The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-03-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL M1MUTEt CITY CF PAL() ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, March 19, 1984 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 4 3 2 8 Consent Calendar 4 3 2 9 Referral 4 3 2 9 Action 4 3 2 9 Item #1, Resolution of Appreciation to 4 3 2 9 William G. Baker Item #2, Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal 4 3 2 9 Management Project Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #3, Planning Commission Recommendations re Downtown Study Revised Work Program (Continued from 3/12/84) Recess to Executive Session re Litigation: 4 3 4 4 9:25 p.m. to 10:15 p;em. Item #6, 1681-1691 El Camino Real Item 04, Council Legislative Committee Recommendation to Oppose AB 2302 (Robinson) Exetpting Hazardous Materials. Information: from the Public Records Act Item 15, 8yxbee Park Cost Reduction ,Alternatives Adjournment: 12:10 a.m. 4 3 2 9 4 3 2 9 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 9 4 3 4 9 4 3 6 0 Regular Meeting Monday, March 19, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy (arrived 7 :40 p.m.), Renzel, Sutori us , Witherspoon, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash, said the Architectural . Review Board (ARB) meetings were held on Thursdays at 8:00 a.m., and some- times lasted past noon when ordinary citizens could not attend. She tried to attend when the building to be con- structed on the Winery site was discussed. The newspaper announcement mentioned three projects for discussion and listed the one she- was interested in first, which she assumed meant it would he heard. at 8:00 a.m. When she arrived shortly before 8:00 a.m., she found ` 17 items on the agenda, with the one she was interested in being No. 7 or 8. By 9:00 a.m., when she had to leave for work, the ARB was nowhere near Items 7 or 8. She realized that only paid professionals or property owners could participate adequately in the ARB process. She was told the ARB hearings were not meant as full public hearings, but ARB approval was a foot in the door and started the momentum for final approval. Residents had to fight uphill battles to overturn decisions that eight have been dif- ferent with citizen input at the ARB hearings. She believed the ARB process should be revised. Issues on which there was no public concern could be handled on Thursday mornings, but mr titers of public concern should be moved to.. an evening meeting where citizens could have access. Regarding the zoning ordinance, she attended every meeting during the two years of the California Avenue project in order to give early input. It seemed that citizens were concerned about traffic and noise, etc., while zoning did not really. address those items. Some of the uses within the CN zone generated a lot of traffic, others little. She wanted to see either two cate- gories within each zone reflecting high and low intensity use, or a revamping of the zoning ordinance. She hoped the Council recognized the problems and would take the necessary action to correct them. Or, Nancy Jewell Cross, 301 Vine Street, Menlo Park, spokefor the Committee . for Safe and Sensible San Francs squi to Creek Area Routing. The ridership on CalTrain declined since 1980 when public agencies took over to three -fourths. The subsidy was approximately $16 million per year and rising, putting CalTrain in jeopardy if the decline continued. She believed the Council recognized the importance of CalTrain and the need to effectively address the declining ridership. The proposed tunnel in San Francisco did not address the question since there was no tunnel three years ago. The changing origins of departures and destinations and the relevance of SP; was another matter. CalTrain might be more relevant in terms of the airport. There was discussion about taking_ BART out to the airport, which, from Daly City to the airport, would cost an estiarated $995 million with three stations in eight miles. A stop at the airport for Cal trai n would not require such_ a huge investment and would boost CalTrain ridership:. At pres ent it only stopped in San Bruno and Millbrae. There was only one -tenth of a .mile between the ramps over 101 and the Cal - Train tracks. A train stop and a few hundred feet of City street would connect the ramps so the airport shuttle buses to parking lots could Pick up people: at the depot and the hundred, feet of City street would connect the ramps so the airport shuttle buses to parking lots could pick up people at the depot and the airport. The field in between was empty and owned by the City of San Francisco. She requested the :natter be put on the agenda for Council to consider writing a letter to PENTAP suggesting a stop for CalTrain at the airport be explored. 1 e CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Cared lmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Consent Cal edar. Referral None Action ITEM #1, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO WILLIAM G. BAKER (PER 4-2) RESOLUTION 623! entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF [7 ALTO EXPRESSING AMECIATION TO WILLIAM G. BAKER UPON HIS RETIREMENT° Mayor Klein regretted that Mr. Baker could not be present. Mr. Baker served the City as a firefighter from March, 1963 to February, 1984, and as a paramedic for a combined 21 years. He pursued his duties for the safety of the citizens with enthusiasm, thoroughness, common sense and courtesy, and took an active part in Fire Department programs such as Fire -.Training and Prevention, Inspection, Public Education, Emergency Medical Services, aad Fire Ground Command. After being injured in the line of duty, he con- tinued to assist the department in a limited duty status, contri- buting to the reorganization and development of a Fire Department stores and purchasing manual and inventory and records control procedures. His efforts and contributions helped the City to en- joy and occupy a position of respect for emergency services to citizens by the City Fire Department. The City desired to recog- nize the meritorious service of William G. Baker, commended his outstanding public service and recorded its, and its citizens, appreciation of his services and contributions during his 21 years of employment with the City. ITEM #2, FUEL EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL ..MANAGEMENT PROJECT Staff recommends the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with DKS Associates in the amount of $46,200.