marsh mitigations that compensated losses were reasonable, but that particular one was offered gratuitously. She believed ft was the only marsh restoration that was proposed in conjunction with the bike path alternative, Councilmember Cobb asked the District whether Councilmember Renzel's interpretation of the excavation plans was correct, and if it was essential to the pl anne x levee building. Mr. O'Halloran said it was not essential, and the SCVWD had no objections to the amendment. Vice Mayor Levy said he would feel morecomfortable if the matter were referred to the Planning Commission for review in greater detail than was possible that evening and return the item to the Council with comments. Councilmember Renzel said that when the Council referred something as specific to the -Planning Commission there was implicit in it some general approval by the Council of those concepts. She pre- ferred to not start their review with such a concept. She would find it acceptable if the planning Commission wanted to pick the matter up out of the material and bring it back to the Council. Councilmember Bechtel was glad Councilmember Renzel made. " the amendment as she was concernedthat they would disturb more marsh- land than necessary. Mr. O'Halloran _ said, the District had no objections to deleting the item. She urged the Council to adopt the amendment. If, at the Architectural Review Board and Planning Coo iesion review, it appeared for some engineering or hydrology reasons, to be necessasry, it could be brought up and returned to the Council. Presently, it was crucial to delete it and not have it form part of the, directions for .the Planning Commission. .5 3 7 1 1/07/85 ,�M:MD404T T€} ■MEMO EXT r Vi Levy .e i- • rir=�w nLw TO i�ssa.isiil��/ii. :Ica Payer -L�-.� moved rc.�;+i�s� the Plaaeing Commission aad Architectural Review Beard to advise the Council on the marshland restoration project. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Sut©rius supported the main motion. He hoped con- frontation and conflict could be avoided in February 1985 when the City entered into the consultant process. in terms of construc- tion, he anticipated a savings in money and time on the proposed and future projects in the District. In 1982-83, the project was estimated at $650,000 to $700,000, and was modified to cost $562,000 with a seven foot elevation. It was now a six foot ele- vation with an elevated bike path at a cost somewhere below $462,000, and the estimated $68,000 for the bike path portion would be redesigned and recalculated to the six foot elevation and would cost less. As a result of the amendment, the cost would be even less because there would be less excavation. He was not dis- appointed nor disillusioned by the time and effort spent. It produced results which, although not all he hoped for, were posi- tive. He anticipated those results would continue to rebound favorably for the taxpayers in Palo Alto and in the balance of the District's territory. Counci l member Bechtel concurred that in spite of the one year's delay, they would come up with something better for the area and for all. Although she was swayed by the figures and facts pre- sented by Linsley, Kraeger Associates, she believed that when it came to weighing public safety and protecting the property of the citizens of Palo Alto, they had to lean to the conservative side. She supported the motion. Counci l member Fletcher believed the project was excessive after reading all the material and consulting with an independent hydrologist also familiar with the material, but supported the motion because something had to be done. It pained her, to adopt an excessively expensive project that was more damaging than a moderate project would be. She saw no justification for the City participating in the funding. The costs were brought down from the projected figures, and the final project would be as adequate as the original. She requested that the motion be divided to separate out the cost -sharing part of the motion. AMENDMENT; C•nacil.e.aer Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to amend part 1 to provide for the cost of relocation of the levee to the bike path to be borne solely by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Mr. Lenihan for the SCVND said the District spent an additional $200,000 above the normal project costs for extra engineering during the past few years. He would have difficulty returning to the Board with anything less than cost sharing. He hated to be hung up at that late date after comingso far. He preferred the Council remain with its offer to cost share which was palatable to the Board and could be passed. AMERINENT F4I LED by a vote a •f 2-7. Fletcher, Refuel, voting Ore Couaci lmearber Renzel said that ar, a result of her amendment, there were no references in the motion to marsh restoration being referred to the Planning Commission, except for what might have been involved i n the original project in the vicinity of the Muni- cipal Services Center Mr. Zaner clarified that when the Council spoke about cost- shar- ing, the incremental cost of the bike path only was in question, and no other costs were .involved. T/87/81 MOTION PASSED by a vote of ®-1, Renzel voting "no." Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland announced that a special joint meeting of the ARB and the Planning Commission would be held on January 23, 1985 at the Cultural Center. Those interested could see the Planning Commission at that time. Mayor Klein hoped the decision reached would be approved by the Water District the following day. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:25 p.m. TO 9;40 p.m ITEM 011, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE T - - TINT CONTRA' (Continued from 12/17/84) (UTI 7-4FIC{R:51:4) Councilmember Cobb said the matter was discussed in the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee on October 23, 1984 when the staffrecommendation was endorsed. MOTION: Coancilserber Cobb for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved re Inflow/Infiltration Scarce Detection Study - Eegineering Censel taut Contracts that stuff proceed to negetiate with Drown and Caldwell to perform Phase 1 of the study; and in the event- that no agreement is reached, to negotiate with CHMM Hill. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #12, CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (Continued Ws 12/17/84) (PLA 4-6 3) (CM : Counc ilraember Woolley said several 1 etters were received in an earlier packet, and at least three did not want to pay for un- available parking places. She asked staff if any changes were made in the +gay permits were issued to help alleviate the situa- tion. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said no changes were contemplated. The permit fee increase partially responded to the problem that over 700 permits were sold for only 800 spaces. A part of the problem were the many all -day parkers. Councilarember Woolley said there was a preference for some lots. $r, Overway agreed that Cambridge Avenue was over 95 percent occu- pied during the peak hours, with 75 to 80 percent of the Sherman side occupied at' that time: Counc 1lmember Woolley said a permit holder could find a place if they were willing to' walk a few blocks. " She believed' that the increased permit fees might•make people opt to park'on the street, thereby causing more congestion in the residential area. Mr. Overway said that was a possibility. but the Comprehensive Plan stipulated that City lots close to downtown retail areas should be protected for short term customer parking. The nine lots in the California Avenue area had a total of 808 spaces, and were the same as the University Avenue spaces except where there were 15 permit spaces, the others had a two-hour sign. Permits allowed the owner to park in any space. It was a "free -for -a11" system Covncilaember Bechtel-. 'presumed the peteblea was that 700 permits were itsued for -only 808 spaces. The increase was $40 per year to. $100, whereas a permit for the downtown cost $200. She asked ghat surrounding communities charged. Kr*. Overway said peninsula cities charged approximetel y $45 per quarter for d o wn to wn parr pl oyee parking'. 5 3 7 3 1/07/85 Councilmember Bechtel asked whether it might be advantageous to designate certain spots as "Permit Only" rather than using the "free for all" system. Mr. Over way said it might be. It was presently done in the University Avenue area, but was not yet requested for Cal ifornia Avenue . It. had problems-- it wasmore costly to enforce and more confusing to the user. It was easy -to understand the California Avenue 1 o t system , but difficult to understand the University Avenue system. When a parking lot was divided up into different kinds .of space, users frequently did not observe the signs. They parked in reserved stalls and got tickets. The problem did not currently exist in Cal ifornia Avenue. Mayor K: ein introduced and wel corned the Ci ty' s. new Chief Trans- portation Official , Marvin Overway. Vice Mayor Levy did not have a problem with the $100 annual fee, but was unclear about the Ci ty' s policy for developing the fees. He asked if i t:rel ated to the demand or whether -it was designed to cover certain expenses, Mr. Overway said staff onlj wanted to :cover the cost of operating and maintaining the system •by -fees, assessment, or general revenue funds. A portion of the University Avenue District costs, until the raise to $200, was covered by the general revenue funds. It now covered all costs from either permit fees =or bond: retirement assessments. The same was true and would continue to be true in the Cal ifornia Avenue area due to the permit fee increase proposed by the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA). The cost of operating and maintaining the Cal ifornia Avenue lots was approximately $70,000 annually at an optimum level . The cur- rent levels of expenditure for maintenance in that area was less. It was generally bel ieved that maintenance in the Cal ifornia Avenue parking area was inadequate. A justification for the per- mit fee increase was to raise revenues to a more adequate level so that maintenance could be achieved. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the increased permit fees would allow the Di strict to operate on a "break even, basi s, with no contributions to a reserve account. The estimated contribution for that year was approximately $28,000. He asked if it would be on -going. Mr. Overway estimated that the following ,year the contribution would be zero. The reason for the $28,000 contribution was that the Maintenance Assessment District,_which was already levled for 1984.85 fiscal year, was producing $39,000 in revenue, but mould then drop down to zero. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the cost of acquisition of new sites would be an entirely separate matter. Mr. Overway said the cost would be associated in the sense that if the maintenance assessment on a property were reduced, the prop- erty became el igible for a assessment if necessary. Vice Mayor Levy bel ieved the rel ationshi p between . the $100 annual and $40 per quarter fees made the quarterly fee high. He asked if it was considered appropriate. Mr. Over way said it was made at CAADA's request. There. were no rubs for the proper numerical rel ationshi p between quarterly and annual fees. Staff bel ieved the quarterly cost should •be higher than, the annual fee to encourage, annual payments. •CAADA. requested the $40/$100 retie, but it could be changed to $35/$100. Councilmember Woolley asked whether a permit holder would be able to find- a space if almost all permit holders and 100 short term customers tried to park simultaneously. 