Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTEs Regul ar Meeting June 10, 1985 ITEM PAGE Consent Calendar 5 8 4 9 Referral 5 8 4 9 Action 5 8 4 9 Item #1, Foothill Park Erosion Control Project - 5 8 4 9 Phase II Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 5 8 4 9 Item #2, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re appl ication of Stanford University for a tentative subdivision map for property located at 1100 Welch Road Item #3, PUBLIC HEARING: California Avenue Area and University Avenue Area Offstreet Parking and Parking Maintenance Districts 5 8 4 9 5 8 5 2 Item #4, Report from Council Legisl ative Committee 5 8 5 5 Item #5, Finance and Publ is Works Committee recommendation re Upgrading Tel ephone and Data Communications System Item #6, Policy and Procedures Committee recommendation re Neighborhood Traffic Studies Item #7, Architectural Review Board recommendation re 1985 Annual Report to Council Recess to Closed Sessirn re Litigation Item #8, Overnight Parking Item #9, .Request of Councilmembers Renzel , Cobb, and Fletcher re Overdevel opmen.t in Residential Zones 5 8 5 6 5 8 5 7 5 8 6 4 5 8 6 7 5 8 7 2 5 8 7 7 Adjournment: 11:36 p.m. 5 8 7 8 1 5 8 4 8 6/10/85 tegul ar Heeti ng June 10, 1985 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamil ton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m, PRESENT: Bechtel ( arrived at 7:40 p.m.) , Cobb, Fl etcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel Sutorius, Witherspoon Woolley Mayor Levy announced that a Study Session re Downtown Study was held in the Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m. Mayor Levy announced the reed for a Cl osed Session re Litigation Lesseer v. Albion City School District et al. pursuant to Covern- men t Code Section 549563(a), to be held during or after the regul ar meeting . CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM #1, FOOTHILL PARK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT . PHASE II (PAR 2-15) (CMR:368:5) Staff recommends that Council authorize a change order to the con- tract wi th Ferd Luscher for $1,380. AUTHORIZATION FOR CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT Ferd Luscher MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None ITEM #2, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION AAPLICATTN OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY FOR A T'! FOR PROPE 1 RECOMMENDATION IT : 5 ) RE Associate Planner Sarah Cheney said Richard Pollack of Environ- mental Impact Planning Corporation prepared a revised cumulative air quality impact analysis for the project at staff's request in response to a comment by Kathryn Dixon at the June 3, 1985 Council meeting. She read the following into the record: "_Richard Pollack, Director of Atmospheric Sciences with EIP prepared the air quality analysis for the Willow Road EIR and 1100 Welch Road initial study. He reviewed the new traffic volume data which was included in the medical school office building al so referred to as the MSOB traffic report to determine whether the additional traf- fic would result in violations of carbon monoxide air quality Standards in 1990. The increases in cumulative carbon monoxide concentration which would result from the intersections with the greatest increases in traffic volume would be about: 0.2 parts per. million for the one -hour average, and about 0.1 parts per million for the eight -hour average. Impacts at other intersections were expected to be less4 Increases of 0.2 parts per million are within the expected rate of the air quality model originally used. to assess air quality impacts." Mr. Pollack concluded that the additional traffic described in the MS08 traffic report was not 5 8 4 9 6/10/85 expected to resul t in significant cumulative carbon monoxide air quality impacts at the intersections analyzed in the Willow Road EIR or other area intersections. Ms. Dixon also asked about the meaning of the term "Willow Road extension" as used in the MSOB traffic report. As used in that report, the "Willow Road exten- sion" included the construction of the Willow Road al so known as Sand Hill Road extension itself and all mitigations placed as con - di ti oos on the project by the City of Palo Alto including the third lane on Willow Road which extended from 200 feet east of Pasteur to the Palo Al to city 1 imits at the San Franc isqui to Creek Bridge. Mayor Levy declared the publ is hearing open. Receiving . no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Fletcher said when the project was first in the pub - 1 ic' s eye, it seemed to be Stanford' s intent to make it into a co- op project. She asked why the idea was dropped. Niel Davidson, Stanford University Project Manager for 1100 Welch Road, said upon re-evaluation of the project, it was clear that for Stanford' s purposes to provide the housing in a way that Stanford retained flexibility, the rental approach was the best way to go. Councilmember~ Fletcher said if the Below -Market -Rate (BMR) units were sold, would they be reserved for Stanford related persons. Mr. Davidson said the BMR was written such that Stanford could select the people who bought those units. Councilmember Fletcher said there was reference to .rental units becoming available to non -Stanford -related people, and asked under what conditions that would happen, Mr. Davidson said Stanford did not envision that happening, and the provision was included so that if Stanford decided to make them available to other than Stanford people, the BMR units would al so be made available. in the sage proportion, Councilmember Fletcher was pleased to see the project move ahead. It was the type of thing needed in the community in terms of employers providing housing for the people they drew into the com- munity. MOTION: Coanc$lsember Fletcher moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation approving the revised Negative Declaration and find that the project, including the design and improvements (e.g. the street al igaments,- drainage and sanitary facilities, locations and sizes of all required rights - of -way, lot size, configuration, grading and traffic access)., is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 •f. the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the provisions of CEQA; that the project, as mitigated, will mot have a significant impact oo the environment, nor be likely to result in serious pebl is ieal th problems; that the site is physically suitable to the type and denisty of the proposed development; that there are no .conflicts with public :easements; and approve subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of Bel ow -Market -Rate (MR) housing units consistent with Palo Ml to' s Bel ow -Market -Rate Progren and with the pre- viously signed FMK agreement with .the proposed staff amendment (and Condi ti oa #20); 2. Install handicap ramps at the intersection of Pasteur and Welch (Standard Detail 1/794), and Pasteur and Willow (Standard Detail 177,3); 5 .8 5 .0 6/10/85 MOTION CONTINUED 3. Coordinate with Public Works staff prior to finalizing design of new sidewalk configuration; 4. Driveways shall be constructed as per City Standard Drawing 15140; 5. Drainage to the existing junction box in Willow Road from the on -site 18 -inch storm drain will not be permitted. Drainage disposal shall be to the open channel ditch on the north side of Willow Road. Drainage shall be, designed as a storm drain pipeline gravity system. The Architect/Engineer shall submit plans and calculations to the Public Works Engineering (PWE) office for approval at least 30 days prior to building and/or grading permit submittal. Pipeline installation shall conform to Section 20, City Standard Specifications if going with #2 below. Installation shall be either: 1) jOcking methods during weekdays and/or weekeeds, or 2) open trench installa- tion (weekends only); 6. Submit a detailed grading plan to the Public Works Engineering Office for review and approval. If the project is to be phased, the grading concept and drainage disposal method shall first be identified for the entire project. Each phase shall meet the requirements of the master plan. The issuance of a grading and drainage permit is .'ontingent upon the approval of the Public Works Department. 7. Applicant shall submit a soils report, prepared by a soils engineer, which shall contain recommendations for allowable maximum cut/fill slopes for temporary and permanent grading. 8. All existing street trees other than those located in proposed access driveways shall be retained. Protection and preserva- tion of existing street trees will be necessary. The recom- mendations of a qualified arborist will be required for the intrusion of excavation near existing trees. 9. Any construction work in the public right-of-way will require a street, opening permit from .the Public Works Department. 10. All trenching within the public right-of-way must conform Ito City Standard Specification Section 20. 11. Install one additional on -site fire hydrant on the southwest roadway. The fire hydrant shall be installed to the specifi- cations and satisfaction of the Fire Department. 12. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide a right-hand turn lane approximately 200 feet long on Welch Road at the Pasteur Drive intersection if future traffic conditions are found to warrant sock a turn lent. The agree- ment shall require: (1) that Stamford University shall pro- vide, on at least an annual "basis, traffic coents for Welch Road and Pasteur Drive inthe vicinity . of the 1100 Welch road parcel. (2) that a Level of Service me shall trigger the widening of the intersection` (3) in the event of an inter- section widening, unless an alternative design is agreed to by the City, the additional approximate 12 foot by 200 foot right-of-way shall be dedicated as an easement to the City; and (4) the obligation of Stanford University to provide the widened intersection improvement shall extend to the end of 1995. 13. Upon payment of comnectloe charges .in accordance with utility rate scaedul e, the project will be providedwith a gas main, water and sower services. 5 e 5 1 6/10/85 MOTION CONTINUED 14. The on -site private domestic water and sewer system will be paid for and installed by the developer. 15. The on -site gas system will be installed and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. The location of gas . meters wi l l be deter- mined by the dater -Gas -Sewer Engineering Division. 16. A fourth gate station to receive gas from PG&E is being planned in order to improve system reliability. If required by hater -Gas -Sewer Engineer, the developer may have to share i n the cost of said station. 17. All utilities work shall be done in accordance with the C` ty of Palo Alto Utilities Specifications. 18. The loction of water, gas, and sewer mains and .services will be reviewed and approved during the improvement plan phase. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall submit copies of the improvement plans, including a water, gas and electric metering plan, to the Utilities Department for review and approval. Separate metering of gas and electric service may be required. 