` AWARD OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT - PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES OKS Associates NOTION PASSED ena i msus l y. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS_ AND `DELETIONS MOTION: Cooaci lmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Klein, is brio, forward Item 6, 16$1-1.691 -El Camille Reel, after Item 3, Recommendat i ee s e Downtown Study. II*TION PASSED onawitaeesly.. ITEM #3, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE DOWNTOWN STUDY (CMR:184:1) ( an ode rom -Planning Coma# ssi oner Joseph lii rsch said staff recommendations 1 - and . 6 of CMR:184 :1 were unanimously approved by the Planning Com- mission with' no discussion. Staff accepted. the Commission's t/19,81 preYirivs recommendation to include the CC zone north of Lytton and the CS zone south of Forest in the study area. The study com- mittee representation was generally the one previously considered by the Council and the Planning Commission. The Commission was concerned with recommendations 2, 3, and 4 --approval of the basic study plus $16,500 for various costs; supplemental elements; and approval of the "Basic Study" time schedule --because it believed the Council directed essentially a parking and traffic study, and it had a good idea of what the downtown was and should be, and no comprehensive study was needed at chat time. While it was be- lieved that staff could enalyze traffic and parking problems, assess total'build out under present zoning and presumably assess potential build out under various alternative zoning proposals, there was concern about whether staff could make accurate esti- mates of what might actually happen if no economic consultant ser- vices were provided. There was also concern that a traffic/ park- ing study was too simplistic a view for such a complex issue, and an economic analysis might be helpful for a comprehensive long- term solution to the problems of the downtown. The minority with regard to staff recommendations 2, 3, and 4 did not disagree strongly with the majority views but questioned the need for an economic analysis and proposed that such reeuest be made when its advantages could be demonstrated. He believed the minority wanted to make a recommendation rather than come back with nothing for staff recommendations 2, 3, and 4. It was strongly stated by a number of Commissioners that Council would have to give clear direction and policy stateme-ts to the Study Committee, particu- larly on Step 2 of page 4 of the staff report. Upon failure to do so, the study could flounder early in the process and much valu- able time and effort would be wasted. Councilmember Witherspoon said the first direction would be to analyze implications of existing and likely parking supply, and suggested that when the need was analyzed, there were two consid- erations, the time of day when parking was needed because hope- fully the sane parking space could be used at different times of the day, and it was important to know whether long or short-term parking was discussed. She sensed there was plenty of short-term parking being used as long-term parking downtown, and that was' the problem. If the need was for long-term :employee parking, that should be said up front because it would influence where the park- ing was located, etc. Commissioner Hirsch said those questions were part of Step 1, "Analyze implications of existing and likely parking supply on allowable development." Counciimember Witherspoon said she wanted to make sure it was on the record. Commissioner Hirsch said the steps shown on . Figure 2 of; the staff report were major. Each one was a complicated process with many questions to be answered. Counci lmember Cobb said based on previous discussions, the missing element was the economic study. He asked if it would create an additional demand on .staff time if it were done entirely by a coe- sultant. The Council expressed concern at its last discussion, and he was still,, concerned that if Council went with the recom- mendation before them, staff would not have time to deal with any- thing else, and would have to put the Comprehensive Plan time line off considerably.. The concern was legitimate, but he asked whether there was a way to farm out the economic study to supply the information without tying up staff from everything else._ Director of Planning .and Community Environment= Ken Schreiber sai d that given the complexity and size of the project, there were 4 3 3 0 3/19/84. advantages and disadvantages to having a consultant. A consultant !' `- additional l t ff time for managing and processing would u i ii Vu l ve a irk i 6 t �iru a �� , providing data and wurkiriy with him. Not having the consultant meant staff would deal with data issues- and points of analysis -- the relationship of proposed parking structures, the estimated cost, and how it related back to the base within the assessment district per square foot, and the annual cost. Either way, if the study was done within a year or so, it meant considerable staff effort. The process could be slowed down later to provide staff resources for other projects --school sites were mentioned at the previous discussion. It was: the Council's prerogative to redirect staff's priorities, and given the time frame, he estimated it would take a considerable amount of staff study time with or with- out a consultant. Councilmember Cobb was concerned the Council might be faced with the middle school site by the middle of the summer, which was a major planning question for the City, and he asked if a question of that magnitude meant a study the scope of the one now before the Council would have to be put off, and the Comprehensive Plan stretched out. Mr. Schreiber said if the school question was as large