5 3 7 4 1/07/85 Mr. Overway said yes, but it did not happen enough to cause a problem. During a brief peak period during the day every space in the Cal ifornia parking lots might be occupied, but he was never tol d it happened. The 1 ots were not continuously monitored, onl y checked on a spot basis. Stephen Avis worked at 164 California Avenue, and represented CAADA. A year ago, the Council commissioned a study by Angus McDonald to evaluate, among others things, the current and future parking problem. Parking needs would increase significantly during 1985 beyond the current deficit of 114 parking spaces. CAADA 's primary concern was to help the businesses by providing adequate parking for both customers and employees. Constructing spaces would cost millions, and property owners would have to sustain new bond payments. Currently they were paying off the bonds 'used to provide present parking plus a six :cent per square foot maintenance fee. CAADA proposed that the :Maintenance Assess- ment Di strict be retained but that the assessments be e1 iminated to allow property owners to finance new parking facil ities, incl uding double decking of current parking lots. Revenues for maintenance could be paid to an increased degree by the collection of permit fees by all -day parkers. CAADA bel ieved that current parkers al so desired additional spaces, which was particularly noticeable during the 1 unch hour. The 1100 annual permit fee to go into effect in July ;.985 was significantly lower than surround- ing community rates. CAADA urged the Council to adopt the new schedule, the proposed timetable to ease into the new fiscal year, and to direct staff to investigate the other requests, particular- ly those concerning the allocation of parking permits based on the amount of parking provided on site . CAADA believed the combina- tion of additional permit revenues and the increased ability to sell bonds for needed parking spaces, would benefi t all who fre- quented the California Avenue business district. CouncMember Cobb asked what CAADA's response was to suggestions concerning reserved parking spaces. Mr. Avis said al though the idea was discussed several times, it was bel ieved that the current system worked well as it was a small District. CAADA did not favor assigned permit spaces at that time. Councilmember Bechtel said she received several hone calls from people working in the Cambridge Avenue area. She asked how CAADA involved its members, if all Members of the organization were alerted in terms of the fee, and how many members were involved in the recommendation. Mr. Avis said that in addition to the newsletter, the parking problem was brought up on numerous occasions. It was first raised in conjunction with the report on the California Avenue .District and was discussed for a couple of years. Initially CAADA wanted a lower rate , but it was not possible because of time conflicts. Co unc ilmeaber Fletcher said the proposed shifted the costs of the parking from the proper ty owner to the user, which was an appro- priate method of raising ° the needed funds. The daily cost of $100 annually was less than 40f per day, or -one percent of the income of an employee receiving $5 per hour --a low rate for the area. She read it cost 13.0000 annually to maintain an automobile, of which the parking portion would represent approximately three per- cent. !WTIU: Cooncilmomber Fletcher molted, seconded by Ili therspeos, toadapt state recommendations as follows: 1. Adept the fol1orlws fee schedule: for California Avenue Parking peritsa 5 3 7 5 1/07/B5 MOTION COWTI$IItrf a) Effective through 6/30/85 *Issue permit at *50; b) Effective 7/1/85 - *issue Annual Permit at 3100; ' *Issue Quarterly Permit at $40; 2. That all revenues generated by the sale of parking per.its be .dlposi.ted in a separate Permit Revenue- Account established for this purpose. These funds will be used for operation and maintenance costs of .the District off-street lots or the pro- vision of net parking supply for, the District, unless other- wise directed •by Council; and 3. Direct staff to fully evaluate other provisions of the CAA/A . request and report back to Council with appropriate recesse — dation by dune 30, 1985. Councilmecber Cobb suggested, in light of some of the letters received, that some appropriate mechanism be found to communicate to those who paid the fee as to where the money went and, why. As there was no clear understanding of how the money was to be used, it would ease the shock. Mayor Klein said it t+ould be useful and good public relations to inform those permit payers of the rates in 'the University Avenue area and other communities so they would not feel they were being picked on. Councilmember Bechtel concurred that the rate ,was considerably 1 ess than in surrounding areas, and se id peo pl e Would be happy to pay the rates for something received. There was a concern, par- ticularly in the Cambridge Avenue area, that they could not receive ,a benefit. It was difficult to pay 1100 i f they could not park at all --over 700 permits were issued for only 808 spaces. She supported the motion as' the City needed to find ways to increase and expand the numbers of spaces avail able. People were encouraged to 1oo.k for al ternative means of getting to their jobs, and she teas_ concerned they might be encouraged to park in residen- tial neighborhoods or move their cars every two hours Instead of buying a permit. She worked in an office in that area for a year, and knew there were almost al ways spaces by the. Court House and on Sherman. She suggested that those with difficulty finding space on Cal ifornia should park on Sherman and walk a block. M$tI0fi PASSED: unanimously. ITEM #3.3.1,REQUEST OF VICE MAYOR LEVY RE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIRE- tENT SYS`l lTS) COMTVgaliORS i Cont` d. from 1247/B41 (PER :g T) Mayor Klein said the request was for the City to completely fund PERS contributions for City CouncilMembers as in the case of per- manent espl oyees. City Manager Bill Zaner said Counc ilmember s were eligible for the City to make their PERS peyraents. The total of $336 per Coan,cil- member per year was not high. Mayor Klein asked whether• any Counc 11mersbers participated in PE,RS. Mr. Zaner said two COunciltember s currently participated'." If the City paid those charges, it would cost $672 per year. Mayor -Ktein said that i f" the. City agreed to pay, he, preslu ed of l CouncIleembers would participate. Kr Zaner said the to tell cost to the Ci ul d then increase' to 33,024 per year. 5 3 7 6 1/07/85 MOTION Vice Meyor Levy gloved, seconded by Fletcher, that the City's employee benefit package i nci ode c -mp f ete funding of PERS contribstiows for City Coancil.eebers. Vice Mayor Levy commented that as a matter of general :policy, all portions of the employee benefit package were available to members of the Council even though they were paid less than the average City employee. His motion was consistent with a long-standing policy. Councilmember Cobb opposed the motion. There was a clear differ- ence, as was indicated in the memo, because the benefit was for all permanent employees of the City. Councilmernbers were not, and should not be, permanent or part time employees of the City. Although a significant dollar amount was not involved, it was the kind of thing that made the public generally upset with people in political life and caused unfortunate events such' as Proposition 13 to pass. The Councilrnerbers were citizens who took time out of their lives to participate in public activities. They would even- tually go back to their personal lives. They should not do any- thing more than necessary to compensate themselves reasonably for the time they put in. Retirement programs were inappropriate for elected public officials. Councilmember Sutorius entirely concurred. Mayor Klein also concurred. It would represent an increase in the Councilmembers' total compensation package, and he did not feel it was an appropriate method. He would vote against the motion. Councilmember Renzel pointed out that it would add $12 monthly to the compensation, and she did not subscribe to the PERS program. A Councilmember was elected for a four-year term, and some embarked on a second four-year term. Eight years on the Council might equate to 10 years for a staff member. Staff members were able to contribute to PERS even though they could only withdraw what they put in. Huge sums of money were not involved, but she believed it was not necessarily wrong to compare the Council- mem- bers with an employee who might stay for three, four or seven years. Councilmember Fletcher said Counctlmembers were eligible for the' PERS program. The motion attempted to bring the procedures into line with what was done for the rest of the employees. She did not feel it would be a significant drain on the budget. MOTION FAILED by . a vote •f 3-i, Levy, Fletcher, Renzel voting .aye.. ITEM 014 REQUEST OF VICE MAYORLEVY RE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMTTIET itodti nue ram CAF 3-2) Vice Mayor Levy said the City Manager asked the Animal Services Advisory Committee to prepare some comments about the operations of the animal shel ter, and advised the City Manager had determined the services of the Animal Services. Advisory Committee were no longer needed. It was important that Council be aware of the situation.- His motion would provide the Council with background data for the discussion that would arise. He .did not 1 itend that the issue be discussed until the Council had a full committee report. MOTION; Tice New Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to ask the City Reasger to reepest of the Aaimel 'Services Advisory, Coaarittee s fu ; report in writing providing cements and concerns on the •perattoo •f the Palo Alto_ Animal Shelter_, Councilmember Witherspoon asked for clarification. She asked how the report would differ from six policy questions on which the City Manager asked the Committee to comment. 5 3 7 7 1/07/86 Vice Mayor Levy was not sure it would differ. He wanted a report from the Committee covering all items they believed should be raised Gladys Woodhairs, 601 Melville Avenue, referred to the comments in the Palo Alto Weekly of January 2, 1985. She lived in Palo Alto for almost 50 years, was a property owner and always owned an animal. She experienced the various animal shel tees and their directors. One committee member knew of at least 12 animals un- necessarily kill ed. A terrier put up for adoption was eutheni zed, even though she supposedly put in writing her willingness to re- claim him. There were no proofs of mistakes as they were careful- ly covered by City staff, the City Attorney, the police, and even a member of the Council It was assumed the City coul d do no wrong. The Committee argued that the employees had no expertise i n caring for animal s. The Shel ter staff 1 ncorrectl y served people first, not animals. The Animal Shelter should be in the hands of the ASAC. The Director should be a mature person, com- fortable and knowl edgeabl e wi th enimal s. The present Di rector was neither, and all so did not love animals. The Committee had differ- ent objectives for the Shelter than the City. The City Animal Control ordinance was passed in spite of objections of many who feared intolerance towards animal s would grow. It did --the bull t in safeguards were all ignored. The ordinance was good, and should be made available .with every license purchased, so owners knew thei r rights. Every animal should be cheaply photographed so that owners could know 1f it was picked up. A program to encoue- age people to keep their animal s should be initiated. They should not be led to believe animals would be adopted —few were. Owners should agree, if at all possible, to recover an animal before it was euthani zed . By such means volunteer help would double. Her 17 -year old granddaughter begged to save a purebred kitten. The rest of the litter was destroyed. Working there for a 14 -year old was too traumatic. It was futile to put remarks in writing to the City Manager. Elaine Golden, 111 Melville Avenue, was a member of the staff of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. She was glad the situation was com- s ng to a head as the moral e of the peopl e at the shel ter was bei ng lowered. She adopted two cats from the Shelter and had them neutered. She did not know how to rebut Mrs. Woodharns' comments. The employees were stretched. They were not there to be cruel to animals or to put them to sleep. They tprov lded a temporary home while hopefully the owner turned up or the -animal was put up for adoption. Of the 4,000 animals handled the previous year, approx- imately 600 were put to sleep, more than hal f`..at the request of the owner, primarily for age and heal th reasons. The concept of an Advisory Committee was good if it was not obstructionist or took a certain perverse delight in obstructing and demoralizing staff members, No person could properly give advice without hands-on experience of what was happening. During her months there she saw several members of the Advisory Committee wal k around the Shelter and leave. They did not speak to staff .nor work with the animals such as wal king the dogs or giving telephone advice to the public about animals The staff would not be so bitter if there was some participation in the day-to-day opera- tions. Theyw had the strong support of the O.S. Humane Society for the Shelter s goal s, with accreditation held up on four relatively minor points. The. City Manager closely examined the Shelters and Assistant Chief of Police participated for two weeks in it. She hoped the Council would do everything to support their goal s. She coul d not ignore the accusations agal nst her boss, whore she great- ly admired. They were all animal lovers, and not there to make money.. She could earn much more .in the private sector. Superin- tendent Betts had two cats. They, all loved animals, and tried to give them the best homes ,possible ;by making ,sure : they were. spayed and neutered. Some members of the Committee might want to re- evaluate their various positions. 