19. The installation of the on --site water, gas and sewer lines will be governed by the Uniform Plumbing Code. The exception to the above will be the gas service installed by the City of Palo Alto. 20. Stanford University shall annually provide the City of Palo Alto with: (1) the number .of non-hometel units occupied by Stanford rel ated and non -Stanford related kousehol cis; (2 ) identification of all units that are owner -occupied, and (3) the number of hometel units available for non-hometel occupan- c y. 21. Compliance with the terms and litigation measures identified in the Traffic Mitigation Agreement, contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 1100 Welch Road project (84-EIA-61, revised 5/23/85), shall be required as a condition of approval for this project. Councitmember Sutorius shared Councilmember Fletcher' s excitement in terms of the project. t. In the period between the Planning Com- mission's action on the project and it being :before the Council in its revised form in terms of parking, he bel ieved the findings and mitigations associated with the laudable project had strengthened, and he was excited to see it move ahead. Council member Wool ey was al so pl eased with the project. She hoped the good news continued .and the development of housing on the other part of the parcel would be considered within the next year. MOTION PASSED uneniuously.. ITEM f3, PUBLIC NEARING: CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA AND UNIVERSITY. t( C ARK I i C AND PARK I NG MAIIiTENANC DTSTR 7TSd Mayor Levy said it was. the time for the public hearing on the parking assessment rolls for the following projects: California Avenue Parking Garage Project No. 65.09, which was a resolution _ adopted_ Jar; -nary 3, 1967; Cal ifornia Avenue Area Offstreet Parking Project No. 71-63, _ adopted September 10, 1974, University Avenue Civic Center Parking Project No 66-08, adopted June 13, 1966, University Avenue Area, 0ffstr eet Parking Project No. 75-63, adopted August 9, 1976; and University Avenue Lot J Parking Garage 5 8 5 2- 6/10/85 Project No. 82-33, adopted May 21, 1984. The City Engineer pre- pared and filed with the City Clerk a report providing for the levying of special assessments within the parking assessment dis- tricts created and established for the projects and under the resolutions of intentions just expressed. The report sets forth the amounts of assessments proposed to be. levied for the fi sc al year 1985-86. The assessments will be used to pay principal and interest on the bonds issued in the various projects. The report is and has been open for public inspection, The purpose of the hearing was to allow the Council to hear all persons.: having an interest in any real property within the parking assessment dis- tricts, to hear all objections, protests or other written communi- cations from any such interested persons, to take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to matters contained in the fi 1 ed report, to remedy and correct any error or informality in the report, and to amend, alter, modify and correct and confirm the report and each of the assessments therein, Mayor. Levy decl ared the publ ic. hearing open. Hal Hudson, 535 Everett, Executive Director of the Senior Coordinating Council (SCC) , said the SCC paid almost $1,000 in lieu of its assessment to the Assessment District for the prop- erty, the parking lot, and the building itself on Bryant. Some time ago the SCC was notified that it would al so be assessed for the parking garage on Lot J. The first assessment was to be $3,114, and a few months ago the Council agreed the particular assessment for Lot J would not be one the .SCC would have to meet. He requested assurance that it was a continuing policy and that the SCC would not have to appeal each year for the same considera- tion. City" Manager Bill Zaner said in the current year staff made a sup- plemental appropriation to their contract, but the City did not actually pick up the assessment. Mr, Hudson said that was correct. Mayor Levy asked if that was in the budget for the corning year. Mr. Zaner said no, Mayor Levy bel ieved the appropriate forum for Council to deal with the matter was at the budget hearings. Mr. Zaner commented that the Finance and Publ lc Works (F&PW) Com- mittee would be reviewing the budgets for the social services agencies the following evening. It was easy enough to determine by 1 poking at the contract. Barney Dahl, said under the. University Avenue Area Civic Center Off -Street Project, the required parking spaces for the 64 -room hotel , was one space per guest room. He spoke with Mr, Zimmerman who expl dined there was one space per guest room. There were not 64 cars every night in the hotel , and he requested tha t the space requirement be reduced. The hotel was now required to have 94 parking spaces versus 61 previously. He -asked if anything could be done. Chief Planning Official . Bruce Freeland said the parking..require- ment was cross-referenced to the zoning ordinance which estab- lished the actual requirements.. The parking _ requirement for hotels was one space per guest room. He was: unaware of any way to modify the requirement without modifying the assessment provisions or the zoning ordinance. Mayor , Levy decl ared the publ is hearing c1 osed. rs 8 5 3 6/10/85 MOTION: Councilmember Eechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the resolutions confirming the engineer's report and assessment rolls. RESOLUTION 6393 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE. PROJECT NO. 65-09 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86" RESOLUTION 6394 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 71-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86' RESOLUTION 6395 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA CIVIC CENTER OFF-STREET PROJECT NO. 66-08 FOR FISCAL TEAR 1985-86' RESOLUTION 6396 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 0 ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 75-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86' RESOLUTION 6397 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF O ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE LOT J PARKING GARAGE PROJECT NO. 82-33 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86' Councilmember Klein asked if the rule of one parking space per hotel room, which appeared sensible to him, was new. Mr. Dahl said previously, under Title 17 of the Palo Alto Muni- cipal Code, the requirements were "one space per guest room; plus the appl icabl a requirements for eating and drinking, banquet assembly, commercial or others required for such use less 75 per cent of the spaces required for guest rooms." Apparently, the 54 -space figure was reduced by 75 percent and assessing the hotel at 13 spaces for the 64 -room capacity hotel. Councilmember Sutorius clarified the City was at fault in prior years and' underassessed the number of applicable spots. The error was determined, the correction was made, and in essence Mr. Dahl was asking if there was a .way to modify the rate shock. Mr. Dahl said that was correct. Councilmember Klein asked about the 75 percent rule. Mr. Freeland said the rule was meant to consider things like ban- quet facilities and space in hotels that might be used in part by the guests themselves. It made more sense to apply to, places like the Holiday Inn than to a downtown residential hotel. Cogan: ilmember Klein clarified the reduction applied to the public spaces in the hotel --not to the hotel rooms. Mr. Freeland said the hotel ordinance started by setting the num- ber of spaces relative to the number of hotel rooms. It then modified that number ` of spaces for non -guest room spaces in the hotel and made a downward adjustment factor. In. many regards, one might think it should have an upward adjustment factor for some of the other uses, and it was a mystery to him how it was originally drafted. He believed the formula, as _.pointed out by Councilmember Sutorius, was fairly applied in the subject instance. Councilmember Klein asked about the number of spaces Mr. Dahl' s hotel was required to have and how was it computed. 5 8 5 + 6/10/85 Mr. Free1 and did not have the m p on Mr. Dahl' s example, but said the zoning ordinance requirement was the same as cited by Mr. Dahl : "one space per guest room; pl us appl icabl e requirements for eating, drinking, banquet and assembly and commercial or other spaces as required for such. use, less 75 percent of the space required for guest rooms. The theory was that the guests would be primary users of the restaurants, drinking facilities, ban- quets, assembly rooms, etc., and therefore it would be double counting to have full parking requirements for all the various uses in a hotel. It, therefore, made a downward adj ustrnen', in the number of spaces on the theory that 75 percent of the guests would be using the other -facilities. Councilmember K1 ein said 75 percent applied only to the publ is spaces rather than the hotel rooms. Mr. Freeland said Councilmember Kl ein was correct. Councilmember K1 ein said Mr. Dahl had a good deal going for a lot of years. Councilmember Renzel said since the Cardinal Hotel was apparently leased out to people rather than used directly as a hotel, she asked if there was any opportunity for the owner, if he wished to seek relief, to have it determined that it was a residential use as opposed to a commercial hotel use. Mr. Freeland said the parking requirement for residential uses was considerably higher than for hotel uses. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #4, REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (LEG 4-2) Councilmember F1 etcher said Senate Bi11 969 (Robbins) dealt with the publ is liability - City coverage of punitive damages against City employees. The legislation which was previously supported had a provision which permitted publ is entities to purchase insur- ance against the award of punitive damages, which was now el imi- nated from the current bill. The Legislative Committee recom- mended opposition. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher on behalf of the Council Legis- lative Committee moved that the City Council oppose SB 969 and direct the Mayor to communicate the City's opposition to the ap- propriate Iegislators. MOTION PASSED unani o sly. Councilmember Fletcher said Senate Bill 75 (Foran) dealt with tort reform and was known as the "deep pocket" relief legislation. The bill passed the Senate and was now before the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and information said that .similar bills in previous years were defeated in that Committee. Since the City had no rep- resentatives on the Committee, the Council Legislative Committee recommended that Councilmembers individually contact Assemblyman Byron Sher and request that he urge his colleagues to pass the bil t r, MOTION. Councilmember Fletcher on behalf of the Council Legis- lative Committee moved that .0 rmncilarembers tate an active role in encouraging passage of SB 75 Count ilraevaber $utori us said the Chamber of Commerce had a. new newspaper and in that day's copy he noted a full page commentary on various l eg i sl a ti v e bills on which the local Chamber ° was advis- ing its membership. He vas pleased to see that SH 75 headed the full page and in bold print the action being supported : by the Chamber was exactly the _,same: action of the City. He expressed his appreciation, Councilmernber Fletcher commended the Chamber on its recent trend to communicate. with the community and be more involved in City Council activities. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Vice Mayor Cobb asked about the Naylor bill; Mr. Zaner said it was still pending and was not yet voted on. Councilmember Sutorius said the Council was not only interested in the Naylor bill , but the Fel ando bill (AB 2198) was the one in which the City was most interested in having defeated. Part of the Council' s rol e was to make contacts, and in hi s contact with Assemblyman Byron Sher, he had not yet made up his mind. tie, hi s Sacramento office, and his local office were inundated with con- tacts on the matter, many of which were supportive. Most of the contacts were stimul ated contacts sometimes by peopl e unaware of the nuances of the legislation or their consequences, but they took a posi ti on of requesting the Fel ando bill be supported. Assemblyman Sher was in a difficul t position with a great body of constituents, and he encouraged other Counc ilmembers to ensure that while he knew the City' s position, it did not hurt for him to hear it again. The Nayl or bill referred to by Vice Mayor Cobb was a reaffirmation of the existing bill. The Fel ando bill negated it. ITEM #5, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE UPGRADING TELERTOriC AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM ( FIN g-7 Milt: 361: 5) Councilmember Bechtel said she questioned staff extensively as to the need to hire a consultant for designing the City' s telecom- munications system and was convinced it was necessary. The City had to think about installing the necessary types of tel ephones in terms of 1 ink up between the City' s various fac.il ities, the cable television possible link, and all of the other items listed under the scope of work under Phases 1, 2, and 3. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved re Upgrading the Telephone and Data Communications System - Consultant Selection, that the Mayor be authorized to execute an agreement with the firm of Brandon Inter science Inc. in an amount not to exceed $44,700 for assistance in upgrading the City's telephone system and upgrading the Civic Center Data Com- runicetioaa, System, and to negotiate concurrently with the second ranked firm of Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, in the event an agree- ment is not reached with Brandon Intersciencer, Inc. Further, staff will return to the Council with the negotiated agreement for approval. AWARD . OF CONTRACT Brandon Interscience, Inc. Councilmember Woolley said under -Phase 2, Item B, the system would be cost effective in terms of operation, and Item D, under Phase 2, the activities would define the City's telecommunications man- agement and sta ffi ng requirements for the system sel ec ted . She asked if that meant the City was going to hire more staff in order to use the system. Deputy City Manager Larry Moore said : no. The intent was to be clear in terms of whatever requirements were necessary with what- ever system was recommended. Staff did not anticipate additional staff. Vice Mayo^ Cobb understood that peer a relativelyshort period of time the City would hove existing --staff people:- who were up to - speed based on working. with the consul tants such' that they would operate as in-house experts after the consultants performed their - initial duties. Mr, Moore said that was correct. MOTION_ PASSED unanimously. ITEM #6, POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDIES (PLA 4-1) (CMR:362T) Counc 11 member Wool ey said most of the Committee' s discussion cen- tered on the timing of the Barron Park Study and the Midtown Study. The status quo would have the Barron Park Study begin in October and taking 12 to 18 months, which meant the Midtown Study would begin in October, 1986 or April , 1987. The Committee was concerned about that much delay for the Midtown Study. The prob- lem was Zrtially that the Evergreen Park Study took so long, but. it al so had to do with the nature of neighborhood traffic studies. Staff noted that in Pal o Al to the process took as much time as the actual gathering ofthe technical data . The neighborhood traffic studies received only one-third of one of the four professional staff persons time so only one staff person spent one-third of their time on neighborhood traffic studies which strung the studies out over a considerable period of time. In order to expedite the Midtown Study, the Committee decided to recommend that a consultant be hired for $33,000 so that the Midtown Study could begin in October, 1985. MOTION: Counc$lrereber Wool ley for the Po1 icy and Procedures Committee moved to adopt the staff recommendation as follows: 1 . Reaffirm the existing prioritized list of neighbo► hood traffic steadies as fol 1 ows : University Avenue/Crescent Park; Southgate; Evergreen Park; Midtown ( Cowper Street/Colorado Avenue); North Downtown; and Addison Avenue/University Park; end 2. Retain the services of a consultant to do a traffic study for the Midtown area so that this study coul d begin during the fiscal year 1985-86. Councilmember Bechtel said during the F&PW Committee meetings over the past few weeks, much time was spent on the budget. The Corn- ittee discussed some of the other consulting budgets and she questioned what the other three and two- thirds people did in the Transportation Division that only one-third of one person out of four worked on neighborhood traffic studies. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overwey said page 5 of CMR:290:5 indicated where the time allocation was. Basically, it went toward traffic signal system work, traffic safety and opera- tions questions which covered complaints and -.requests which were neighborhood oriented but tended to be of a smaller scale nature, parking took about 50 percent .of a person's time, and general pl anning studies, such as the Downtown Study, etc. Councilmersber Bechtel asked what the City would get for its $33,000. Overway said the issues of concern related to vol ume of traf- fic, associated noise, speed, presence of buses on the roadway which was .fairly resolved, and the desire to reinstitute bikeway facilities on Colorado. Staff expected to have a better under- standing in conjunction with the neighborhood interests with the actual facts existing around the pieces of information. He would not proceed with the expectation of putting up barriers and hoped there were other measures. Parking intrusion on Colorado from the business area district was a problem and solutions could be to 1 unit parking to one side of the street or identifying possibii ties for future offstreet parking One of the primary problem areas was the intersection of Colorado and Middlefield where there were generally a significant amount of accidents. Some appropri- ate improvements particularly on. Mil ddl efiel d, might be to take 5 8 5 7 6/10/85 out the signal on Cowper and onl y leave it for bicyclist, rather than for automobiles, thus making the particular intersection at Oregon less desirable. He could say he saw that happening, but those were the kinds of issues likely to be raised during the study. He understood they were best evaluated and understood within the context of a good -information base.` Councilmember Woolley questioned the cost effectiveness of a con- soltant. When staff said a typical study took eight to eleven person months, she asked if that meant full time. Mr. Overway responded it would be equivalent to one person working full time or a couple of people working part time adding up to eight to el even months. Counc ilmember Woolley said the report spoke to a consul tant working three months, and she asked how a consultant could accom- plish in three months what a staff person would accomplish in eight to eleven months. Mr. Overway said the eight to eleven months was not meant to dis- tinguish whether it was staff or a consultant. The reason for the lower amount of time proposed in the second staff report was a better understanding of the particular area in. which they were dealing. The first report dealt with a typical analysis, hut as pointed out, there was no such thing as a typical analysi s. The second report was a better assessment .of the study area, and as indicated on the graphic contained in the report, staff would concentrate on a relatively small area within a larger area. If staff looked at the entire area, the estimated time would go up higher than that shown. A through traffic survey was al ready done on Cowper and Col orado, and efforts were al ready completed in terms of adjusting bus routes and reducing the number of buses on Col orado. Councilmember Woolley asked if it would take less than the year to year and one- half projected ted in the first staff report when staff 1 coked in detail at what needed to be done in Barron Park. Mr. Overway assessed that the easier things were already impl e- mented in Barron Park. The . more compl ex things were yet to be resolved, the reason being the time and effort required to do so. Councilmember Woolley realized it would be unfair to switch Barron Park and Midtown, but Midtown was such a brief study that it,,was a temptation to turn them around in order to get away from hiring a consultant. The report also said that staff involvement with the consul tant would take one and one-half person months of one of the four professionals, If the City had to add one and one- hal f person months in-house working with the consultant who would work three months, it seemed like an inefficient use of staff time. Mr. Overway said there was staff time associated which resulted from deb eloping the request for proposal , reviewing proposal s, going through the consultant selection process, writing the staff reports, providing information to the consul tant on what was already done and getting him started and organized, keeping some kind of contact and review process going while the .consul tant was doing the work and recognizing that at the end of the study, there would be staff time devoted to developing the recommendations and bringing them to - the appropriate bodies. The al ternative to reducing the time was to let the consultant proceed with the neighborhood, but hi s experience showed that not tobe a favorable way to go. Staff would end up with a larger staff commitment subsequent to the study itsel f. 5 8 5 8_. 6/10/85 Cauncilmerber wool i ey asked from where the staff professional time would come. Mr. Overway suggested the time be an increase in the time staff took, to respond to complaints and requests which had effects on neighborhoods and the impl ementation of CIP projects. Those were the two areas that made the most sense to him. Councilmember Woolley referred to the Evergreen Park Study and said more of Mr. Stoffel's time was involved with the neighborhood traffic study so; less time was put into the complaint category. If the actual figure during the Evergreen Park Study was 65 perc- ent rather than 85 percent for the traffic and safety operations, the neighborhood traffic studies were actually 50 percent during the Evergreen Park Study rather than 30 percent. Mr. Overway said that was generally correct. Staff had compl aints that were not responded to in the six -week time frame they hoped for, but some compl aints took much longer. Councilmember 4itherspoon asked about the urgency involved because it seemed to her that staff's priorities were being rearranged and the work load in the department was being reorganized. It would cost $33,000, to gather data and see if there was anything that could be done to alleviate some of the probl ems, which she did not feel was compl icated. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said when the staff report was prepared. for the Pol icy and Procedures Committee the purpose was to expose the current priority list and pace to find out whether they were satisfactory. If the pace of the work was accelerated, a consultant could be hired or addition- al staff could be hired. The P&P Committee concluded the appro- priate recommendations were to maintain the priority 1 ist, to accelerate the pace of work, and to go with the consul tant rather than staff. Some ramifications of hiring a consultant were out- lined. In terms of the Midtown study, or any significant neigh- borhood study, it would be nice if one could look at a map and the' numbers and return with a proposal and wrap the whole thing up in a coups e of months wi tin $50, $75, or $100 worth of staff time, but that was unrealistic in Palo Alto, Residents expected to be involved and expected specific answers to their questions.. If an answer was unavailable, complaints were received from people who felt left out, ignored in the process, or that they did not re- ceive adequate information for their neighborhood. It was their homes, streets, and kids crossing the block, etc. so they were understandably excited. The question before the Council was co at Council wanted to do to get the type of information it needed to answer the questions asked in every. other neighborhood involved in the type of study. Vice Mayor Cobb asked when the Barron Park study would start and finish and when the Midtown Study would start and finish. Mr, Over way said the Barron Park Study would start around September and Midtown would start around the end of the year. Vice Mayor Cobb asked how long the studies would take respective- ly-. Mr. Overway said the Midtown Study would take about three months. Vice Mayor~ Cobb said at one time the Barron Park Study was pro- jected at 12 to 18 months. Mr. Overway expected it would be closer to nine to twelve. Councilmember Bechtel asked if the consultant would work on the Midtown Study only, or also on the . Barron Park Study, 5.8.5 9 6/10/85 Mr. Overway said only Midtown. Councilmember Bechtel cl arifled that the environmental impact report for the Downtown area would cost about $21, 000, and the Midtown Study would cost about $33,000. Mr. Schreiber believed the comparison would be better stated if they looked at how much staff time was spent on traffic and other issues over the past year -and - a - half to two years s because all the data base for Downtown was :in pl ace and the transportation model was basically in p1 ace. The numbers were cranked, and now much of the information had to be pulled together, but substantially less new information was necessary than if they were starting from scratch. Ultimately, Downtown would cost much more than anything to be spent in the Midtown area study. Mayor Levy said if a consultant was hired, the Midtown project would be finished in March, 1986. He asked when the Midtown Study would be completed if a consul taut was not hired. Mr. Schreiber responded the Midtown study would start after the Barron Park Study was completed. Absent a maj or reshuffling of staff .work priorities, which would probably include cutting back substantially on involvement wi th regional agencies and with County, staff resources were not available. Mayor Levy said the difference was the nine to twelve month length of the 3arron Park Study. Mr. Overway agreed and said when a consul tant was hired the work would be concentrated in a shorter period of time. If the normal course was followed, staff would continue to spend approximately 30 percent of its time on the Barron Park Study, and 30 percent on the Midtown Study, which 30 percent would expand the length of time. Mayor Levy understood that if the $30,000 were appropriated now, it would enable Council to complete the Midtown Study nine to twelve months sooner than if it was not appropriated. He asked if that was correct, Mr. Overway said yes. Councilmember Klein said if the Barron Park Study started in the fall and took 12 to 18 months, the Midtown Study would commence in April, 1987. If the midtown Study took the same amount of time, it would be the end of 1988, better than three-and-a-half years from now, before it was completed. If there were any slips, it would be into 1 989. He wondered where staff disagreed with that time frame as outl ined just one month agoh. Mr. Overway responded that Cowancilme+nber Klein took 18 months as the outset for both studies. He believed 12 months would be a better average, which meant that Barron Park would begin in September as suggested, and be completed one year from then, or in nine months if they were efficient. Staff would proceed with Midtown at that point, which would probably take a similar period of time if staff did it. Councilmember Klein said since every study ran longer than esti- Gated, it: was conceivable that if the procedure outlined using staff was followed, it might be into 1989 before Midtown was finished. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Bob Moss, 401.0 0rme,_ said.. the Barron Park Traffic Committee wrote several letters outlining many concerns in problem areas so they were not starting from ground zero. Areas were identified where they wanted the traffic studies to concentrate, and, because of the nature of the area, the number of maj or internal streets wi th which they were concerned could be counted on one hand. Many of the problems could not be handled by the Association or the City as they depended upon Cal trans, and that was known in advance. He would be surprised if the Barron Park Traffic Study took 12 to 18 months. Furthermore, there was an active Traffic Committee, which was the only neighborhood traffic committee in the City and sanc- tioned by the Ci ty, and there were many rest dents who were inter- ested in , and ac ti v el y served on the committee who could serve as a resource to staff and the Council. He was concerned about a three-month consultant for Midtown as staff already indicated a desire by the people in the neighborhood to comment and interact with whatever information came out of the study. He believed it was unreal istic to think that could happen in a three-month period. In the case of the Barron Park area, information could be distributed to the community and a reaction received from them in a relatively short times For example, Barron Park had a distribu- tion system whereby information could be circul aced to 1 ,800 households in four hours. If, for example, the Council wanted to give them a staff report, a recommendation, or an announcement of a meeting, it could get out to the people in the community and a reaction received quickly. He urged Council go ahead with the Barron Park Study. The Palo Alto Civic League urged that the studies go forward expeditiously and the City divert whatever resources were necessary to do so. The League did not take a position as to whether the mar shall ing of resources was more appropriate by hiring more staff or a consultant, but wanted the neighborbood traffic studies done expeditiously. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue believed Mr. Moss covered many of the Barron Park issues. The neighborhood traffic studies were crucial, but as long as there were serious problems with main streets, the overflow would affect the neighborhoods, and unless the problem was studied, more barrier situations would be seen. There would be a probl em with the new buildings now coming on line in the Cal i fornia Avenue area and the Downtown, even without get- ting into expansions that would happen as a result of the Downtown Study. Symptoms could be treated with more barriers or street undul ators, and as pointed out in the May :2 staff report, no major capacity improvements were made on Palo Al to streets for the past 15 years to handle actual traffic increases. It was a delicate bal once of confi icting obj ectives. He did not want to encourage more development, but the present situation needed to be dealt with, which meant cleaning up El Camino, Barron Park, and Page Mill, and maybe adding a lane somewhere. The problem would have to be dealt with on a city-wide basis or the neighborhood studies would not make much sense. Councilmember Klein cl arifled there was an Evergreen Park Traffic Committee. He believed the processes needed to be expedited and it was unfortunate the Barron Park Study was delayed for so long. He was concerned about a Parkinson' s. Law of studies in government at all level s, and had yet to see a study compl eted in less time than initially estimated. `; The Midtown area had been telling the Council they believed they had a problem with regard to traffic, and that concern needed to be responded to. There were concerns that should be reviewed, and. the results of the study should not be. prej cadged. Maybe there were no easy answers, or maybe a con- sultant could come up with some answers to help alleviate the problem. If the City, was not paying a consultant, it paid the staff. There was a probl ear in Midtown which needed to be respond- ed to in a timely fashion. He , did not 1 ike spending the City' s money on consultants any more than anyone 'el se but bel ieved from time to time it was necessary and - appropriate. It was ; one of those occasions and the Council should approvethe recommendation of the P&P Committee. Reui`ei ;unc;urged with Councilmember Klein, The priority 1 ist for doing the traffic studies was set up in March of 1979, which meant the study requests were received prior to 1979, and the neighborhoods continued to express their concerns about the traffic problems. Six to eight to ten years was a long time when talking about 1 ittle children, who would be grown and off to college by the time the traffic study was done. She urged the traffic studies be completed expeditiously to improve the quality of 1 ife in the neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Cobb- agreed wi i.h Councilmembers Klein and Renzel , The Barron Park Study _ waited too 1 ong Everyone contributed to making the Evergreen Park Study take longer and involve more than it needed. He hoped the pitfalls could be avoided in the next two traffic studies. Councilmember Woolley would not support the motion because she believed both staff and the Council benefited from the Evergreen Park Study so that the City should be more efficient in bringing the Barron Park Study through to a culmination. There was now a 12 -months as opposed to an 18 -month, estimation period. During the Evergreen Park Study, 20 percent more professional time was spent on the neighborhood traffic study, so in other words it was 50 percent of one professional person. She did not bel ieve the six- week l ag time in servicing residents' compl aints was too long and staff should continue with that distribution of time. The Barron Park Study would not take more than a year and she was will ing to let the studies go in order. She would not support a consul tent. Councilmember Fletcher said the Midtown neighborhood representa- tive said their study was requested in 1977, and considerable con- struction occurred in that area since that time. She supported expediting the studies by hiring the consultant. Regarding data colcollection and analysi s, the tasks included traffic vol umes, acci- dents, roadway inventory features, roadway capacity and level of service, through traffic, travel needs and parking. .She empha- si zed the analysi s shoul d incl ude bicycl e traffic and parking as well as automobile and other types of traffic. Bicycle accidents were a concern in that neighborhood and the more safety could be improved for bicycles, the less automobile traffic there would be on the roadway. She clarified that bicycles were part of the traffic mix and needed to be an integral part of the analysis and data col l ection. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed with Councilmember Woolley. Since a consul tant would not be on boarel and working until almost the beginning of the year, they were only buying about eight months leeway by paying $33,000. She pointed out that construc- tion in _ the Midtown area would be completed by then and those fig- ures could be added into any study to be made it they waited six or eight months more. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the start and end date of the Midtown Study was predicated on the P&P Committee' s recommended priority schedule, and, even if staff had authority to contract. with a consultant, they would del ay in :making that contract until after the Barron Park Study was well underway or completed. He asked if it was viable to hire the consultant it July, 1985 and employ the consultant for the approximately .three working months identified in the 66 working day schedule. Mr. Overway said that was possible in theory, but in reality the request for proposal process extended the .time frame. _ He was concerned about a desire to begin the Barron Park Study before -formally beginning the Midtown, Study just. to keep the essence of the priority in order. The consultant preparation and selection process could proceed on a time frame that might - precede the Barron Park Study al though it tended to distract staff resources. He was frustrated with staff's inability to proceed with the Barron Park. Study and was concerned that staff get started on it 5 -8 5 2 6/10/85 and not deviate. One strategy for doing so was to be sure to start on it aiid then start on the second study. Councilmember Sutorius said his vote was swayed by the observa- tions of Councilmember Woolley, as Chair of the P&P Committee, Councilmember Witherspoon, and Councilmember. Bechtel. He might be favorably inclined towards a later contract proposal that would involve some data coil ection, but not the expensive eval uation and analysis, for a sum of money equal to or less than what a con- sultant was paid $500 per day to do, and the City could benefit more than just one neighborhood. Mayor Levy did not support the appropriation of additional funds for a consul tant. He wa3 convinced that staff p1 eyed a key role in the City s traffic studies in their deal ings with the public and he would rather City staff work with the public rather than outside consul tants. A tremendous change was occurring in Midtown as a result of City Council actions over the past 16 pl us or minus years. A lot of residential development was going in and commer- cial development was going out hich would change the traffic mix in the Midtown area. He saw no harm in allowing the study to lag by about 12 months so the City could have the completion of the residential developments on Loma Verde and can Middlefield. Coun- cil heard a lot of theory about what traffic was generated by var- ious developments and he was more satisfied with the facts after the developments were up and occupied. He would not support the consul tabt at that time. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Councilmember Woolley said the schedule showed the Mi dtown Study as beginning in 1985. She was willing to support the order of priorities, but the Midtown Study might not begin in 1985 depend- ing on the second part of the motion. Mayor Levy understood the order of priorities were the items one through seven, but Council was not voting on the dates. Councilmember Klein did not understand why Council should be tai k- ing about order of priority on seven different items when the first two were already completed, the third was in essence com- pleted, and the six and seventh were inactive. They were really only talking about items four and five which were Barron Park and Midtown which was basically what the second part of the motion was about. Mayor Levy said the motion before the Council was to affirm the priorities, and he disagreed because the dates of study were inactive, but they were still priorities as laid out by Council. Counc ilmember K1 ein failed to see how the University Avenue/ Crescent Park Study could be regarded as a study when it was done. Mr. Schreiber° said the conclusion of the University Avenue/ Crescent Park Study was that no action was taken, but there was a caveat pending the Dumbarton traffic .impact analysis sometime in the mid -1980's. Staff was collecting data now regarding impact along University Avenue; Coune.ilmeeber Klein said if staff was serious about that, he asked why University Avenue was not listed as number one. He asked if it went before Barron Park if the data was received. Mr., Schreiber anticipated that :if the data indicated a significant problem, staff would have to return to Council fdr _reassessment, but he believed the probl ems to be identi fled woul d be narrow in scope. They were not tai king about a large study, but rather a focus of a narrow prObl em within a couple of intersections. 