as Council - member Cobb implied, the answer would be yes. The staff target was to try and avoid extending the interim downtown parking ordi- nance adopted the previous December, with the second reading in January, 1984. The study process would probably not be concluded by the following January or February, but might slip beyond that. He did not want to recommend extending the parking ordinance be- cause he wanted to try and have the staff work done, and the ordi- nance put back through the Commission and returned to the Council by the end of the year. If the school study came up staff would assess the resources needed, where they were in the process, aad what type of delay was being built in. Councilmember Cobb asked if staff could use additional outside help in the short-term to take some pressure off. He sensed that, even with the scaled back program, staff would be bottled up on it. Mr. Schreiber said the conclusion with regard to staff was cor- rect. They wrestled with the question, but did not know how to use consultant help at that point to reduce the amount of staff work because the amount of staff time it took to manage the con- sultant could not be underestimated. Consultants were not hired and worked on their own --staff needed to work with them. It was a concept management process that took time. Councilmember Sutorius said the staff report, paragraph B, page 12, stated transportation planning and traffic impact review assignments would be reduced or delay=ed, including Dumbarton Bridge traffic .monitoring, and the Willow Road and Stanford Medical Center projects. It also amplified on other programs that might be affected. He asked Mr. Schreiber if the same response was true regarding staff impacts op the transportatio division-- that consultants or other ways of reducing or shifting the load were not available. Mr. Schreiber said Transportation Planner David Fairchild might want to follow up on his response. He did not look at consultant resources for the transportation area because he felt the Trans- portation Department had a good handle and understanding of the data in that area so that consultant resources would probably not save' staff substantial amounts of time. Paragraph B on page 12 referred to the juggling of priorities within the Transporta- tion Division. The study would take considerable time, and the items ,identified would have to slip if push went to shove. He did not see the need for extensive consultant help and did not believe it would speed things up. /9,84 Transportation Planner David Fairchild agreed. Staff was in- good shape with regard to the transportation side of the study due to the Wilbur Smith and other studies, had a fairly good data base, and he did not believe there was a need for a consultant. Councilmember Sutorius said he understood that although the data base was in reasonably good shape, there would be a major involve- ment of the Transportation Director and planner which could com- promise the occurrence of other projects. Mr. Schreiber said that was true to the extent a short time frame was built in, which meant quick turnarounds. He foresaw many sit- uations where if staff had to choose between gett iiig work cone on the study during the course of a week or following up on other assignments, the study would have the highest priority, which meant some other work would have to slip occasionally. Councilmember Woolley understood the difference between the pared down and original versions would save the City substantial sums on consultant fees, bet would not make a significant difference in terms 01 staff time. She asked where the bulk of the work -- consultant expenditure versus staff time --was required for the three elements contained in the report, retail vitality, urban design, and design transfer. Planning Projects Manager George Zimmerman said for retail vital - ity the bulk of the work would be done by a consultant, and the estimated fees were minimal at current consultant service costs. With regard to urban design, consultant work would be 50 percent because staff expected the Urban Design Committee to do some of the work. Transfer and development rights would be work for the consultants because general answers were needed. Staff did not have the experience to know what impacts some form of transfer of development rights policy would have on the marketplace. Commissioner Hirsch said there were some necative r_nmments at the Planning Commission regarding the concept of the transfer of development rights and how it might affect the total build out of the downtown if such rights were permitted. Carl Schmitt, 36.1 Lytton Avenue, asked the Council to reconsider the original, expanded version of the downtown plan, which he en- dorsed because he felt the need for empirical data to be developed on the downtown area so that as questions arose, there was a basis on which to make a decision. It was clear at the Planning Commis- sion meeting there was a continued, movement towards reducing height limits and the floor ratio. Although those appeared to be positive ways to reduce growth and congestion, he believed such decisions could not be made without the economic data that could be assembled. Jle asked the Council to reconsider going the full shot and emplt)ing an economic consultant. At the last meeting and again that evening, concern was shown regarding the impact on staff time. At the first meeting a large group of witnesses tes- tified with regard to the sunset provision and the parking' ordi- nance for the downtown. Virtually all n,de the statement that in order to get a good basis of information, it was worthwhile delay- ing the sunset provision. He understood from the testimony in going through the various steps there was no problem delaying- the _sunset provision, and he urged Council consideration. The Council should reflect on the fact that a lot of people with downtown interests wanted to participate in the process which was healthy for the community. Councilmember Fletcher said the last time the issue was discussed there was an offer of a monetary contribution towards the costs of the study. She asked Mr. Schmitt if he could give an idea of the size of the contribution, and how it would be raised. 