5 378" 1/07/85 Mayor Kl eln said although it was an emotional issue, there were legal rules. The City Council hired and fired only four persons -- the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, and the City Auditor. The Council was forbidden to involve itself in any other personnel matters. It was a criminal matter for the Council to discuss the job performance of any other staff member. He would not allow the Council to be involved in a question of whether a staff member reporting to the City Manager was doing his job correctly. How- ever, the Council might evaluate an entire program. The motion merely asked . for a report on the program, and did not go into its merits or de-ierits. Gordon Gaul , 1405 Dana, said there was considerable friction between the Advisory Committee, the City Manager and Chief of Police. He was glad the Council was being apprised of the situa- tion. The Council had a copy of the last report outlining many concerns to Mr. Zaner, and detail s woul d be supplied in a further report. He hoped the Council would vote to ask for a report. Cbuncilmember Witherspoon said she would not go into the question in depth as the City Manager had requested a report from the Com- mittee. She underlined the, fact that any report should deal strictly with pol icy matters and recommendations for programs beneficial to the City, its citizens and the animals. Palo Alto fought for years for its own animal program, and was the only city in the County with one. It fought against budget constraints, when it was pointed out that it was inappropriate for the program to have an annual deficit of approximately $100,000. She was proud of the program and staff. She was always open to sugges- tions for improvement, and welcomed such a report. She did not want to hear any more second-guessing of staff's competence, or discussions on the type of cat food to be used. It was not appro- priate at the City Council level , and the latter was the profes- sionals' decision. She would vote for the motion as a supplement to what the City Manager requested from the Committee. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #15, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMML SIOM RECOMMENDATION RE APPLrcATIbI1 or-'RAHM, 'OLER $ CA11NYS FOR- A TENTATIVE SOBDrirsioN InftWET tCH ooL SITE (PLA 3-1) - Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the issue was the approval or denial of a condominium subdivision map .for the site. The staff report to the Planning Commission pointed out the per- tinent considerations of whether the subdivision would have a sig- nificant adverse environmental impact; whether it conformed to the adopted Comprehensive Man; and whether it was technically correct and in conformance with Title 21 of the Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. He emphasized that the design and placement of the buildings on the site, etc. was not under Council review that evening, as it was precluded under State Law from being a decision factor in the approval or denial of the 'map, unl ess it specifically rel ated to the environment or the ex tent to which the project related to the Comprehensive Plan. The design of the project was approved by the ARB on November 1, 1984. Neither the des n nor the Environmental Assessment Report (EIR) were before the Council as they were completed at the ARB level , The subj ect matter of the EIR was entirely pertinent to the Coun- cil' s actions becauseenvironmental effect was a key consideration under the Map Act. Staff was prepared to address environmental matters, but he emphasized that the Council was not asked to approve the EIR per se. Some pub 1 is i ty, wh is h raised . concern , was given to a newspaper that fell into the "not pertinent" category, quoting the ARB as having. applied Tower standards to Om, project than in general. He researched the matter and wanted to clear the air. The project was reviewed on three occasions by the ARB,, August 2, 1984, August 16, 1984, and November 1, 1984, undergoing 5 3 7 9 1/07/85 a major evolution in its design and material s, during the course of . the reviews When first submitted and reviewed on August 2, there was only one building design which was repeated throughout, making the project monotonous. The building alignments were ponderous, particularly in relation to the adjacent park, presenting long walls .along the park face. The material used masonite siding rather than more conventional siding materials. Parking was almost exclusively at grade in car ports or uncovered, with only one underground area of 30 spaces under a building The carports were of an 'extremely modest design with ,netal posts supporting a cover above, with no architectural features. By August 16 the design was dramatically changed ire response to MB comments. The minutes of that meeting ehawed that the Board indicated that the "Lower standards for review of the - project were applied by the Board in order to encourage rental aspects of the proposal." That statement led to the concern about the project being of a lower standard. After August 16, further improvements were made in the design, of the building. The siding was changed to one inch cedar boards --a high quality standard for a building material , and the parking . structures were given an architectural feature incorpor- ating the cedar siding with a lattice effect. The building details were changed dramatically, with several different eleva- tion treatments- and the detailing of the buildings improved. Some things that might appear minor --improved awnings end the collec- tion of vent pi pes into singl e el ernents on the roof ---were developed to a considerable extent. With the November 1 approval , guest parking was added in accordance with the changes to the City ordinance at that time. In response to all of those things, the ARB "...congratulated the applicant in being responsive to. the City`s concerns for rental housing, for working with the neighbor- hood and for responding well to the Board' s architectural con- cerns. The ARB was pleased with the site plan, building design, and. use of quality materials and supported the project as serving an important need for housing." The record showed that the proj- ect was substantially upgraded and that the AREA was satisfied when it approved the project. Sarah Cheney, Environmental Assessment, asked the record to re- flect that the Council packet contained a letter from John Mi nck suggesting the widening of Middlefield Road and the installation of a left turn lane, together with the Transportation Division's response: Ron and Maureen mil 1 1st- objection to the density and design of the project; and a Transportation Division memo in reply to Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch' s questions regarding discrep- ancies in trip generation rates. She corrected page 5 .of the report to the Planning Commission, paragraph 3, showing the width of the access driveways as 12 feet instead of 14 feet. Councileeember Bechtel asked Mr. Freel and ..to specify what was before the Council. She asked If the Subdivision Map included the width of the driveway and the number of parking places, or if they were considered a part of the design element. Mr. Freeland said that with regard `:to the parking spaces, the guide should be whether the project conformed. to the Comprehensive Plan and the appl tcable ordinances of the City. It did conform as it prom ided ' the 180 spaces required under the present zoning ordi- nance. The driveway ---the two 14 foot curbcuts--were pertinent, since one of the specific concerns of the Nap Act was circulation to the publ ic, street system: Councilmember Bechtel asked for a comparison of condominium or apartment .developments in Palo Alto in tens .of parking spaces and whether. they met the need. She understood. the ordinance required 1.25 to two spaces per unit. The project fell in the middle. Mr. Freeland compared the project with recently completed condo- minium projects in town --the two side -by -sides on Loma Verde a block away from Middlefield, another that. would come -that evening before the Council at 3065 Middlefield, and the recently approved 'part -____t- The project in question provided 1dv spaces, tfili#oils M Ai'{.i#iE''iii.S . 11 of which specifically provided for guest parking However, a large number of spaces would be nonessigned and open on a first come, first served, basis. The two . projects on Loma Verde did fairly well for guest parking. The smaller had 27 units and pro- vided 61 spaces, or five more than the ordinance required before the addition of the guest parking standard of 10 percent. It therefore provided slightly fewer than the current ordinance re- quirements. The proj ect had seven spaces open for guests, with the remainder in an underground garage not open to guests, which might make it harder for a guest to park. The second project of 39 projects on Loma Verde provided 78 enclosed spaces in garages, with 16 spaces above the zoning requirement and all avail able for guests. The project at 3065 Middlefield Road provided on1 y one more space than the ordinance woul d require , with no spaces specifically allocated for guests. Terman was required by the specific plan to have 120 space., none of which were set aside for guests. He concluded that the project was consistent with other recently -approved projects, and better than several but not as good as the best project, the larger one on Loma Verde. Councilmember Renzel asked if there were firures on what was pro- vided and how it worked out for any occupied projects. Mr. Freeland said the closest staff had was the May, 1984 parking survey of all occupied condominium projects built since 1978, with responses from the residents as to how well the project met their guest parking needs. The survey showed that general 1y guest park- ing was adequate al though it was a problem with nine of 21 proj- ects surveyed. In response to the survey the guest parking re- quirement was put into the ordinance. The survey found that the number of vehicles in a condominium household was 1.65 cars per unit. The Hoover project would have 180 spaces for 99 units, which was more generous than the survey found necessary. Councilmember Woolley asked i f all the parking spaces were to be open, and not in closed garages. Mr. Freeland said that 64 spaces would be in underground parking garages under two of the buil dings. Of the remai ni ng spaces, a number would be in carports, others open to the air. Councilmember Woolley asked if the 64 underground spaces would be individually enclosed. She referred back to comments made by Councilmember Fletcher about the Green House, where people who had garages chose in many instances to use them for storage as was often the case with homeowners. If suitable space for storage was not provided in the garage, people might it them for cars, which would help al 1 evi ate the problem. Mr. Freeland agreed with Councilmember Woolley's conclusion, but pointed out that it was a design detail with which Council was excluded from dealing . Councilmember Woolley asked i f the project could go forward as rental units without any Council action since it received approval. Mr. Freeland said if the applicants wanted to build as a rental project, nothing would bar them from taking but permits to do so. Councilmember Woolley obtained Mr. Freel and' s agreement that the issuewas whether the units, 1f allowed,- to be sold as condominiums rather than continuing