5 8 6 3 6/10/85 Councilmember Klein -5aid the P&P Committee focused on Barron Park and Midtown, and for that reason, i f the motion was to be divided, he would vote N no," because he was, not ready to make - the decision. FIRST PART OF MOTION TO REAFFIRM PRIORITIES PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Bechtel, Fletcher, Klein, Renzel voting "no." Councilmember Bechtel believed those who voted "no" in the first part of the motion did so because it made no sense. She reaffirmed Barron Park as the next priority and that was the extent of her priorities. In terms of the second part of the motion and whether to hire a consul tan t, she argued strongly against spending extra money. She did not like spending $33,000 for a consul tan t, but with the present organization of the Traffic Division, she did not believe the area would get fair attention for several more years. She would reluctantly support the consultant and urged the City Manager and staff to re-evaluate their priorities to see if they were spending time on extraneous matters that should be weeded out. Vice Mayor Cobb supported the first part of the motion because he did not want any misinterpretation that the Barron Park Study should be the .next priority. He supported the consultant because he bel ieved it was a mistake to wait until all the dens el opment was comps eted. One of the reasons the people were so concerned about getting the study done now was that the results might impact fur- ther development decisions of the Council . Midtown was one of the most heavily impacted areas of the City next to downtown and people were frightened for their neighborhoods and wanted to know what the impacts would be before more damage was done. SECOND PART OF LOTION TO RETAIN A CONSULTANT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Levy, Sutorlus, Witherspoon, Woolley voting "no." ITEM #7 , ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE 1985 ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL (COU 5-2) (CMfit:366:5) Architectural Review Board (ARB) member Tony Carrasco said the ARB recommended establishing a limit on the maximum size reduction of projects before the ARB. The ARB was a technical ' body that made design decisions and the limit would heap keep it from getting into political debates. The ARB recommended its involvement during the zoning process because during Planning Commission hearings they found that decisions on land use were made more on a traffic and use kind of analytical base rather than a volume and design idea. The. ARB wanted to contribute its experti se in shaping that vol ume to describe how the zoning env el ope would rel ate to adj scent proj ects and to each of the other proj ec is within the zone. The ARB recommended its meetings be noticed to the pubs is and proposed four different categories of items: those with greater impacts would be noticed to a wider audience; those with minor impacts and a lesser audience would be noticed ranging from the newspaper to an agenda that staff would have at. the P1 an- ning counter. The ARB recommended a design plan of Palo Alto starting with the downtown area. The ARB bel ieved buildings should last 60 years and it looked at buildings in terns of that long range perspective. The ARB found that zoning decisions were not that long range and the ARB. wanted to find a plan that would take the long-range idea into consideration. The ARB wanted to describe to developers before they rent to : the ARB what kinds of projects the City wanted to see downtown. For instance, the University Avenue area was different from Ramona, which was dif- ferent from Hamilton which was different from Alma. He bet ieved those ideas required different design criteria to be described to the devel opment community .before they got to, the .ARB, thereby getting a much better building in the opinion of the ARB. The ARB urged approval of the staff recommendation. 5 8 6 4 6/10/85 Chief Planning official Bruce Freeland said Ray Hashimoto, the P1anning Department's number two staff person with the ARB, accepted a j ob wi th the City of San Jo se which wo ul d put back the timing at which staff could take on the trial period for the new noti fication process. It was anticipated to be August before the Planning Department was back up to full staff level . Mayor Levy asked if staff would automatically move toward imple- mentation of the new notification procedure if no Council action was taken. Mr . Freeland said staff requested Council approval to proceed. Vice Mayor Cobb liked the idea of the design plan, but asked how it could be kept from turning into a monster. He was not sure he under- stood what was meant by "design pl an ," and asked how the City got a design pl an without turning it into someone° s life work. Mr. Carrasco did not anticipate the kind of detail seen at the Architectural Charette, but rather to 1 ook at the zoning and shap- ing the volume described in the zone such that it started to relate to protects on either side of it and in addition, to describe pictorially or in zoning terms how buildings on University Avenue should feel and look. For instance, a four- story building on Hamil ton might be acceptable, whereas a four- story building such as the one on waverl ey and Hamil ton might not be appropriate on University Avenue. Most of downtown was two- story and the two- story concept .should be kept. If Council wanted to go to four stories, they should set further back, The ARB wanted some consensus en those things from the Board, community, and Council before passing it on to the development community. Vice Mayor Cobb asked how the design plan would be done pro- cedurally. He asked if there would be a work session with the ARB, Planning Commission, and staff in combination, and whether the ARB would bring the information together and put it on paper in some coherent way so that everyone could see it. Mr. Carrasco responded that initially the ARB wanted to define the components of the pl an and requested temporary hel p in the form of an intern to define the plan . Subsequently, in the 1986-87 bud- get, the ARB would request a consul tan t to study more ex ac tl y how the zoning regulations should be modified so that buildings fit their surroundings Councilmember Sutorius understood that an intern would be selected and on board that summer which accounted for the $2,001 expendi- ture being handled within the budget. Then , i t would be the 1986- 87 budget where a proposal would be received for funding for evolving the design. He asked if there was any timing problem that would occur because the actual proposal would not be funded until potentially July, 1986. City Planner and Staff Liaison to the ARB Irene Szmorl in ski said the intern was .envisioned s doing similar research as for studies done by other cities which would become a •base • for staff to pre- pare the pr5ogram. The preparation of the program would be important and long-term because .it would be done by present'staff and would be worked out, closely with the ARB. Staff believed there were many ways of handling . the study . and wanted to take enough time and consul tation with the City. Council, Planning Com- - mission, and ARB in order to prepare the program to 1.1 t the Cf tse s needs. Staff did not bet ieie it would be- prepared du ing..the sum- mer ant then wait until Counc it co n si der a ti o n in. the. next _budget process. Mr. Freeland said the intern would help launch the program, but would not produce what staff brought back for funding. Councilmember Sutorius clarified the product would not be stale when Course it got around to working on it. Mr. Freel and said staff envisioned it would not be stale. Counc ilmember Fl etcher referred to the "Comparison of 400 Hamil ton Av en ue De v el opm en t .. , " and quoted " d ev el o poi en t of large si to s may resul t in greater visual prominance and greater impact on the City pattern and should be given special consideration in urban design pl anning ." She saw nothing which deal t with that probl em in the recommendations. She asked if it was an intrical part of the recommendations or whether it needed to be added. Mr. Carrasco said the ARB participated in the Downtown Study and recommended that projects be of a much smaller size and took care of the issue through the process of asking that each project not exceed 25, 000 square feet. Council member Fletcher clarified that 25,000 square feet was confined to the downtown area, but could possiiily impact another area :n town by combining parcels. Mr. Carrasco said it could, but that issue was not yet addressed. He bel ieved it was more of a zoning issue which was why the ARB addressed it through its relationship with the Downtown Study. Counc ilmember Fletcher asked if the recommendations regarding design modifications was confined to the. Downtown area or whether i t was Ci ty-wide.. Mr, Carrasco said the ARB contemplated a City-wide design plan, but wanted to start with downtown. It would probably take until the end of 1987 to finish the design study for downtown, and he was not sure when other sections of the community would be taken on. Counc ilmember- Ki ein said $2,000 was 1 isted for 1985-86, but he saw nothing as to what might be spent in 1986-87 or further on. He real ized it was premature, but before he took the first step, he wanted to know how l ong and heavy the path was. Mr. Freeland said a minimum of $100,000 and perhaps more for the down town portion. Counc ilmember Klein asked if the Ci ty had any experience from comparable communities who did similar things... Mr. Freel and said there were many rel atively small cities who did design pl ans. Ms. Szmorl in ski looked into many of the cities and he had discussions with the Planning Director of Bellview, Washington, which recently conducted a design pl an. It was useful in their context -- they were a rapidly growing city, with a great need for design guidance. The documents were tailor made. to an individual city and its individual needs and the products varied from exterior decoration pl ans for benches and paving treatment in streets to fundamental considerations such as size and bulk rela- tionships . Their usefulness. depended on how much they responded to a fundamental need of the community. The record was favorable in some jurisdictions and probably a waste of money in others. The importance was that the City think through exactly what it wanted and structure the proposal for the program to make sure it bought something it intended to use and had a need for, which was the reason staff suggested taking a long time trying to nature the proposal so that Council would :have a 4I ear description of whatit was braying before staff brought in the price tag and Council could determine whether it wanted to purchase the goods. 5 8 6 6 6/10/85 Councilmember K1 ein presumed that in most of the communities researched the bul k of the cost went to outside consul tants. Mr. Freeland said yes. Council member K1 eln asked if those peopl e were consul tants brought in from San Francisco and Los Angeles rather than local people. Mr. Freeland said some firms specialized and some studies were done by general arc hi tec trial firms. There was a variety of talent and 1t depended on the type of product the community:. was looking for . Councilmember Klein asked about the professional background of the peopl e. Mr. Freeland said urban design was a separate branch between city pl anning and architecture. Councilmember Bechtel cl arified that by supporting the initial $2,000, Council was not committed to a full blown $100,000. Mr. Freeland said the present commitment represented a good bi ock of Ms Szmorl in ski s time and the ARB member s would need to contribute a lot of their time to trying to work out the detail s.. Whether Council bought the product they suggested was a future decision . Mayor Levy asked for cities similar to Palo Alto that had such a design plan for the past several years and operated under it. Ms. Szmorl in ski said the intent was to have the intern investigate those cities, their successes wlth the plan, scope and cost. She did not have enough time to do in depth research and only briefly reviewed what she received from Concord and San Francisco. COUNCIL RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:35 p.m. TO 10:00 p.m. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said earl ier that year the Pal o Al to Civic League sent a letter to the City Council (which is on file in the City Clerk' s Office) addressing the relationship between the ARB and Planning Commission. The ARB should be allowed, if not encouraged, to reduce the size of projects when appropriate, and 25 percent was reasonable with the understanding that members of the publ is could appeal to the Council for further consideration. Regarding ARB involvement during the zoning process, the Civic League endorsed the idea. Regarding notification, the Civic League wanted to see an improved notification procedure, but did not believe two months was adequate for a trial period. During the summer months many people were away on vacation and the Civic League preferred to extend the trial over a sufficient period in order to have an opportunity for large or controversial projects to be brought forward. Two months might not be adequate to fully test the approach aid four to six months would be more appropri- ate. In terms of the design study, it was an excellent idea. In 1977 or 1978, the property owners along El Camino .Real' in the Barron Park area com» i ssiohed a private design study. The study also looked at potential land use , zoning and a somewhat abbre- viated survey of the neighborhood residents to find out what sort of developments and uses were favored and discouraged, Many of the suggestions of the private study were still lappr-opriate even though they were about seven years old . The study cost the prop- erty owners approximately $37,000 in 1978 dollars. Council might also want to look at landscaping as a unifying design element. Prchi tec tural statements such as statues, art work and sound walls were also discussed in relation to El Camino, and how they might be integrated with the community and neighborhood .: He urged Council support of the recommendation with the Civic League's sug- gestions for improvement. 