4 3 3 2 3/19/84 As Corrected 5/07/84 Mr. Schmitt believe.] the dowotown assessment district, which basically covered the downtown, would stand the bill for the out- side consultant, which was approximately $90,000. He understood the assessment district was in a sound financial condition, and could bear that cost. Millie Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, said page 5, paragraph 2, of the staff report stated "...to prevent future increases in excess parking demand it would probably be necessary to decrease rather substantially the development potent;:al allowed by the zoning ordinance," and she was pleased the; Council and the Committee would consider lowering the density downtown. The pace of office development had quickened. A recent newsletter stated five major office projects were under construction downtown, and at least as many more planned. The March 1, 1984 Architectural Review Board (ARB) minutes showed three office projects up for consideration. It might he too late for as much density reduction as the Council desired because numerous office projects were approved while the study went on, and she asked the Council to consider' a moratorium on office construction during the study. . She was also concerned about the approval- process for office buildings. She agreed with a previous speaker that the 8:00 a.m. ARB meetings were difficult to attend, and it was frightening that the ARB's decision was final. except in cases of Planned Ccrm.-nity projects, Baylands projects, or when residents paid $90 to appeal a decision. She asked the Council to ronsider changing- the ARB meetings to an evening time. Projects with such an effect on the City and its citizens should have Planning Commission review, and she was pleased the study would consider the problem of density in the downtown, which was half the problem. The other half was the type of uses going into the downtown. Paragraph 1, page 7 of the staff report said that a supplemental analysis of retail vitality would be limited to estimating how parking and land use policies could affect retail activity in downtown Palo Alto. The previous November, 56 Palo Alto residents, in response to an article in a neighborhood newsletter about restricting groundfioor uses to retail v i ee , -indicated they favored such a regulation. . Some Councilmembers previously voted against that type of restriction, but she asked the Council to give the Committee the chance to consider a possible restriction for the ground floor to retail or, personal services. Many other nearby cities had such regulations in force for several years. The downtown already had numerous banks, and the City needed to limit office construction. She asked the Council to first limit offices in retail areas. The downtown area was surrounded by residential areas and the three senior centers Which had 730 residents, while another was being built,. and many residents -still walked uptown to shop. Stores..witir moderate- to low-cost items were needed such --as those preserved by having - all retail restrictions on ground floors. Even -though some Councilmembers might not favor ground floor restrictions, she hoped they would consider asking the Committee to study it and come back with new ideas.. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, represented Downtown Palo Alto Incorporated (DTPA), repeated the suggestions made to the Commission a few weeks . earlier. DTPA strongly .endorsed the original staff recommendations, the scope and magnitude of the survey and: study, and did not believe there were any bargains in such a study. The study should be regarded as an investment. The subject was growing, especially with regard eto parking and traffic, and the work steps shoredparking and traffic on all four steps. It was a pervasive subject which affected not only shoppers, retail and employees, but every aspect of downtown life and commerce. With respect to the sunset clause and the parking requirements for developments in newer buildings, he balanced it against the estimated time that might be required from the staff. The issue was becoming cloudy, and its importance could rove into the background. It should have priority because it was neglected for so long and was now in a crisis stage in, : the downtown, He believed staff time, the sunset clause, or the other Ordinances passed would seek their owl level oil a pr ri ty basis wheri d deci- sion was required on the sunset clause, and that it. was not neces- sary -to jam everything into a shorter time period. With regard to the nature and composition of. the Boar -d or survey group, people downtown had much training, experience and knowledge and were •as concerned about the downtown as anyone in the City. .They were the vast majority of the people downtown who should be used to the maximum extent possible. The Council would find a great deal of talent available there. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said he favored the reduced scope plan which was considered and narrowly defeated by the Planning Commission. To a large extent, the expanded scope would look into the commer- cial issues and not the core issues, which everyone agreed were traffic, parking and development potential build out. The eco- nomic study should be minimized to provide costs of traffic and other mitigation trade-offs rather than an extensive study of economically feasible uses downtown. Other levels of government could change an economic equation. When State law was changed to allow on -site sale of liquor within two miles of universities, it became profitable to open different classes of restaurants in the downtown area and have on -site liquor sales. Suddenly there was an explosion of high quality restaurants downtown, and an area previously devoid of any activity after 5:00 p.m. became a bustl- ing commercial area at night. An unintended impact was that people who normally parked downtown and left to go home in the rush hour stayed on and occupied parking spaces that residents expected to use. The news that morn ng was that fixed rate