as rentals, would cause substantial envi- ronmental damage. Vice Mayor Levy said a concern constantly cropped up about whether the parking requirements in Palo Alto were appropriate. Mr. Freeland made some comments about parking in relation to the Palo Alto requirements and said the average number of parking spaces in 5 3 8 1 1/07/85 condominiums around town was 1.65 per unit. He asked him to be more specific in terms of the parking available at the site and. the size of its units as there were different requirements for one and two bedroom units, etc. He also wanted reassurances by back up data on the reasonableness of the Palo Alto parking standards. Mr.; Freeland said the project would have 59 one bedroom units of 710 square feet and 40 two bedroom units of approximately 930 square feet. The one bedroom units would typically be required to have 1.5 spaces per unit; the two bed room unit would be required to have two spaces per unit. Adding on the 10 percent guest park- ing, a total of 180 spaces were required. The chances were that one bedroom units would not be occupied by many people. There was concern about how many people would live in the units and whether they would generate cars disproportionate to the normal experi- ence. Staff saw nothing to indicate unusually high occupancy, and the one bedroom units reinforced that. The City standards were. derived from past practices and experiences. There were also standard engineering references. The City's standards came .from the 1978 zoning, with some predating it. On two different occa- sions surveys were made to find out how adequate they were. A survey was made in September 1983 and a second in May 1984 to gal n information on whether the standards worked. The May 1984 survey postcards were sent to all the applicants of all the projects bui 1 t in recent ►ears asking how well the parking worked. There was a 56 percent response, which was good for a mail survey. On that basis, it was bel feved the standards for guest parking should be changed, which was recently done. The requirements were based on an average notion. Any one project might not fit that average. He was unable to give absolute assurance that the Palo Alto stan- dards would absolutely fit the project. Staff saw no inherent reason why they shoul d not, but there was al ways a certai n unknown before a project was built and occupied. Vice Mayor Levy said the standards were based on Palo Alto experi- ence with outside data used for validation. Mr. Freeland said the standards originally came from some outside source. Over the years staff lived with it and tried to find out how well it worked. They were basically satisifed . Councilmember Cobb asked if any correlation was made in terms of spaces per bedroom. The bedrooms tended to determine the number and ki nd of residents. Typically, married coupl es would have two. cars and live in a one bedroom unit. People with teenagers found automobiles proliferated faster than one could imagine. The issue went far beyond the item before the Council He found the number of spaces per bedroom much more meaningful when estimating how many cars people in a development would have. Mr. Freeland said staff had such a table in the survey. He tou1d not answer the question in the form posed, but staff had the raw data, which was subject to analysis. Councflsember Cobb observed that it worked out to 1.2 spaces per bedroom, which he believed to be a small number. He asked if Palo Alto had much experience in terms of parking results from small units. He knew there was much similar housing being built all over the County, but asked if Palo Alto knew much about 700 square foot one bedroom units in particular and the . smaller two bedroom units in general. fir. Freeland said there was the Redwoods project, where there was a 52 percent response rate. On average, they had 1.1 bedrooms per respondent, with an average of 1.3 vehicles per household. 5 3 8 2 1/07/85 Councilmember Fletcher said that six parking spaces were desig- nated to be in the 1 andscapeu pre5c a She asked if they were included in the 180 spaces. Mr. Freel and said those spaces were over and above, and could be activated in case there was a guest parking problem. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. John foal l brl nk, 2643 Cowper Street, handed in a letter to be placed on file in the City Clerk's office with a petition signed by over 250 concerned citizens about the Hoover project. He asked if it was proper to address the parking question. Mr.. Freeland believed that, to the extent the project conformed to City ordinances, parking was a pertinent issue. The project con -- formed to City ordinances. The manner in which parking was pro- vided was not pert' neat, and he found no basis to fault the pro- ect for not prov iding more parks ng than the ordinances required , unless it caused a severe problem that would have an env ironrnental effect. It was a judgment call --it was pertinent to consider if the Council was conN'need there would be a parking shortege that would have an adverse environmental effect, Mayor Klein did not want to preclude Mr. teal lbri nk from speaking generally as outlined by Mr . Freel and , Council was constrai ned such that it might not be able to legally respond the way Mr. Wal1brink desired. Mr. Wal lbrink wanted Council to return the project to the ARB for reexamination and reapplication of community standards to upgrade the protect to the same quality routinely applied to projects in Palo Al to. Each homeowner had two cars, regardless of the si ze of the home. There were 99 units, with at least two cars per unit, plus guest parking There was no offstreet parking at the site. A Safeway store was located across the street and the minister of the church to the south said cars parked in his lot would be towed. The Bank of America lot to the north of the project was for customers only, so it was unclear where all the cars for the residents and guests would park. It was assumed they would park on Cowper Street to the west. In order to have access to the project, it was necessary to walk several hundred feet. Parking was a concern for residents in the area. As the letter from the Hoover Park Neighborhood Association showed, they were not opposed to the housing, only to the quality, which was not addressed at meetings. The Association was also concerned about increased traffic. The statistics showing the number of trips the project would generate were biased on the low side. The ingress and egress, previously indicated as much narrower than 14 feet, was on Middlefield, where it was impossible to awake a left hand turn. He was concerned about the safety factor. The density would be the highest in the Midtown area. The Association was concerned about the low standard of the development and the problems. He hoped the Council would refer the project back to the ARB for reexamina- tion and review If passed as is, it would set a dangerous prece- dent. Steve Long', 532 Colorado Avenue, said the Middlefield, Colorado and Loma Verde area seemed to flood every year. During the heavy rains, the drainage for the area was inadequate, and the Hoover project would use that already overloaded system. He was con- cerned that no mitigation measures were planned. Cindy Wail lbrink, 2643 Cowper Street, said she might not have attended that evening if at the November 1, 1984 meeting of the. ARS they received information in teas of the citizens' rights to appeal , When discussion of the project closed and it was about to be approved at the November 1 meeting, she asked if there was any- thing she could do to stop the approval , and was told only if she could find an irregularity with an ordinance. As an inexperienced 5 3 8 3 1/07/85 ci ii zen, she did not know what to do next acid did rut € i rid out about the appeal process until the first part of December when she spoke with the City Attorney, During that conversation, she told the City Attorney about her experience with the ARB and about the different standard util ized for the project. She was told she may have lost the abil ity to appeal , but that there might- be a ques- tion of whether there eras an abuse of the ARB's discretion, On December 31, 1984, Bruce Freeland apologized for letting her down. Projected rents were in the $900 range for the one bedroom, and about $1200 to $1300 for the two -bedroom units. Given the rents and the . amount of money it took to live in Palo Alto, there would probably be more people living in the development than actually projected. There were 169 spaces for the development eleven of which were for guest parking. There was no available onstreet parking. The project would have adverse impacts on her neighbor- hood in terms of traffic, drainage, and parking. The density al so exceeded the Terman project which was developed at 20 units per acre. Her neighborhood wanted quality housing and to be protected from adverse traffic impacts. Midtown turned into another down- town and was getting worse everyday. She requested that the con- dominium map be denied since the project was not truly condomini- ums and did not offer .the same amenities, same parking require- ments, and the other developments in town al Toted two or more spaces. In Mountain View, it was standard procedure to use two spaces whether it was an apartment or condominium. The Terman site was unusual in that there were 20 senior units, and 24 below - market housing units which meant there would be less parking because people would not have the cars. She urged that the Coun- cil consider their request to preserve their neighborhood. Denis Cogswell, 2501 Cowper Street, was con ;:er•ned about traffic congestion, the lack of adequate facilities to get in and out of the project, the potential parking problems on Cowper, and the aggravation of the al ready heavy traffic flow. John Igoe, Lincoln Property Company, 101 Lincoln Center Drive, Foster City, said the project was zoned for the 99 units last year, and his company purchased the property from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) after it went through the normal rezoning process Parking met existing standards when the project began, and when the changes were made to place an additional re- quirement of 11 spaces, the project was redesigned to meet those standards. The upgrades requested by the ARB were made, and he believed the quality of the development was not downgraded. In terms of traffic, and at the expressed request of several resi- dents, they performed an. additional traffic study which related to an initiation/destination 1icen e plate survey to identify how much traffic impinged upon the local neighborhood streets and how much originated from the area of the school site. He believed they went through and met al 1 tko city's requirements . He stressed the importance of the c;ndonrini um map in terns of the financial viability and the financing commitment they received, part of which was that the project be approved for a condominium development. Ted Cannis, 2260 Bay Road, Redwood City, was the applicant, and said the tentative map was a one lot subdivision of an existing parcel created by the City of Palo Al to and the PAUSD. The dev el - opment received environmental review and approval, architectural review and approval, and a technical review and approval for the building permits. The Planning Commission made unanimous recom- mendations to approve the tentative map in accordance with certain conditions. The Subdivision Map Act referred to the matters which govern the consideration of subdivision craps and the environmental. impacts which they believed were covered by the City's environ- mental. review. The project conformed to the Comprehensive Plan conditions and standards, and he requested that Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval . 5 3 $ 4 1/07/85 Edith Eddy, 2579 Cowper Street, said Cowper Street was used as a bypass for the Middlefield intersection by many cars and bus routes. The neighborhood had many children and much traffic. The proposed development was one of potentially four or five high den- sity developments in her neighborhood resulting in an increase of 200 units in a two block area. The project was partially promoted to solve a City problem of not enough low-income rental housing. She believed the proposed proiect would not answer the City s needs. The development was low -quality, small units, where a two - bedroom unit would cost between $1200 to $1300 per month and coul d not be afforded unless both parents worked . To then turn the building into a condominium would no longer keep it as rental housing. Although the concept was well -intended, it was a mis- take. She urged that the project be referred back to the ARB for reconsideration and that the request for the subdivision map be denied. Jonathan Eddy, 2579 Cowper Street, knew that many of the technical procedural requirements for approval of the project were met. The Redwoods already had approximfitel y 20 percent more cars per bed- room than planned. 