5 8 6 7 6/10/85 Counciimernber Renzel had no difficulty with the first three recom- mendations as long as the maximum reduction limit did not preclude the public appeal and Council having the authority to act as it now did with respect to design matters. When Council reviewed an appeal of an ARB decision, she asked the City Attorney whether it stood in the shoes of the ARB and whether Council was al so sub- jected to the 25 percent 1 irnit. City Attorney Diane Lee said when Council reviewed an appeal from an ARB decision, Council did stand in the shoes of the ARB, but in terms of whether Council was subjected to the 25 percent 1 imit, it depended on how the ordinance was written. Counc ilmernber Renzel preferred the matter be 1 eft open wi th respect to appeal s. In terms of the design plan, particul arly beginning with the downtown, she was skeptical of it because of the fast pace with which downtown changed and the collection of things there that defied any unity. She did not want to see con- formance al ways being the rul e, but bel ieved the City was faced with a difficult problem because of what already occurred. She was intrigued by the idea of establishing same design criteria that offered another basis for looking at projects as they were received and blending them better with what was left of a good blend. She was willing to go to stage one, see what other cities did and at what stage they began doing it. A city being developed from raw 1 and could have a dynamite design pl an because they started fresh, but Palo Al to was on its second or third iteration of redevel opulent which was a much more compl ex problem. MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt the staff recommendation as follows: 1 . Establish a limit on the maximum reduction of the project size for Architectural Review Board (ARB) only, at a limit of 25 percent. Council member Renzel asked if the interpretation was intended in terms of the reduction just for the ARB. Vice Mayor Cobb said it was just for the ARB, Councilmember Klein was pleased to see Council establish a limit because it should not be totally flexible zoning. He believed Council should, be similarly restrained and cause itself to focus more clearly on zoning which was where the decisions should be made as to the overall bulk. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the maximum reduction in size be applicable to the City Coun- cil and ARB. Councilmember Sutori us said Councilmember Klein outl ined a concern he shared, but it was important to understand its ramifications because the proposd ordinance could become effective before some of the zoning considerations were examined. . He cited Stanford West because he did not recall excitement and support by the Coun- cil when the Stanford West proj ect would have been at the 1,600 unit level. Councilmember Klein believed Councilmember Sutorius' concern was proper, but effective dates could be postponed until zoning was changed. Changing the zoning was where Council should head. The public was confused by the f1 exibil ity and he urged a more ration- al approach. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the amendment intended a 25 percent reduction of the project as proposed, or what the zoning all owed. Councilmember Klein referred to what the zoning allowed. 5 8 6 8 6/10/85 Councilmember Bechtel opposed the amendment because it restricted Council`s fiexibiiity and Council would rue the day later. Mayor Levy al so opposed the amendment. Councilmember Klein was correct in principle, but in practice there were too many variabi es which made it impossible over the past 10 years for Council to keep up with the dynamics of the community and all the changes. Council needed to reserve the right, if a project t was wrong within the parameters outlined by the ARB, whereby it did not let the project go forward. Councllmember Fletcher opposed the amendment. When a proj ect was ubject to considerable opposition because of its mass, and it looked as i f a drastic reduction was in order, she asked if the process could be such that the Planning Commission and Council reviewed it before it went to the ARB. Mr. Freel and said there was a provision, in the ARB ordinance which allowed the ARB to refer projects they believed presented pl anning i s>sue s larger than normal to the P1 ann ing Commission and City Council . There was a question in hi s mind about what Council did with it once it was referred, and if the amendment passed, Council would be 1 imited by the 25 percent rule. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Klein, Witte rspoon voting "aye.° Councilmember Klein believed the main motion presented an incon- si stency. If the ARB only reduced things by 25 percent and some- one appealed to the Council , Council would not have the benefit of the ARB' s wi sdom. If it was appropriate for Council to reduce something by more than 25 percent, Council needed the professional ex per ti se of the ARB to acc om pl i sh 1 t. He wo ul d rel uc tan ti y oppose the main motion. Councilmember Renzel asked whether they were talking about square foot reduction or floor area ratio reduction. Mr. Freeland said the 25 percent referred to gross floor area for commercial; and for residential , it was site coverage. He clari- fied that for residential, density could not be reduced by 25 per- cent. Re d uc ti on of d en si ty wa s 1 im i to ci by Sta to 1 aw to spec i fi c findings of heal th and safety and it was not often that those could be made. MOTION PASSED by a vote"\of 7-2, Fletcher, Klein voting 'no." MOTION: Vi ce Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Wi therspoon, approval of staff recommendation No. 2 that the ARB be involved during the zoning process. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of staff recommendation No. 2 for the notification pro- cedures for the ARB agenda. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that staff implement the notification procedure by,. the ARB for a trial period •f one year during which period staff should evaluate the effectiveness of the procedure and issue a report at six months and a subsequent report at the end •f the year. Councilmember Renzel expected a six-month report i f the process did not make any change in the public participation at ARB. She was persuaded by Councilmember Fletcher s reasoning that the City was apt to see 1 ess applications because of the moratoria and because it was summer. It made sense to carry the trial for a longer period in order to make an appropriate eval uation. 5 S 5 9 6/10/85 Councilmember Woolley would not support the amendment because she believed Council was making too much out of a relatively small change. If the amendment failed, she was willing to extend the trial period from two months to four months, but to retain the other parameters suggested in the staff report. Counc ilmembee Sutori us associated himsel f with Counc ilmembee Wool I e y. Councilmember Bechtel agreed with Councilmembers Woolley and Sutarius . The recommendations woul d del ay many appl icants al ready in a fairly lengthy process. By adding the noticing period, it would add a several week or longer delay period. She did not bel leve a one year review was necessary... AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmeaber Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, to implement the notification procedure proposed by the ARB for a trial period of four months. Council member Fletcher did not see how the notification process could be sped up unless it was abolished all together and she did not anticipate that happening. If, under the original amendment, after the six months eval uation, Council decided the procedure was not working, action could be taken then. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 1.-2, Fletcher, *enzel voting "no.° AMENDED AMENDMENT ACCEPTED INTO THE MAIN MOTION NOTION RE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES PASSED unanimously. Vice Mayor Cobb said while he was excited about the idea of a design plan for the City and particularly downtown, he had more than passing fears that if they were not careful, they would wander into deep financial quicksand. MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, that Council yes interested in the possibility of a design plan to include the hiring of temporary technical assistance as recommended by the ARB using existing funds in the Planning Division budget for the cur- rent fiscal year and complete the work with funds proposed for the division in the 1985-86 budget; and prepare for consideration in the 1986-87 budget review process a full work program and budget estimate for the implementation of the design plan which includes an outline and a budget for each element of the plan to enable Council to select appropriate elements. Tice Mayor Cobb said it could be financial quicksand if not approached carefully, and he did not want it to run out of con- trol . He did not want to sign off on the idea until he knew how much it would cost in the long run and what the City would get for the price. He asked staff for a subjective evaluation of the pro- posal. Mr. Freeland bel ieved it was worthwhile to look into the concept. For the past several years, it was a number one theme in consid- eration of the ARB and they would benefit by having such a plan. The document would be useful , and the $2,000 to investigate what was done in other jurisdictions was cl early worthwhile. After the initial work was done by the student, he suggested a workshop with the Council or ARB to evaluate the findings. He questioned the relative importance compared to other competing tasks, and said staff - had a full program of upcoming studies. He was not con- vinced the proposal was of the same priority as some of the other studies about to be undertaken, but believed the $2,000 to scope out the matter to see whether to go further was a worthwhil e expendituee. 5 8:7 0 6/10/85 Mr Zaner sai d no additional funds were requested from Council and staff did not need the authority to hire someone. He was con- cerned that Counc i1 wa s wal king into an enormous projec t about which it knew almost nothing. He suggested that Council give staff a prel imina:'y assignment to investigate design pl an adopted by other communities and report back. Then, --Council _could decide whether it 1 iked the idea, and if so, staff could spend the neces- sary time to devel op budgets and criteria, etc. Vice Mayor Cobb said wi th the consent of hi s second, he would drop the part of the motion which referred to the 1985-86 budget plans and leave it at the staff assignment outl ined by Mr. Zaner. Counc ilmember Klein wanted to know not only what other communities did, but why Palo Alto should do it. Mr. Zaner believed that was why staff should return with its findings, and say what was discovered and how it might be used in Palo Al to. Councilmernber Klein agreed. He did not went a report that only referred to what other cities had, but rather someone to say what would be useful in Palo Al to, given its physical constraints, with applicable reasons. He asked who would do it. Mr. Freeland said the student would be given some structure for putting together the information, and ultimately it would be ap to him and Irene Szmorl in ski to put the information into a report to Counc al . Councilrnernber Klein bel ieved the other crucial element was what it would cost the City. Mr. Zaner said he el iminated the cost element in his suggestion because in order to do so staff would have to spend time on that question. If the concept did not appeal to the Council , he was unsure whether to turn staff 1 oose on spending a lot of time figuring out how much it would cost. Councilmember Klein wanted a ball park figure without spending a 1 of of time. Mr. Zaner said ranges could be given, but he did not want to get into a detailed budget. Vice Mayor Cobb said with twat understanding he would leave the motion as it sat. Mayor Levy said that the motion before the Council was that they ask staff to investigate design plans from other communities and report their findings, and the apps icabil ity to Palo Al to. Vice Mayor Cobb clarified the intent was not to make it a full- bl own budget exercise, but rather to get some ball park costs as to