mort- gages for 1984 would go from 13 percent to 15 percent, and the banks raised the prime rate from 11 to 11.5 percent that day. That change would have a significant impact on the profitability, and feasibility of downtown construction of various types. An economic analysis saying a certain use was feasible that day could be thrown out of the window six months' later by something over which the Council and staff had no control and could not foresee. During the recent election campaign, residents of the precincts surrounding the downtown said that one of their major concerns was the loss of retail businesses downtown and their inability to do normal shopping such as residents near Midtown and near -Fl Camino could do ,on Toot. Repeatedly, a resident said he had lived there for up'to 30 years, and the differences in the use 'of the downtown in that thne was enormous, much to his and his neighbors' detri- ment. Economic analysis tended to emphasize the highest and best use, i.e., the biggest profit for the landowner, downplayed the highest and best use for the resident, and gave the wrong answer. Finally, muchnwas heard about the pressures on Planning staff through the various projects. He suggested a meeting in advance of the: Finance and Public Works Committee. to consider the follow- ing year's budget and -seriously consider adding permanent staff to the Planning Department. The :,downtown was only one. project, others were coming along that.would also require significant staff time over the next year or two. It would be an appropriate expen- diture of .City funds to give strong -consideration to expending_ the Planning staff to give a little more margin. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, said a year long study was too long. There was widespread agreement to infill housing, in urban areas, but offices were also .infi l l ing. -- They talked about a lot of de facto housing decisions in the downtown study, and it seemed they were moving backwards. Employees continually movech to Palo Alto and increased .pressure on the housing. market. The cri- sis could not fit itself into the Comprehensive Planning -process or any process of the City. There was a land rush in Palo Alto that would impoverish the human environment of the City for many years to cone.. The City was in,- a ,state of -emergency in tens of housing and traffic_and did not know what to do about it. The Councl,l was concerned'about bousing•yet continued to support poli- cies to squeeze people out of their homes< through increased em- ployment in the town.. The Clty Council >. needed • to take;the most 4 3 3 4 ,3/19/84 ayressive possible action to support people who needed housing, and a year was too late for that action. In addition to the study, the Council should get involved with the Planning Commission process, look at the zoning ordinance and review all commercial zones to find a way to reduce the employment potential of the zones. She supported the moratorium on commercial develop- ment in the downtown area over 10,000 square feet, and grand- fdthering in all of the projects that received final City approval. The study was too narrow; the problem was not just parking --they needed a vision of the City they wanted in 2005. A Citizens Committee like the Long -Term Power. Supply Committee should be set up to review the question and interrelate all sectors --housing, transportation, and employment. Serious future scenarios indicated that in order to maximize dwindling and limited resources, people needed to live closer to work. Someone who lived in San Jose and worked in Palo Alto would have to either change their work or home, and communities needed a balance between employment and housing in order to make that choice. It would not solve all the problems, but it might be all the City Council could do. A broader study to include that vision was needed with the involvement of many citizens, and in the meantime, the Council should look at zoning and reduce the employment poten- tial immediately,. She did not want to spend her tax money on staff dollars if many of the options were gone in a year. Mike Lee, 164 Hawthorne, supported the regulations to include ground floor neighborhood retail stores in the study along with traffic and parking. The retail stores gave the downtown streets vitality and historical scale that might be lost in the new mono- lithic developments. Pedestrians related to familiar sidewalk facades, and since parking congestion seemed to be the most limiting factor to reasonable downtown development, he requested a oratorium on office projects in the Downtown Study area until the conclusion of the Parking and Traffic study in December, 1984. Councilmember Bechtel followed up on Mr. Moss' question and sug- gestion, and said an additional planner was authorized in the pre- vious year's budget. She asked staff when that person was hired, and who he was. Mr. Schreiber said Steve Olsen joined the staff in October 1983. Councilmember Bechtel shared concerns that other parts of the City were being neglected and that options might be precluded on cer- tain parcels. She believed the downtown area should continue to be a high priority, and asked Mr. Schreiber whether the Commission was precluded from considering the rest of the City while the. study was in progress. Mr. Schreiber said it depended on the size of the task. Smaller studies could be taken up; and larger studies, stretched over a longer period of time, could- be considered. A problem arose if another major study was needed relatively fast. There was talk of updating the Comprehensive Plan, and . when the Downtown Study was considered, staff realized they could not undertake a major effort to update the Comprehensive Plan and do the Downtown Study at the same time. Staff was updating the Housing Element because it was required under State law, and its scope was narrow ir: terms of staff time and issues. Councilmember Bechtel said it was suggested that Council not hold firm to the one-year time limit and that it be extended if necessary. She was open to that, but did not want to make a deci- sion