'le was concerned that the methodology for measuring the impact of the project on the neighborhood coupled wi th the two or three other devel opments going up in the same area was inappropriately based on •standards developed over a period of five to ten years. Lynn Chiapel l a, 631 Colorado Avenue, had a copy of the Bay Area study which showed 5.1 traffic trips generated per day per condo, and 5.7 per day for an apartment. Mountain View required two parking spaces per condominium, and 10 daisy trips per unit was the standard, and one guest parking for four units; Menlo Park, 7.2 to 8 trips per unit, two cars per unit with additional guest parki ng depending on the size of the unit; Palo Alto 1.7 cars per unit and 5.1 trips per day. Sunnyvale found that because of the prices which ranged above $1,000 per month for a two -bedroom con- dominium, that two working couples now shared producing four in- comes and four cars. They had a parking problem with an average of 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Palo Alto needed to examine how it determined the amount of trips generated per day, how many cars per unit. A couple of residents of the Redwoods commented the building was only 60 percent full and there were al ready parki ng problems. The California Avenue project had one resident with no parking problems. She did not believe the sta- tistics and how they were analyzed were adequately reviewed. Madeleine Long, 532 Colorado Avenue , read the following into the record, "In our review of the staff material pertaining to the Hoover subdivision, we have the following environmental concerns: concerning drai nage, in the staff report we noted that drai nage would be into the stone drain system that passed through the intersection of Miiddl eft el d :and Colorado Avenue. The drainage was i nadequate to handle the present volume of water during the rainy season, drainage on Colorado near Middlefield was poor and there was recurrent flooding at the corner of Middlefield and Colorado. Furthermore, the right southbound lane on Middlefield adjacent to the curb regularly flooded each rainy season. We strongly urge the City to require that drainage for the Hoover development be reassessed. We suggest that drainage be directed to the Creek and not Middlefield Road. In addition to the project drainage which would dramatical iy impact the system, Hoover Park drainage .would also be added to the storm drainage system...We urge the City to considerthe increase in noise' levels in an area that is already degraded by the present noise levels. The landscaping was insuf- ficient to provide a reasonable buffer zone. Placing parking underground would reduce noise intrusion and a more park -like landscaping would also, help muffle noise and glare from auto and project lights. Regarding aesthetics, the project would destroy an open area long used by neighbors,. as well as recreational facilities, that were used after school hours. In = its place, there would be 35 -foot buil.dings and concrete covering 95 pe eent 5 3 8 5 1/07/85 of the area. The view from all surrounding areas would be dras- tically altered, the trees and park views would be replaced with dense apartment buildings. We note that a requirement placed on the project was the oevelopment of sufficient landscaping buffer zone. In their meeting ` during the week of November 25, with the developers to discuss landscaping, it was apparent that many of the proposed shrubs were not tall enough to fulfill the require- ment of a buffer zone. The City was urged to require a sufficient 1 andscapi ng buffer to reduce the effects of the massive develop- ment. Wen are concerned that material s with a limited life are being used, and in our discussions with the developers, the awn- ings were mentioned in that context. Within a few years, the awn- ings woul d need to be repl aced and other material s used in the buildings aright require heavy maintenance. We urge the City to require the developers to take out a bond, or establish a sinking fund for replacement of those limited life features. We believe a project of that density and impact on the neighborhood should be designed and built of top quality material s --not short lived materials that require extra maintenance to refrain attractive, functional and be suitable for conversion. The developers pl anned to use ivy as an extensive ground cover, and the neighborhood already had a severe roof rat problem. Ivy shelters promoted spread of the public health menace. She urged that the City plan to place a restriction on the developer that ivy not be used for ground cover for public health reasons and to require that the ARB request that important change. A suggested alternative would be jasmine or some other attractive and colorful plant. Regarding traffic, the report indicated that of the 169 cars projected to use the development, only 29 would contribute to the morning rush hour traffic, which was less than one-third of the total units. Considering the price on the units, there would be more than one- third of those people working. Neighbors consistently attended meetings tince the inception of the project and their input was not seriously considered. A three-story apartment house was con- sistently opposed by neighbors as toci dense for an area of one and two-story buildings. The project's density precluded a garden apartment type development with quality landscaping and inter- esting architectural features. Si nce the dense level opm:ent was approved despite neighborhood ob.ectione, she requested that the above points be addressed and remedial action taken. It was not believed that quality was a high priority for the project or that architectural and l andscapi ng aesthetics were the prime consider- ations of the ARB. The situation should be rectified and the appl :cation be denied." John Wanless, 2682 Cowper Street, bel ieved the estimated trips per day were low. The Planning Commission report indicated that 50 oars per day would return during the afternoon rush hour to the 200 units encompassed by the Hoover, Chinese Community Center, and Loma Verde projects. It was difficult to believe that of 300 perking spaces, only 50 would be returning during the afternoon rush hour. The license plate survey showed that 85 percent d the traffic wanting to go southbound on Middlefield did make the right turn at Oregon Expressway and that 15 percent shortc utted . The traffic study also said that the Middlefield/Oregon Expressway intersection . was now saturated and beyond the limit proposed. Knowledge of the neighborhood and the situation of the saturated intersection \l ead to the conclusion that more people would be shortcutting. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed ITEMS TOBE CONSIDERED AFTER 1l:0O p.m. NOTION TO CONTINUE: Moyer Klein moved„ seconded by Cobb„ to costing* Item #1i•A (Old Item 7) , Resolution of Ietew% to Create Underground District ` No. iii; and Item #i#, Overnight Perking to -Jafe:uuty 14, 1+905. NOTION PASSED waaaimensl 5 3 8 6 1/07/85 RETLit„ TO ITEM #15, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP Al 2850 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Councilnember Bechtel commented that several speakers spoke about drainage, and in reading the Planning Commission minutes, it seemed there was a recommendation concerning drainage. She asked for clarification. Supervising Engineer Jim Harrington said staff studied the matter during the ARB process. It was typical at that stage for prelimi- nary plans to be submitted, but without topographical information, so it was assumed that the development would generally increase runoff. After the developer presented his topographical maps, staff was able to determine that approximately 15 percent less runoff resulted from the proposed site. The problem arose from the rear grass, building and parking areas, which drained through to Middlefield. With respect to the flooding on the corner, in two cases, the catch basins did not have the hoods .normally re- quired at an intersection, because they were both located fn driveways. Without hoods, there was a tendency for more surface flooding because the water could not enter into the storm drainage system as effectively. The City had a general program for repair, but the particular area did not have the highest priority. Councilme;nber Bechtel asked whether Council could refer the matter back to the ARB, and for clarification that if Council denied the map, the project could still be buii t as a rental project. City Attorney Diane Lee said the project could not be referred back to the ARB because its procedures were concluded and it was referred to the City Council z The time had run out for the appeal process available. Council could act only on the tentative sub- division map that evening, but if the map were denied, the project coul d still be buil t as a rental , Vice Mayor Levy was troubled that he did not have the benefit of at least the ARB 's comments on their action. It was not directly related to the approval process before the Council , but the public had commented at length on it, and since there were also comments in the newspapers, he requested that Mr. Carter discuss the stan- dards used in the approval process. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said that to the best of his knowledge, the landscape plan was not finalized by the ARB so that those concerns. could be brought up. Virgil Carter, 4135 Briarwood, member of the Architectural Review Board, said after its second meeting on the project on August 16, the ARB gave conceptual approval only for the project, subject to 13 conditions plus a requirement that the applicants hol d -a neigh- borhood meeting to present their plan in greater detail and get further response. When the applicants returned on November 1, 1984, they received unanimous approval by the ARB in large part because of the response to thoset13 conditions of conceptual ap- proval:. He would not argue the merits of the design or density, but he denied that different standards of quality for the project were used than for .some other multi -family or residential project. The ARB, in good faith and in good standards of practice, exer- cised as much dfl igedce and thoroughness in terms of siting, building design, and quality of materials. When the applicants returned on November 1, there was a third substantial:, revision to the project and he was comfortable that from a design point of view, there was no reduction in standards. Vice Mayor Levy believed parking, traffic and the, density ofthe project were germane to the discussion. Regarding density, the zoning to' be, allowed on the -,site was _ discussed. 