what would be involved. He wanted to know what they were get- ting into, roughly what it would cost and what it would provide. Then, a decision could �be made as to whether a detailed budget for a detailed p1 an should be dev el oped . He agreed with Co unc it m enr ber K1enN MOTION RESTATED: STAFF TO INVESTIGATE DESIGN PLANS FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES AND REPORT FINDINGS AND APPLICABILITY TO PALO ALTO I iCLUDINS PROSPECTIVE BALL PARR COSTS Counc ilrnember Klein remained skeptical as to the .. benefits. He saw how it might benefit .a community with lots of empty space, but he would have to be persuaded that Palo Alto would benefit. He supported the motion, but was skeptical. I f O/8i Councilimccr ber Sutorius supported the motion and was confident that stef` would not do anything inordinate, and would be thoughtful and careful in their research, conclusions, ano recommendations. The nature of the activity was such that a design process and plan would be individualized and tailored to the particular area of a city or an entire case when a design pl an was el aborately undertaken. The starting point controlled how extensive the plan became and how comprehensive a pl anning and publ is participation process evolved in terms of the development of such a plans He advocated design plan considerations and was familiar with San Mateo' s and Santa Rosa' s. They were both Northern California cities, but were entirely different cities and in an entirely different state when they undertook their planning process. They had different problems with which they wrestled, and the results and processes followed were different. He anticipated the information received, without a budget for 1985-87, would be profitable to staff and to the ARB, and that Council coul d evaluate whether a specific type of design planning should be undertaken, and had a good idea as to the costs and benefits. Counc ilm+ember Witherspoon orig ina11 y pl anned to speak against the motion. She was enthusiastic about the ARB's recommendation and believed it had great potential . Council did not have to "buy a pig in a poke," and the way Council hashed over $10,000 items in that year's budget, there was no way they would buy an elaborate p1 an, She supported the motion as modified. Counc ilmember Renzel was happy to support the motion. She bel ieved the information would allow the Council to assess whether to go forward and do anything wi th the budget. Mayor Levy supported the motion with the same fears that Vice Mayor Cobb mentioned . He bel ieved design was dangerous and sub - j ec t to fads. He recalled when the clean skyscraper look was universally praised and copied until such a time as everyone tal ked about the square skyscrapers that gave every city the same 1 ook. Other designs came and went, and while he was not sure what a design plan would include, he feared it might freeze that year' s interest as something that would go on for years in Palo Alto. Palo Al to was architecturally diverse, and with so much building taking pl ace so fast, he feared there would be too many structures with the same brick and wood facades. He had more confidence in an ongoing professional arc hi `ectural review board maintaining diversity than a design pl an. was almost 90 percent certain he would vote against the design pl an when it returned, but could not object to doing the small-scale review of- what was going on to make sure Council knew what it was voting on.. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #8 , OVERNIGHT PARKING (PLA 4-6) {CMR:365: 5) Police Chief Jim Zurcher said in January, 1985, Council directed staff to return with in formation and recommendations on expanding the ban on overnight parking. Council had a staff report dated June 6, to which were attached two previous staff reports and some cost estimates should Council decide to expand the parking ban. Counc ilmember~ Wool ey asked how the most recent overnight parking ordinance, passed by the Council in 1982, was being enforced. Lieutenant Austin said it was presently enforced on a compl aint` basis. Few compl aints were received, and when they were, a warning notice was pl aced on the vehicl e. A vehicl e was either cited or the owner was talked to and the situation remedied. Councilmenber Woolley asked if any additional staff was hired when the, ordinance went into effect.. Lieutenant Austin said no. 5 8 7 2 6/10/85 Cuurrc ilwember Woolley said the staff report noted a survey showed 1,300 potential violations, supposedly implying there could be a significant number of appl ications for hardship cases. If hard- ship was defined as a "single family residence with insufficient o ff- street parking to accommodate any commercially 1 icensed vehicles owned by the residents and parked on the si.te," so that it was not a matter of convenience, but whether there was a physi- cal place at the single family residence to put the vehicle off street. She asked how many potential hardshi p cases there might be. Lieutenant Austin said Councilmember Woolley defined the current definition of hardship case as used for hardship permits. It was basically impossible for the present staff to do a survey on whether there were places for off- street parking. Two different n ights were spent surveying the ent r°e City to arrive at that 1,300 figure for potential violators. Revenue collections used the figure of one-third based on past ordinances and permits that one-third of the people sometimes needed permits. but he could not make a guess. Don Price, 960 Addison Avenue, clarified that Council discussed the probl em at length a few years ago and cane up with a limit of 7,000 pounds on the size of vehicles that would not be permitted to park overnight. Recently an irate younger neighbor parked a rather 1 arge fl at -=bed truck in front of hi s house for three days, and when the poi ice was called, it was under the 7,000 pounds. In another case, their exit was visually blocked for about three years almost permanently by a large camper truck, which was also under the 7,000 pound limit. He hoped Council would consider reducing the pound limit to get some of the larger vehicles off the street. He said the problem of vehicle pollution on the streets of Palo Alto was getting worse as the years passed. In his opinion, 1,300 trucks and vans on the street was a great num- ber, and many more did not have commercial licenses. The problem should be attacked in terms of safety and appearance of Palo Al to neighborhoods. He was amused at the most recent Candidates' Night when appl icants tal ked about beauti ful Pal o Al to, since he bel ieved it was less beautiful because of vehicle pollution. If some of the vehicles were taken off the streets and onto drive- ways, many of the local car collectors would have to get rid of their inoperable vehicles sitting on their driveways and in their garages to make room for the trucks and vans. He hoped something could be done to make the City look a 1ittla nicer. He clarified that those 1 ,300 vehicl es parked overnight were al so there throughout the weekends. It was especially bad in those neighbor- hoods with one- acre and flag lots. He was also concerned about the safety hazards presented by the large vehicl es which could not be seen through. His block had a permanently parked large camper at thecorner of Addison and Fife Streets which completely blocked ✓ isibil ity making it impossible to make a turn. At the other end there was frequently a 1 arge camper on Channing, just before Addison, making it impossible to see to the left when going east on Addison to cross Channing It was a serious problem repeated all over town, making it difficult to get out of driveways because o f blocked visibility, and it was dangerous for bicyclists and children. The problem should be attacked more seriously than the 7,000 pound 1 imit. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if staff had any feeling for how many hardshi p permits were issued. Lieutenant Austin said it was basically only six or seven, Councilmember Witherspoon asked why it was expected there would be more for commerical vehicl es. Lieutenant Austin said it was based on the sheer volume, but it was hard to estimate how many more. 5 8 7 3 6/10/85 Counc i l met. ber Witherspoon said theoretically there were six tunes as many ordinary vehicl es that might qualify. She assumed most of the people, if cited, would find a pl ace to accommodate their camper on -site. It was more convenient to park in the street because they were clumsy to back out of driveways and awkward to put in garages. Lieutenant Austin said campers were prohibited under the existing ordinance. If a pick-up truck had a camper on it, it could be cited. Counc it member Woolley originally requested the report because she bel ieved the visual qual ity of the neighborhoods was going down as more residents 1 eft their vehicles on the street. The present ordinance did not allow a truck on the street if it was over 7,000 pounds, but it still allowed bulky vehicles on the street. For example, a UPS truck was well under 7,000 pounds and tow trucks were about 4,000 pounds, and could park on the street overnight. There were some offensive vehicles under the 7,000 pound limit, but the issue was banning those vehicles with commercial plates, which were primarily trucks and commercial vans, not passenger vans which might have regul ar automobile pl ate as long as it was used for a family. She clarified that a commercial plate had one letter and all the rest of numbers, and the letter was anywhere. She was only talking about R -I zones, not multi -family zones. Vehicl es were creeping into Pal o Al to and taking over the neigh- borhoods, and she believed the proposal was a small step to get one type of rel atively offensive vehicle. She was concerned about the $82,000 proposal and instead of three permanent monitors, she proposed that since 1 ,300 vehicl es were presently in viol ation, the program might be started with two parking monitors for a period of four months while the changeover was being made. Then, the enforcement could be the same as the present overnight parking ordinance. She did .not see the need for a full-time community service officer at $27,000 to process the permit inspections for hard shi ps . It seemed to her that if the definition of the hardship case was shade clear both in the utility mailer and in the notice that went on the windshield during the first four -month period while people changed their habits, there would not be that many applications for a hardship permit. It was only R-1 housing, which meant a single-family house did not have any space for any vehicle to be parked off the street. They only requested the truck be parked off the street, and she believed it was a rare single- family house that had multiple trucks. She calculated it. would cost about S9,000 rather than $82,000. The $9, 000 was for two parking monitors, four hours a night for four months. NOTION; Councilnae*ber Woolley moved, seconded by Witherspoon, th t staff be_ directed: 1) to expand the overnight parking ordinance to prohibit commercial license plates in R-4 zones and defining hardship as it presently is; and 2) prepare a budget amendment for two parking monitors for a four -month period for four hours per night; and 3) to evaluate the effectiveness of the ordinance after an eight -month period and to report back to the Council. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed with the intent of the motion, but was less in agreement with hiring temporary monitors. She preferred to put effort and less money into good publicity about the law, and let the complaint basis carry on far the overnight violator, Where it did not bother anyone, she was unwilling to spend a lot of money :chasing them down because she appreciated Chief. Zurcher' s concern that it was hard to hire people to take on that kind of a job. Something should bedone about getting the commercial vehicles back :onto their own property. If the motion were divided, she would support the first part enthusiastically. 