then. NOTION:. fleeecilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Witherspoon* to adept staff recommendations as fellows 1. The, study area a for the Dewetime Study be as shown in Figere 1 of the Narck t,,,1US4 staff r part 4 3-3 5 3/19/84 MOTION C0ITIhUCD 2. Approve the "Basic Study" components as described in the report and the work program, and include approval in principle a future budget amendment for a maximum of $15,500 to cover possible group facilitation assistance, technical consultants for environmental assessment, bend counsel, and public noticing cost; 3. Approve supplemental element regarding retail vitality, and include approval in principle a future budget amendment of $1,500 - $10,000 for consultant services; 4. Approve the "Basic Study" time schedule. (Future modifica- tions include possibly extending the study beyond the current completion date of January, 1985, if: (a) extensive supplemental analysis is required; or (b) early stages of the study reveal a lack of char direction concerning basic goals and objectives); and 5. Approve the citizen parti ai pat i on plan described in the March 2, 1984 staff report, including a main study committee and one or two subcommittees. Mayor Klein asked Councilmember Bechtel whether the element she .added to the staff recommendation to 'approve supplemental element regarding retail vitality" included the possible use of a consul- tant. Coincilmember Bechtel said yes, and it also included a subsequent budget amendment that would return for the amount recommended. She excluded two possible supplemental items because she always believed that transfer of development rights was great in theory, but not in actuality. Retail vitality was crucial for the down- town, and the Council would hate to see the retail stores shrivel and decline because of the tremendous demand for the limited space downtown. Mechanisms to ensure retail vitality must be explored, and as much as she considered urban design important, she did not believe extra time was needed for it. Vice Mayor Levy said a dow'etown committee comprised of those who would be most affected by the Council's actions suggested that the expenditure on a more thorough study, even if paid by the Downtown Assessment District, would be worthwhile. ge expressed _doubts at the last meeting, and still doubted the value of a large scale consultant study apd the concomitant cost and time. He asked whether the Assessment District could be charge r$ for the cost of such a study, and the specific gains the City would forego by the more limited study before the Council. Mr. Schreiber said the initial staff report, attached to the cur- rent one and prepared for the previous week's meeting, contained a .work program that identified a number of build -out forecasts and the preparation of forecasts for a continuation of current poli- cies, together with forecasts for levels of development in the event certain development rules were changed. Without an economic consultant, staff could focus on the build-out alternative. Some argued that build -out on many parcels was not realistic because they were too small , access was bad, etc. Since it would be dif- ficult for stuff to make other than a genera assessment, poten- tial development less, than build -out, they would look at build -out alternatives and work back from that. The other major difference, in addition to forecasts, was the level of analysis. The work Program without a major economic consultant assumed that between the Study Committee and the Commission, : the staff and ultimately the Council, a set of firm, clear policies would be provided early by the Council to the Commission and staff. Such policy decisions 4 3 3 6 3/-19/84 1 1 cntild hp male without a detailed analysis on the economic implica- tions as it concerned not the highest and best land use, but how certain policies would likely translate into actual levels of development if any. Once staff hod those policies, they would look at ways to implement them. If Council believed the assess- ment of the relative impacts of different alternatives was neces- sary to make the policy decisions, then staff would be concerned about not having an economic consultant. Staff understood Council to say a month earlier that it could make firm, clear policy deci- sions and give the staff direction after the initial recommenda- tions were received from the Planning Commission, which would allow the implementation work to go ahead without the economic analysis. It was a question of forecasts and not of analysis. City Attorney Diane Lee responded to the legal propriety of spending Parking Assessment District funds on all the things con- templated for the economic consultant, ,Based on provisions of the Municipal Code related to parking districts and some of the bond provisions, and the report to determine how much of what was to be done related to parking, she believed that only some of those ser- vices could.be properly provided for by district revenues. Only those aspects which related to parking could be appropriately expended by Parking District funds. Vice Mayor Levy said he was still Uncgnvinced that the larger scale study was necessary, and agreed that the shorter study would be satisfactory. He believed the inclusion of the Retail Vitality Study was wise, but commented that the Urban Design Committee and transfer rights were not included in the motion. Regarding the recommended Downtown Study Committee, he believed it was a mistake to include the Commission as part of the Downtown Study Committee, He believed better information would come by having the committee separate to produce input, have the Commission review that input, add it own, and have everything return to the Council. It would give the Council a broader picture, and he felt better about that arrangement than having the Commission be a part of the total Downtown Study Committee. With regard to the transfer of develop- ment rights, Council discussed the concept and he concluded that it was worthy of study because many large :buildings were going up downtown. While their iarchitecture diffe#red, the impact was the same --they were large bulky buildings of the same