1t was a diffi- cult -trade-off between 'trying to allow more housing and, in par- ticular,; more affordable housing in the- community while maintain- ing the community's standards. He was always uncomfortable when reviewing a larger project, but in terms of trade-offs -throughout the community, he was satisfied that the location could absorb the density. When the City looked at .the Hoover School property, it cut off close to two acres from that site and added it to the Hoover Park to enlarge it. He was satisfied with the traffic gen- eration studies. It was a mixed use area, and while the churches developed traffic, it was occurring than at different times in the residential developments. It was not a queetion of adding large amounts of new traffic at the same times of the day to the area. In terms of parking, from a procedural standpoint, he was satis- fied. The City based its standards on Palo Alto developments. One of the charts presented by a member of the public showed that the number of vehicles per dwelling unit ranged from 1.25 to 1.86. The number in the proposed project was 1.7, excluding guest park- ing. The number of units having more than 1.7 were seven out of twenty, and the number under 1.7 were seventeen out of twenty, which lead him to believe that the City's standards were reason- able. Not all tenants would be married couples without children, both of whom drove to work. Some units would be occupied by indi- viduals with other kinds of life-styles. The location of the project was such that traffic patterns would differ from many of the single family areas where every visit to a grocery or hardware store had. to be.. by automobile. For the proposed project, many such visits would not be by automobile because of its location. In terms of the standards by which the Council was limited in its judgments, he was reasonably satisfied that the City acted proper- ly. Counciln!ember Renzel was disturbed that the chunk of land was practically equivalent to a square block in the downtown context. She believed most of the City's zoning standards originally con- templated a standard city block where each property faced onto a street and had drainage, onstreet parking and adequate transporta- tion corridors. The proposed project was a city block within a block, with one exit onto a busy street, and she believed the fun- damental concept of what was squeezed onto the lot was the fact that a street system for it was not created. A typical city block of an R-1 nature might have about 17 houses, whilst the proposed project had an intense density which counted circulation acreage as part of the density. A city block did not count the streets for density, with the result that much open space was provided in many neighborhoods by the streets, which also provided drainage capacity and surplus parking. Substandard streets were now al- lowed to be private and to be counted towards the density. She believed the density approved by the Council previously in terms of RN -3 was based on the concept of having an adequate street sys- tem to deal with the project. That was not the case with the pro- posed project. The projects on Loma Verde were tight and massive and did not blend in with the neighborhoods. She believed there was a fundamental problem that related to the kinds of circulation being provided. Housing land in Palo Alto was being wasted by permitting overly dense developments for the amount of circula- tion. There used to be a requirement in the City's subdivision ordinance that if any transporttAtion network within an allotment was more than 300 feet long, it had to be a public street and meet public street standards. The proposed project was about 1,000 feet of roadway that was 28 feet wide for a portion of it and 20 feet wide for about 250 feet. To serve 99 households with a po- tential of about 200 people, it was inadegate, especially when every available street parking place was taken at 3:00 p.m. It was a prime example of where a public street shnul d have been designed into it to produce proper building. It was proper to deny ,the subdivision and request .that it be redesigned with a proper circulation plan which took into account the fact that it was an isolated City block feeding into a busy location. !l0sii a Cosecll#ewbsr Stenzel saved, seconded by. Cobb, to deny the subdivision nap to create !2 condevoininn snits for property located at tie Middlefield load (fainter I over School site) 5 3 8 8 1/07/85 Councilmember Sutori us asked for more information on the drainage system. He understood that a good deal of run-off came from the rear of the existing site with the existing usage. Mr. Harrington said there was now less impermeable surface than previously, as the area of one acre or more at the rear of the property that was now a park had previously been paved and al so had a building site on it. Councilmember Sutori us clarified that the surface had contained a basketball court and the play area, etc, Referring to the EIR document, he pointed out that the Planning Commission had modified the drainage condition. He asked if any subsequent motion should amend the recommendations to conform to the Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Harrington said the recommendation allowed discretion to the City Engineer so that, if he judged there was insufficient need for detention --which appeared to be the case --no further action would be required. The applicant planned to install a storm drainage syste►a which would go some way towards removing some of the surface water that otherwise would run down the curb and .gut- ter. In view of several points he had made earlier, he felt they were moving towards a better rather than a worse situation. He pointed out that in general , all of Palo Alto needed significant improvement in the drainage a°rea Mr. Freeland pointed out that the write up on water in the envi- ronmental assessment concluded that approval of the site drainage plan by the City Engineer would be required prior to development of the site. Councilmember Sutorius said he needed procedural guidance with regard to the recommendation on page 7 of the EIR, item 6, which had been modified by the Planning Commission. Sarah Cheney, Environmental Assessment, said that the P1 anni ng Commission had recommended that item 6 be amended to include that detention be provided on site, should the Engineer decide it was necessary. Councilmember Sutorius shared some of Councilmerrber Renzel s con- cerns that the circulation system within a large site ought to be treated from the standpoint of size considerations and that the si zi ng shoul d conform to normal City standards. There were al so the possible impacts of drainage and ;the fear that the normal den- sity contemplated in a broad planning basis might not have been calculated into the true, ultimate development of the site. Such considerations could lead to better long- term planning for multi- ple sites with the potential for change, such as an area rezoned from commercial to residential. In time, a new kind of develop- ment ent would occur on such sites, so it might be suitable from the planning standpoint to reconsider what was necessary for interior circulation. They should not set up situations were several adja- cent parcels were independently develope each with its own unique circulation system that was not, the most effective or log- ical in terms of long-range planning. The Council should not judge how and when sites were developed, but should keep in mind, the need for an adequate circulation plan for the aggregate area. He asked for confirmation_ that the 28 foot wide entry way: and the portion of the circulation system intended for utilization was the standard for a public street in a residential area. Mr. Freeland said he was not sure :It, was a comparable situation. The 28 feet was basically the circulation aisle between two right- angled parking stalls. The 28 feet corresponded to the back-up distance between the two stalls. It ,was not easy to compare that situation to a normal street, where cars would be parked in paral- lel to the access. Curb- to -curb, it might be similar to a street, but the situation differed. 5 3 8 g 1/07/85 Councilmember Sutorius asked if he was describing two rows of parking with a circulation area between them. Mr. Freeland said there was a two-way circulation route, with parki ng spaces on each side a right-angl es to it. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the 28 feet included the perpendicular parking spaces; Mr. Freel and said the 28 feet was the route, with parks ng stalls going into parking bays on each side. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that the 28 feet driving circulation terminated in a 20 foot wide route blocked by bollards which was intended for emergency vehicle access and moving vans, etc4, only. As he did not see how addressing the desirability of a street plan within the site was feasible or appropriate, he felt he could not support the motion. Mr . Freeland said the 20 foot wide section was an emergency access easement. It would not he a street, but would be a part of the landscaping, and composed of concrete block with grass growing up through it. The normal circul ation would end at ramps to underground parking garages in the rear two buildings. He showed a map of the 28 foot space between the pa eking spaces and the two parking ai sl es. The loop connecting the two aisles was an emergency access road. Whether bollards ieouid be erected to keep people out would be resolved with the final landscaping. It would not be paved, but would be part of the landscaping, with a surface on which a fire truck could drive. Councilmember Sutorius did not see the wisdom of utilizing the site in a fashion that would commit more surface area to asphalt and concrete which would detract from the livability of the site usage. Inasmuch as the drainage situation would be improved by up to 15 percent, and for the other factors cited by Vice Mayor Levy, he could not find grounds for denying the subdivision map. There might be other actions the Council and the Planning Commission should address regarding planning and zoning conditions in that general nei ghboncwod and in other areas of the City, However, he coul d fi nd no grounds foe taki ng specs fic deni al action on the subdivision appl ication. Councilmember Witherspoon asked the Mayor if findings should be incorporated in the motion to deny. Mayor Kiel n said the law was veey clear. Page 2 of the staff report said the City should deny approv al of the tentative or final subdivision map if it found one of four things: that the proposed map was not consistent with, the adopted plans; that the site was not physically suitable fors the proposed development; that the design of the sudvision or proposed improvenents were 1 i kel y to cause substantial environmental damage or heal th problems: or that the subdivision would confl ict with public easements. He obtained confirmation from the City- Attorney that in order to adopt the motion on the table, the maker would have to specify the reason proposed for denying the subdivision map. Councilmember Benzes said she believed the site was not suitable for the proposed devel opment because it had inadequate circulation within it and to it. The design of the subdivision was likely to cause substantial env•ironnental damage to the neighborhood. It was a it Wive project that was too dense because it did not provide adequate circulation in accordance with the standards used all over the City for public street systems. She asked if her;:. objections, needed to be backed up. Ms. Lee said it would be necessary to give a factual foundation for the findings. However, she did, not think the location of the buildings was appropriate. The location of the improvements had been discussed earlier, 5 3 9 0 1/07/85 Cnuncilmemha_r Renzel said she was trying to point out that a major portion of the site was paved in order to accommodate the density permitted. The net acreage did not include public streets. If it had a proper circulation plan, the land rercei ni ng would have the density, but not 99 units. When an attempt was made to put 99 units in a parcel of that size without proper circulation, a too intensive development resulted . She considered part of the factual basis for the finding was the fact that, by not providing adequate circulation, a too intensive development resulted that did not conform to the standards generally accepted in the City. Councilmember Witherspoon felt that to deny the subdivision map would be to differentiate between owner- occupied and rental housing. The appl ication had gone through the review process, and had satisfied the staff and the Commissions that advised the Council and the staff. It came to the Council only on the basis of what kind of ownership the project should have. She could not find a basis for denying the project. The Council did not, and shout d not, di fferenti ate between owner-occupi ed and rental housing as to the quality of design, the parking, the drainage, the landscaping standards, etc. She asked . the City Attorney if there was a time limit for the subdivision reap under which the owner or the developer would have to apply for the final map. Ms. Lee said she believed there was a two year time limit. Councilmember Wi therspoon assumed one reason why the developer now asked for a subdivision map --even though it was supposed to be a rental project for a number of years —was because it meant he would not have to go through the condominium conversion. Ms. Lee agreed that he woul d not have to go through the condominium conversion ordinance if the reap were approved. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that , as he Wool be renting each apartment individually, it would not be considered a one apartment project. Ms. Lee said that no matter how it was structured, the fact that he received a condominium reap meant he would not have to go through the condominium conversion process because he would not be converting from rental housing to condominium housing, as it would al ready be considered a condominium. Councilmember Witherspoon said she could not find any of the four objections to the project. Many questions had been raised by the public, who had valid concerns. She *as satisfied, and associated herself with many of Vice Mayor Levy's remarks, that many of the concerns had been fairly addressed. Councilmember Bechtel said the public had done an outstanding job in researching the issue. The Council ' s frustration was that it was limited to, the charge of approving the map before it and ranking the findings that it would be in conformance with the four points outlined. • She concurred with the speakers who could not make the findings proposed by Councilmember Renzel. Regarding the issues of density, parking and traffic, she . said - the density was approved one year earlier when the zoning for the parcel was approved. At that time, all the Council clearly understood, and it was shown in the public listing of the toning changes that it would be able to take 99 units. She agreed with tie- comments made by the public that there were concerns about .traffic; She agreed there were.. concerns and that the. City needed to -evaluate and get a better track. r°ecord on existing projects., not only the ones at present under construction. - Sore six leeks earlier, the parking ordinance requirements were rev teed The project in question had now added additional 'parking paces, bringing the total to 180. The developer had not previously 'been required to furnish so many, bit had done so- to comply with the ordinance, even though he might possibly have been. grtndr'athered under the old ordinance. Two 5 3 9 1 1/07/85 problems, those of parki ng and density, had been removed by previous decisions. If the. decisions were :wrong' they should be looked at on all projects. The final issue was whether it should be a public or a private street. Councilmernber Renzel made some val id points concerning the amount of street space. However, she looked at other similar projects of that size in the City and just outside it _whore large private projects had private roads. Their track record needed to be looked at if the Council needed to reevaluate. • Under the present ordinances and regulations, •she could not make the findings to deny th.e appl ication. Councilmeriber Cobb said he seconded the motion mainly because of frustration at the situation and for discussion. He appreciated the comments about the difficulty of finding reasons to deny the project. He had to •stretch a point to make the finding on point two. He thought a mistake had been made when it was zoned so densely. The parking problems were much more severe than the Council understood, and they would come back to haunt them. It was not very reassuring that they were found to be too dense after the fact. He complimented the developer for doing everything the City asked and more. There was no negative aspersion cast in his direction. He was very impressed by what was being done for rentals, but he honestly believed the parking problems would come back to haunt the City, and that the majority of the Council would approve the subdivision map, as legally they probably should.- He did not know how to protest his concern of many years over the parking problems. When the City allowed a great deal of high density development in a fairly small area, the cumul at.ive effect woul d• result in some unintended consequences. He was frustrated. He had very shaky legal grounds for voting for the motion, but wished to send a signal that more parking space had to be provided so the City could live with the results in the future. Councilmember F1 etcher said she was comfortable with the amount of parking. She • thought there would be two spaces per unit, which was quite adequate. Her concern was the number of units and the small amount of space, which had an adverse impact on the future residents and the surrounding neighborhood. On the basis of the tremendous number of units, which she had not realized woul d be possible when the zoning was introduced, she opposed the project. Councilraember Renzel implored her colleagues to be mindful of the fact that every time such a project ware, approved, permanent changes in the fabric of the community were i ade-,. Looking at some of the projects recently approved made one eeal i ze that the Council was not making good permanent changes. She. didenot think the project would be built if a subdivision map were not granted, as the developer would not want to take the risk. She thought there would be a response - to a proper circulation pattern resulting in a development more In keeping with the neighborhood and what belonged on a site of that size. The Green House was built at 22 units to the acre, whereas - the proposed project was close to 33 units per acre. The Green Houses were on a much larger site, so that certain aspects of the project, such as landscaping, could be enhanced. The site did not offer • much opportunity for landscaping, or none that would •benefit those outside the project. If the Council thought of it as a permanent change in the community the Council was :responsible for, it would be easy to make the appropriate findings. Mayor Kiehl said he would vote against the motion as it was impossible to- stake the findings the law required. It was stretching it beyond human capabilities.. He was concerned about a variety of .things The density was always a concern on a project. It was buii t to 28 units per acre. At the meeting orie `syear earlier when the density was approved, the numbers- were Mentioned. i t ..had been a trade-off. The decision had ' not `been made. blindly and the Council was not ,ill-informed.- He did not think .they had made a mistake, becauce part. of the consideration .gyres .:that the City Mould b:uy two acres of. land from the School ti strict 'to add 5 3 9 2 1/07/85 to Hoover Park. There was a clear feeling that it was a very appropriate area for high density because of the location of the project and the immediately surrounding uses and because the Coun- cil was adding land to the park. 'Vice Mayor Levy had mentioned that point, but it deserved more: emphasis-. When one considered density, it always had to be considered in relation to what. Density up against a whole variety of single-family neighborhoods was one thing; density adjacent to a park and a church was another. He considered the decision the Council made at that time was correct, and he saw no reason to change it, particularly at that: stage. It wa a not appropriate for Councilmembers to vote to demonstrate protest. The law had set standards, which should be followed. If the Council did not like the zoning, it should try to change the zoning provisions, and not go contrary to the stan- dards the State law required the City to apply in a particular situation. MOTION FAILED by a vete of 3-6, Fletcher, Stenzel, Cobb, voting °ayes. NOTION: Mayer Klein moved, seconded by Leery, to ,adopt the Plan - elms Commission recomrendatiee that the project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street alignments, drainage and sanitary facilities, locations and sine of all reeeired rights -of - way, lot size and cenfigsratioe, grading and traffic access) is consistent with the adepted Comprehensive Pl au and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment nits be likely to result in serious public health prob- lems; that the site is physically suitable to the type and density of the proposed development; that there are no conflicts with W- ilt easements; and recommend approval subject to . the following conditions: 1. The 5' wide concrete walk connecting Byron Court and the site shall be removed and area shall be restored to match existing landscaping and elevation; 2. The walkway located within the pedestrian easement providing public access to Keever Park shall be paved; 3. A fence, ■atcbf ng the exi sti ne, shall be installed at the end of thewalkway from Byron Court into the site; 4. A 6' high fence shall be constructed along the southwesterly property line with openings provided for pedestrian access into the park; The proposed design of any new or replacement fencing shall be submitted to the ABB for review and approval, with 'Notice giver tar directly adjoining property owners; 6. Drainage disposal shall be to the existing drainage system msar the corner of Cal orado and Middlefield. Drai cage shall be designed to minimize 'rade changes at property lines, with deteati oe provided en site if renal red by the' City Engineer. The Architect/Engineer shall_ schedele a predesign ,Meeting with the Public Merits Eegineering Department to discuss the drain- age concept prior tai proceediee with the plan; 7. The applicant shall submit a soils report, prepared by a sells engiaoer, which.. shal l contain recpameedati en for allowable cut and fill slopes for temporary .j nd permanent grading; Any constrectioe in the , public ;,right-of-way 011 require a street smiles permit from the /relic *Irks Department; D. Plant street trees a1ie9 the iliddl`\field Iiiad frontage. The trees shall be spaced. 30 feetgar deter, be located a minimum •f 5 feet free madergreeod utilities ut wife of driveway and 5 3 g 3 1/d7/B5 MOTION CONTINUED shall be Pl atnms aceri fol i a (Londe,' Plane trees) . A 10' set- back from sewer lines 1s recommended. The trees shall be planted per the specifications of the Pars Department and shall be installed prior to final inspection of any approved structures; and 10. Fire protection devices shall be provided and installed on - site per the specifications of the Fire Department. Councilmember Fletcher made an amendment based on her concern for tenants taking up residence, then being displaced, possibly with- out knowing when they started to rent that it would be for a limited duration. That had been the reason the ordinance for con- dominium conversion was passed. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved seconded by Ren:zel, to add an additional condition: 11. That, of l tenants be fully informed in writing before renting of 'the plan to convert ,to cond•mini uis and the date when units are to be offered for sale. Ms. Lee said .it would not be a 'conversion . She suggested a word- ing change. MAKER AND WOOD AGREED TO C1lANCE THE LANGUAGE TO READ 'WHEN UNITS ARE TO DE OFFERED FOR SALE' MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a rote of b-3, Fletcher, Renzei , COMP vetis, 'nee. ITEM Alb PUBI..IC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUS RECOMMEND- ICTI/ Al I O N -OF PAC F I C TO Or COMPANY roR A`-TENTATIVt SUBDIVISION MAP TO CREATE Of LITITIMNTITIIm -UNITS FOR PROPERTY L ,r EMTELD 11-0 17 (PLA 1-1) Councilmember Renfel referred to the drainage, which was a typical problem on large sites where the property line abutting neighbors had to be' built; up in order to drain to the public street. In another project it had been possible to keep the last 20 feet of the property draining in. the direction that was the natural lay of the land' and to d.rai n the: rest forward She asked if the same technique could be used on the property in question. Supervis1gg; Engt veer James .Harrington said. the problem was that there 'appeared _:to be ne _reasonable way to discharge drainage from the rear of- the site towards the downstream direction. .No ease- ments were available, and no legal means were available to dis- charge the storm drai-nage.. Councilmember Rental said there had. been a sieil ar problem on the Cesano ,property; which had..prevloosly drained In ,the ,direction of the 'back fence of the neighbors. 'At :the :time<:.of development, the City had required that It ;_be padded up .to drain onto El Camino, The.: 4st 29 feet' had continued as ari-waysI' and .Were landscaped and not allowed to :be 'pa"ved.. It. kept' __the grade.:level at the rear property line even with the' old grade level . It appeared 'to be a workable solution. which did _not, increase the, .drainage to the neighbor --there was a big decre se. in that the.: vast Majority of the propertythere drained into El Camino.. She asked, if the basic objective was ,to not increase "drainage to a nearby property Mr. Harr,in9:tan, agreed. The ° fear was _ that "there were existing d► el l ings` on the downhill` side which - aright change in the future and couse subsequent problems with,. the. new, owners. Ale asked Coun- cilwiemaer Renzei to rephrase her,- grestion., . 