5 8 7 4 6/10/85 Vice Mayor Cobb did not bel ieve the commercial vehicle plate was the problem, but rather the big, bul ky vehicle that got in people' s way visually and otherwise. A small Japanese import pick-up with ,a commercial plate was much less offensive than a big, ugly station wagon without commercial plates that sat on the corner blocking the street. A different approach was needed because the problem was the big vehicle which might be below the 7,000 pound limit, but was ugly, blocked streets, and created other problems. Be preferred to see the matter referred in order to find a better way to deal with the problem rather than picking up the measure of commercial license plates which did not neces- sarily catch the ones they wanted and snared some they did not necessarily intend. Councilmember Fletcher tended to agree with Vice Mayor Cobb that new guidelines might be needed for how to classify offensive ✓ ehicl es. SUBSTITUTE I4OTI0W TO REFER: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, to refer the item of overnight parking .f over- sized, commercial vehicles in residential zones to Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee. Council member Bechtel understood Mr. Price's frustration con- cerning campers, etc. blocking the area, but clarified that the existing ordinance stated that "no person shall stand or park any camper, carp trailer, house -car, trailer ," of any weight "or com- mercial vehicle in excess of 7,000 pounds." It did not mean that a camper had to be in excess of 7,000 pounds. She was concerned about tow trucks and continued to receive call s from a person who complained that four tow trucks were in front of an R-1 home and were on call from that home, and she was bothered by the vehicle on Oregon Expressway on the Frontage Road, which was over 7,000 pounds. She wanted the City to enforce the present ordinance, and if Council wanted to refer the whole thing to the P&P Committee for the other probl ems like the large fl at bed that was fine. Councilmember Klein supported the motion to refer, and said when Council wrestled with the problem four years at,00, there was an e qual number of people concerned that Council not take away their liberties. There were equally eloquent spokespersons on both sides, and he and Councilmember Bechtel were the ones who made the motion to place more severe restrictions or overnight parking. Enforcement would always be a problem and those concerned about the issue had to take some of the responsibility in calling the pol ice. The ordinance, like many others; was enforced only on a complaint basis, During the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., there were only five pol ice officers on the streets of Pal o Al to, and it was unrealistic to think those five could go around and check all the cars on all the streets of Palo Al to. Enforcement needed the cooperation of the citizens because no city could afford the number of people that would be needed to enforce the ordinance the way the parking ordinance . was enforced in downtown Palo Al to during business hours. Councilmember Sutorius said page 2 of CMR:365:5 said an informal survey of "residential streets" was conducted, and he asked for cl arification of the "residential streets" since Councilmember Woolley' s motion referred to R�1 neighborhoods. Lieutenant Austin clarified the informal survey was done in the R-1 zones. Counc ilmenber Sutori us clarified that the 1, 315 commerc ial ✓ ehi cles re ferred onl y to tho se in an R-1 area. Lieutenant Austin said that was correct. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion to refer because it was reasonable to strengthen the present ordinance. 5 8 7 5 6/10/85 Councilmember Woolley said when she first started to explore the question, she went in the direction of the substitute motion, but did not pursue it because staff advised it was impossible to use any kind of volume as a basis for differentiating between which ✓ ehicles could be parked on the street at night and which could not. She asked Chief Zurcher to comment on why he suggested using the commercial 1 is en se pl ate as the test . Chief Zurcher said there might be another measure, but for en- forcement, the Department of Motor Ve-hicles reflected the weight ✓ f a vehicle on the registration. The 7,000 pound figure was selected after reviewing all sizes, types, and configurations of ✓ ehicles, and seemed to be as near an average as possible still leaving the ordinance in some reasonable state of interpretation. City Attorney Diane Lee said the City' s authority to regul ate overnight parking was. from the California vehicl a Code, which 1 imited the type and nature of the vehicl es the City coul d regu- late overnight to 7,000 pounds gross weight. Councilmember Woolley asked if the City could regulate vehicles which weighed less than 7,000 pounds. Ms. Lee said the ordinance, which was drafted in terms of weight, would viol ate the City` s authority under the Vehicle Code. If the City did not address weight, there was another technique for doing it, which was why the commercial 1 icense pl ates were chosen. Councilmember Woolley said regarding volume or width, the Police Department objected because for enforcement, an officer would need a tape measure for the vehicl es. - Chief Zurcher said the Department of Motor Vehicles re flreflected ✓ ehicle weight and not dimensions. If an officer was to do some- thing with a vehicle, they would have to determine it was over 1 ength, width, or height, but the weight issue was simple. Councilmember Woolley did not see any other method of regulating the large, bul ky vehicl es. She asked if there was any point in referral and whether there might be an al ternative. City Manager Bill Zaner said staff could try and survey the State to see if anyone else had a bright idea. Palo Alto was not the only city faced with the problem. Councilmember Renzel would not support referral. Council had plenty of information about off-street parking. The commercial ✓ ehicles were used for businesses, they were offensive to the neighborhoods and deteriorated the qual ity of life. She bet ieved that to refer the matter was a bit of a dodge because Council .had information about costs and some of the ramifications. Council - member Woolf ey simplified the proposal and commercial 1 icense plates were readily identi fi able. If the referral failed, she would support the main motion. Mayor Levy concurred that a 1 ark should be on the books ,which said no commerc ial vehicl e coul d park on the streets and it should be enforced on a complaint basis. As indicated by Councilmember Witherspoon, he supported part one of the main motion which was, to prohibit overnight parking of vehicles with commercial license plates in R-1 zones; He did not believe more money should be spent to hire parking monitors, and supported the referral to try and find a way to prohibit or reinforce as Much as possible those c iti tens who found it offensive to have 1 arger _cars and trucks parked in their neighborhoods. MOTION RESTATED: TO REFER ITEM OF `=:OVERNIGHT PARKING OF OVERSIZED. COMMERC:IAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE 5 87.6 6/10/85 SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Woolley, Witherspoon* Renzel voting "no." ITEM #9, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS RENZEL, COBB AND FLETCHER RE UVERDEVtLbP MINT IN RtSIDENTIAL `TONES (PLA 7-9) Councilmember Renzel said _many of the single family and multi- family proj ects which went up were somewhat out of scale with their neighborhoods and she, Councilmember Fletcher, and Vice Mayor Cobb proposed to refer to the Pl anning Commission the po ssi b it ity of establishing floor area ratios for all residential zones and a requirement that in mul ti -family zones driveways not exceed 300 feet in 1 ehgth; that a public street be provided whenever access was needed more than 300 feet from an existing publ is street. The requirement used to be in the City' s subdivision ordinances. It was intended that when projects were so large as to generate a significant amount of traffic and where they had significant off- street access, that they provided their own streets. She bel ieved it made a lot of sense and particul arly in the large projects such as Stanford West and as was seen in some of the other school site proj ects. It was important to look at the concept again and see if it should be re- estab l i she d in the City' s ordinance. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, to refer to the Planning Commission the following subjects: 1. The establishment of floor area ratios for all residential zones; and 2. The requirement in multi -family zones that driveways be limited in length, i.e., that a public street be provided whenever access is needed more than a certain distance from an existing public street. Chief P1 awning Official Bruce Frees and said Councilmember Renzel first mentioned the idea of fl oor area ratio about a month ago, and he bel ieved it was such a good idea that staff was al ready working on an ordinance involving single family residences and expected to have it before the Commission shortly. The addition of mul ti -family zones was worth looking at, but was something staff had not yet started. Mayor Levy asked about the 300 -foot driveway. Mr. Freeland agreed with the 300 -foot concept generally, and wel- comed the referral although the 300 -foot figure might not be the recommendation. Council member F1 etcher said in mpl I- family zones, the City was not eager to create too many studio' apartments because it wanted to encourage familles, and she asked whether it might be reason- able to ask the Pl alining Commission to al so look at site coverage in mul ti- family zones as well as fl oor area ratios. Mr. Freeland said the question of regulations to control the bulk of r9u1 tiple family dwellings might be referred and the Commission could look at all the different site regulations, but the floor area ratio would be the new concept. Site coverage requirements were al ready contained in the ordinance. Councilmember Woolley said another devel oprnent starting to be seen in Palo Al to was the use of the underground garage in the R -I districts in order to build a larger structure. She suggested that staff also be directed to consider .the environmental and visual impacts of underground garages in R-1 and R-2 zones. ITEM 43" ACCEPTED INTO MAIN MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND VISUAL IMPACTS OF UNDERGROUND GARAGES IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONES 5 B 7 7 6 /10/85. Albert Hopkins, Jr., 4073 Wil kie Way, urged that the height buildings in resi dential areas al so be reviewed. Mayor Levy feared that if Council specified 300 feet, it directed the P1 anning Commission too specifically and he wanted them to have fl exibil ity. He suggested del eting the 300 -foot figure. Vice Mayor Cobb bel ieved all the measures before the Council were important. As the Council approved various densities for condo- minium projects, he believed Council tended to think of those den- sities in terms of how they turned out el sewhere on a small corner 1 ot. The proposed requirements woul d force the City to get the 1 arger projects back in scal e. It was an important step to pre- vent the pubs ic reaction to the excessive. 'cal es. Councilmember Bechtel assured Mr. Hopkins that the City had height 1 imits in single family residential areas and multi- family resi- dential areas. She believed it was 30 feet in single family resi- dential areas which was down from 35 feet. She was interested in Mr. Freel and' s comments concerning floor area ratios and was glad to see staff working on it. Regarding whether to require a publ ic street, there were pros and cons because it reduced the number of units that could be built. Regarding the underground garage, she saw no point in getting into it because the costs were incredible. She would not support the third part of the motion. Councilmember Fl etcher was torn because she wanted to limit the establ ishnen t of floor area ratios to R-i zones. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved regarding part 1 of the motion, the establ ishaent of floor area ratio in R-1 zones and a mechanism for I Jolting the bulk and mass in ■ui ti -family zones. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. FIRST PART OF MOTION TO REFER ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES PASSED unanimously. SECOND PART OF MOTION TO REFER REQUIREMENT IN MULTI -FAMILY ZONES THAT DRIVEWAYS BE LIMITED IN LENGTH; THAT A PUBLIC STREET BE PRO- VIDED WHENEVER ACCESS IS NEEDED MORE THAN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM EXISTING PUBLIC STREET PASSED unanimously. Mayor Levy would not support the third part of the motion. Councilmember Sutorius supported. _.the third part of the motion. As pointed out by Councilmember Bechtel, Council was only aware of three underground garages in R-1 zones iri Palo Alto, but it was not unimportant to have staff and the Planning Commission look at the subject from the standpoint of the bel ow l ev el env ironment and whether there were any particular problems with the present build- ing code and inspection processes where underground construction should be re-evaluated in terms of the single family residential area. While he did not like to toss unnecessary work to staff, he did not -believe the referral was inappropriate. It was better to look at it now rather thew having something happen later that might be regretted. THIRD PART OF MOTION TO REFER ENVIRONMENTAL AND VISUAL IMPACTS OF UNDERGROUND GARAGES IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONES PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Bechtel % Klein , Levy voting ' no .'" ADJOURW NT Council adj ourned at 11: 36 p. ATTEST: 5 8 7 8 6 /10/85