5 3 9 4 1/07/85 Councilmember Rental caid that in the previous case there had not appeared to be any legal or drainage problems when the lay of the land had been allowed to remain as it was foe the last 20 feet before the property line so that there was not a two foot differential and an eight'.fbot fen'ce on the south side of the neighbor's property. Mr. Harrington said the critical element was the elevation of the drainage system in Middl efiel d Road, which was very .shat low They were at the uttermost extreme critical nature of the design. They had gone into it, and .found .there was no compromise possible. They had gone to the limits to mitigate it. .'They had flattened all grade that could be flattened. C43uncilmember Renzel said she was not sure he understood what she suggested. Taking 2.6 feet for purposes of discussion, if that angle were moved forward . twenty . feet. from the back of the property, there would be a -sharper angle - draining out to Middlefield Road. The rear .20 feet_ would continue to drain as they always had. As a result, there would be less drainage to' the property behind it because the vast majority of the property would then drain out to Middlefield. It would lessen the drdinage to the nearby property without the situation where there were grade differentials .on the property lines.' Mr. Harrington said he believed some relief Cou1 d be thus gal ned. However, the elevation at the rear would still be substantially high and i n the order of two ;feet. Mayor Klein ascertained that planning Commissioner John Northway had no comments to make. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Ron Lee, 1119 Harker, represented the developer, pacific American Company. He offered to answer any questions, as. the mai n representatives had left because they understood the item had been continued until the following week. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Ceumcilmeaber Dechtel moved, seconded by lteslley„ to adopt the Planning Csmalssion recommendation that the project, including the design awl improvements (e.g. the street align- ments, drainage and sanitary fac11 f t1 es,' l ecai tons end size of all resisi red ci gluts -of -way, lot size and configuration, grading and traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivision Nap Act amd Title 21 of the Palo Alto llaMicipal Code;' that the prt4ject will not have a significant impact en the environment nor be likely to result in serious public health problems; that the site is physically suitable to the type and density of the proposed development; that there are no conflicts with public easements; and recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A site drainage plan be approved by the City ERgiveer prier to 1sseaace •f a building permit. Disposal shall be to the nearest adequate system ea Niddlefiel d Road. The drainage plate shall be designed as a gravity system. The Architect/ Engineer shall submit plass and calculations to the Public Works Engialerlag efflce for approval at least 30 days prior to brit i di eg and/or grads tag permit submittal; 2. The developer `-shall submit 'radio, pleas to the Public Works D! artaeset for approval shaming prapei ed eiewatIetas i o Witten to the adjacebt properties. The greding plan shall be deslgeed is Minimize grade changes at property Tines; 3 • Pleat street trees aloes ' the $$ ddl eef i el d mod free tote. The trees shall be spaced 28 feet •n motor; be. 1.teted a: 5 3 9 5 1/07/85 NOTION CONTINUE; minimum of 5 feet from underground utilities and edge of driveway and shall be Frazines 'Raywood' or F. _'Moraine'. A 10 foot setback from sewer lines is recommended.` The trees shall be planted per the specifications of the Parks Departsoee+t and shall be installed prior to final inspection of any approved structures; • 4. Any censtrection work in the public right-of-way will require a street opening permit from the Public Barks Department; 5. Install one on -site fire hydrant approximately 300 feet from Middlefield Road with a minimem 6*"fire service line (1,000 GPM). The fire hydrant shall be installed to the specifica- tions and satisfaction of the Fire Department; 6. The devolbper shall disclose the presence of Noise genera.iog uses on edjacent properties tf all future buyers by incleding a statement discussing such uses, in the required Public Report submitted to the Department ' of Real Estate which must be given to each prospective purchaser for review prior to the si gel ng •f any sales agreement. A copy of the text of such statement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval; 7. All fence heights shall conform to Zoning Ordinance require- ments or fence exception obtained from the Be i 1 di ng Official; and 8. The project design shell be referred back to the Architectural Review Board for design modifications to the retaining wall and fence design to resolve visual impact created by the e1 errattonal changes resulting from the proposed drainage and grading plan. and give further consideration to noise attenuation. CouncilmeMber Renzel said the property was 560 feet deep, and abutted the Winter Club and other properties ripe for redevelop- ment. She . felt it would make eminent good sense to require a street on ;the, adjacent property line . to `ai low :proper circal ation into 4 site of that "size to get a proper density and the other benefits . She eoul d °oppose the motions 1ieTIGit PASSED bar a !•te of 7-t:,; Rev el �etisig ;'`ire", Levy , abseet. ITEM #17 PALO ALTO BIKEWAY PRIORITY PRQJttTS: TRANSPORTATION DEV- Mayes Klein said staff recommended ,that: a resolution be. passed 'uthorizing the' filing. of a, claim with the Metropolitan Transport- ation Commission (MTC)- for --al location cif Transportation Develop_ sent Act funds for fiscal year 196546, at- set forth in mere detail in the. staff report. Ass*c#ate Planner Gayle Li kens Skid that staff had nothing to add, but would be happy to answer_.`questlonee The" Counciloesrbees- would find eet. their places- a corrected . version , of- page 2 of the tetol ution'� attached: toe: the' staff. . , report wl th neap.- :1 anguage concarn1 ng the' env i ebei etsl rev°i ew.. = . , _ Cowncelmembee . Fletcher ssse.d . .: hoai a grant . request -could - be sobm$ttedi ;directly tin. MTC wirt•hout "first: going through the County. Ms Likens .'sail...,the p .0Cfd yes mere t� send oncik'rent1 y the _. requett` to the` CbuV ty' a#d' to 'MTC. SThe County review process would then be fa owed. end. 1the ..County's ret minendations would be sent i n Coto 'et et l ater date. ' 5 3 9 6 1/07/85 Counci iilember Wool -ley said she was concerned about the third project involving directional signing along major bike routes. There was a danger of putting up :so .many signs that a point was reached in Palo Alto where people no longer saw • any s Egns. She had discussed the matter with Ms. Likens, and-- wished to gn on record as requesting that if the project was funded, the new bike signs should as much as possible ,replace existing signs. The current signs read *Bicycle route"_° and the ,staff wished them to read ,"Bicycle route to Downtown". Instead of adding signs, existing signs should be replaced or, if that was .not possible, existing posts or poles should be used ae• much as .possible to avoid increasing the number of signs within the City. Mayor Klein read a statement from George Gi ourousi s, 992 Lorna Verde .Avenue, who urged increasing the priority of an Alma Street bicycle bridge. He had at one time worked in Menlo Park and found the route difficult. Many people used the railroad bridge, which seemed dangerous. Nancy Jewell Cross left a note asking the Council to calendar the item to a time more convenient to her earlier in the evening. MOTION: Cosnci.lmember Flettbsr sieved, seconded by Reazel, to adopt `tbe staff recommendations as .follows: 1. Approve the fal1owl ng revised priority list for bikeways projects in Palo Alto: a) Bike path lighting and safety improvements 020,000); b) Improve bike parking facilities at the train depots, business districts and City facilities; c) Directional signing along linage bike rostes (34,000); d) Palo Alto Nigh School /Toro and Country Village overpass, or other safety improvements ($150,0u4 to ;200,044); e) Traffic signal at Bryant/Ewbarcardero extension of Bryant Street Bike $•elevard ($100,400); f) Alma Street Bicycle Bridge ($150,000 to $200,000); g) New California Avenue underpass (31,400,000 or mere); .sa( \b) Overpass ever U.S.' 101 at .Fabian or Lome Verde ($000,006 or mere) RESOLUTION 6339 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL WINE CTT%-d ""!ALO. ALTO. ,AI TA64IZI14.Tt'1 .FILING OF.. A CLAIM MITN TIE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FINDS FOR FISCAL TEA 198646° Councilsember Fletcher referred to the lighting on Wilkie Way bridge. She noted from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) minutes that it suggested the lighting be at ground level. She pointed out that such lighting had been installed previously but was repeatedly vandalized. Vandal proof lighting at ground level would be very useful... The lighting on the bridge was poor because it was impossible to replace lights as fast as they were removed. The primary purpose of the railroad bridge at Alma by Palo Alto High School was to link Park Boulevard, which in essence was considered a bicycle boulevard, with a possible path going behind Town & Country and the other properties there and then with the path through El Camino Park to make a continuous route. Approximately five years previously tine PTA had requesteA such a -bridge to allow a crossing from the High School to the shopping center, but it was chronologically secondary. She considered them both to be important elements. 5 3 9 7 1/07/85 MOTION PASSED ananimensly, 7-0, Levy, Bechtel, absent. ITEM #18, EMERGENCY ORDINANCE RE PEDDLING AND SOLICITING DURING • 1 1 .. • • i i V • Mayor Kl ei n said he had received a call from a constituent re Section 1 F-2, which cal led for a ban applicable from Embarcadero to Middlefield. The constituent suggested it be made appl icable on Embarcadero fr'orn . El Camino Real to either the freeway or at least to Heather. Ms. Lee said the original rationale for the streets chosen had to (Jo with the concurrence of both pedestrian and vehicular congestion. If the Council was . concerned that solicitors or peddlers could interfere with vehicular' traffic in certal n areas, she saw no reason why an appropriate amendment should not be made. MOTION: Seoncil of Rem] moved, sec•nded . by_ Rlein,: to adopt the emergency ordinance re peddling and soliciting during Soper bell . ORDIN&NCE 35113 entitled -'SUINANCE OF TR►E COYIUCh. OF T*E Crr4 +Iry 'FIrerALTO ANEODING SEC T I Oil 4.1.0.050 0 IK E PALO ALTO II *I+CIPAL CODE. T'0 ,'PRORIIIT; PR :Ail MD SOLICITING 0M CERTAIN CITY:MEETS .ON UNSAY, MAIM 20, MS,. BETWEEN :ME NOVAS #F 10:00 A.N. AND O;00 P.N. AND 'DECLARING 1!N EMERGENCY' ANEND1iE#T: Mayer Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to amend F-2 t• ' extend t• Greer Read. Mayor Klein said his rationale for the, amendment was a concern that forbidding peddl erti in one area would cause them to back up towards the freeway. There were significant open spaces where it would be. possible, for example at the , Cultural, Center and at Wal ter Hayes and Ri nconada. Ms. Lee advised that a: four -fifths vote, of the Councilmembers present would be necessary to pass the emergency ordinance. Councilmember Sutorius was very .supportive. of the ordinance. He asked i f making pa rki ng avail able on a property would be considered piddling and .solititirig Ms. Lee said that a personal presence was necessary to quallfy as peddling or soliciting, so she did not think making parking available ;sold apply. Peddling orto) iciting- 'sent ,one had to be vending on the streets and byw'al ks-- sal l i ng or taking orders, etc. A "Park Here' sign did net qual ify as peddling or soliciting. NOTION PASSES' .enamiaarere' r 'SMIT 0.001 ahVestR• ADJOURNMENT The Council meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.a. ATTEST: APPROVED: 5 3`9 8 1/Oriel