height and gave the feeling of a large square structure. The transfer of -develop- ment rights concept was designed to allow the Council to maintain some of the older, smaller buildings in the downtown area. He feared that without that concept, they might lose a large number of such buildings, to the intrusion of the downtown diversity feeling. . With that in mind, he believed it made sense to study the transfer of development rights to see its overall impacts. He supported the $10,000 expenditure to study the concept, and hoped it might be an avenue to maintain some of the smaller, older buildings in the downtown area. Counci lmember Fletcher referred to the March 9 repoe t to the Planning Commission- in that week's packet on the 1984 Zoe gag and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments. Item 14 recommended implementa- tion of a height limit in the CC district. The staff recommenda tion was not to deal with the subject because it was being dealt with in the California Avenue Study and would be investigated as part of the Downtown -Study. . She`obtained confirmation from Mr, Schreiber that it would still -form part of the recommended study, but had problems with the .direction of the study, With regard to the retail vital ity, -she wanted to deflne -the retail -vitality as something that would most benefit, the Palo Alto resident com- munity. If they- spoke' of "retail vitality," the emphasis would be on highest and most econom# ci use., which might conflict with . the type -of businesses, ilke grocery stores, they wanted to retain .downtown. 4 3 3 7 3/19/84 ruru�graix • �_� r - l _� � � �._ w i� _ i MENliar i ; Couac r l w�ewiber r: 1 ct hc�- riaoved , : �;.€finure�i by Bechtel , to amend item 3 of the motion to define "retail vitality" as being of most benefit to the Palo Alto resfdegL commuhity. Councilmember Bechtel asked for clarification that "retail vitality" meant "retail diversity" or "retail that satisfied the needs of the community in terms of providing those needs," and that they were definitely included as part of the study. Councilmember Fletcher said she wanted diversity to include those types of businesses that would benefit the residential community. Councilmember Witherspoon understood the intent of the amendment, but could not support it. They wanted economic vitality to make the formula work. She hoped it would include some of the stores the residents downtown needed for shopping, but realized that downtown vitality, purely from. a Councilmember point of view, was to keep the retail sales tax healthy. It was necessary to have a mix of the boutique type of business, the highest and best service uses. She did not want the study -to focus on just one or the other. The original motion was clear, and she hoped a fairly sophisticated consultant would come back with that included, but as pointed out by Mr. Moss, such things could not be legislated. Councilmember Sutorius could not support the amendment because an important function of the Study Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council early in tie process was to identify issues, goals and policies. The sense of the amendment could be chewed out in those sessions and appropriately elaborated, modified, or identified in such a way that each of those bodies could reach a conclusion and carry it forward. Councilmember Renzel reluctantly concurred. She shared Council - member filetcher's concern, but the value judgments inherent in the language were difficult to concretei.y define that concern. She believed it would come up as part of the goals and issues section of the study, but wondered whether a store was only of great value to the local community or if it went beyond that. Many types of retail businesses provided needs for nearby residents as well as residents from a..distance. To define a particular retail use would be difficult to do, and she preferred to keep the retail vitality issue broad at that point and recognize that neighbor- hood -serving uses were a high priority and a concern to the Council. She would not support the amendment. Councilmember Woolley_ agreed with the two previous speakers. She was sure staff noted their comments which should suffice to ensure a more thorough discussion at the goal -setting stage. Vice Mayor Levy said historically a conflict existed between retail vitality and the highest land value. He hoped Council was clear that what might contribute most to the vitality of retail outlets might differ from what ewould contribute most to the highest value ,for the land and that property itself, and that it would focus on the retail rather than just on the property values. Councilmember Fletcher understood from staff and the Commission that Council was to clearly define its goals, which was her intent with the amendment. With regard to defining or limiting the retail uses and in defining the amendment, Councilmember Bechtel mentioned "diversity," which meant they would not : rule out any- thing, and would try to get ..a mix. As far as trying to prescribe exact uses, when the, issue was- discussed earlier, staff came up with a comprehensive list of the types of retail uses that would benefit the residents of. the City, and that should not be a restrictive factor. It was not her intent to l iatit it to one or two uses. She said that as with the "neighborhood commercial," "neighborhood retail" could be defined. 4 3 3 8 3/19/84 Mayor Klein said the amendment added to the definition of the Retail Vitality Study --that the consultant be directed to study retail diversity as well. Councilmember Bechtel said it asked the consultant to look not only at the tax dollars to be gained by a vital retail activity, but the community benefits of having diverse retail activities., The City did not want to end up with all boutiques or all banks just because they brought in the highest dollars per square foot on that particular retail facility. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Fletcher and Bechtel voting "aye." Councilmember Cobb said slice Mayor Levy commented on both urban design and development rights. He understood the report to say there would be consultant costs of approximately $10,004 for each of those studies, and he asked Mr. Schreiber about the impact on staff time with either element. Mr. Schreiber said the impact on staff time would not be extensive on urban design because it was assumed that most nonconsultant legwork would be done by the Urban Design subcommittee. With regard to the transfer of development rights, it was basically an outside judgment so the additional staff would be minimal. Councilmember Cobb clarified that the cost of the two studies was relatively modest, and would not hurt in terms of staff time. He reiterated that Council did not want staff so bottled up it could not deal with other major issues, although he recognized the extreme importance of the downtown issue. He was troubled by not having some components of the economic study, and why a consultant could not do economic analysis without adding a significant bur- den to staff. He was concerned the a subcommittee would be formed and make a policy decision based on its instincts, and not on solid economic data, or crake decisions with which the Council was unhappy or which did not give the desired result because it was based on feelings rather than on hard information. He was groping for a way to work towards doing some elements of the economic study in the broader overview to give the important decision - making and goal -setting process a more a ;onom_ is base with which to work' without adding a substantial .burden on staff. time that would put staff back: into the situation of being 100 percent committed to the study." Mr. Schreiber said a similar question arose at the Planning Commission and staff believed the economic consultant work could be substantially reduced in scope or scale in the sense that part of it was basic data collection work and analysis. There were two impacts on staff time; the economic consultant would need data, and staff assumed it would not pay for data collection and prepa- ration. Further, a consultant needed staff direction, supervision and involvement otherwise things easily got off track. Councilmember .Cobb said assuming the City was willing to pay to collect the data an =economic consultant. would need, he asked, for a ball park figure on. what it would cost, and whether the burden on staff. would then be small enough that the economic study could be done. Mr. Schreiber said the difference in costs between using regular staff supervision and temporary help already budgeted within the Planning Department versus hiring a. consultant was a factor of two, three or four. Councilmember Sutcrius agreed with proceeding with: at least the enlarged study area and believed it was fundamental to the basic purposes behind the proposed study. He supportedthe basic study components as described in the report. Point No. 3 in the .main 4 3. 3 9 3/19/84 motion prnnnspd to add only the "retail vitality" element of the three supplemental elements discussed by staff in its report. It was said that the "transfer of development rights" ts" element was great in theory, but lousy in reality, and should, therefore, be excl°aded. He opined it was great in theory, but unexamined in �- reality and could not be concluded uvcudcd �a a�s J lousy in reality. He believed the theory had considerable potential for mitigating pos- sible negative impacts of a seismic hazard process that might evolve at some point during the year, and it was important that Council make the modest financial investment involved. No addi- tional staff: "time was necessary because it was an area where staff lacked the experience, wanted the knowledge, and would obtain it by a" modest cost consultant. study. :He believed;Cooncil should proceed with the urban design component because it was modestly incorporated in the staff component, there were no costs asso- ciated with it, and it would require some staff direction. He was convinced that at some stage the Council would want to go beyond the minimal role identification for urban design as contained in the proposal. It was a parking and traffic motivated study and the parking structure concepts that would be involved and the other points of focus that might emerge for the downtown area should be at least included in that study. He would not suggest any change to the composition of the study committee. He under- stood Vice Mayor Levy's concern when he questioned whether it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to sit in body on the com- mittee and act separately in its formal role after the recommenda- tions of the study committee were formulated. Since the process was one that the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed, and since both staff and the Commission experienced in a sounding board type of process the frustrations of many Commissioners who could not participate in the full sounding board and missed some of the flavor, intimacy, and opportunity for dialogue that occurred in that type of setting, he understood the reason for incorporating the Commission as a full membership in the study temmittee. The fact that a voting role was not envisioned in that committee {process suggested staff was after a full sense of total involvement not restricted by the same protocols that operated at a formal Planning Commission meeting. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, an amendment to Point t3 to include alt the supplemental elements identified In the staff report --retail vitality, urban design, and transfer of development rights. The potential of the consultancy changed from 7.5 to 10 for retail only, to a total of 15.5 to 20. The total economic coasultaot and other a.:onsultant fees out of Points 2 and 3 would range from 26.5 to 36.3. Mayor Klein said he would divide the vote on the amendment to first vote on the urban design portion, and then development rights. Councilmember Woolley supported the amendment. Regarding urban design, she believed Council should take advantage of the talent and the interest clearly expressed in the community. She pointed out that staff considered the supplemental element to be desir- able, and she believed the Council should take heed. Regarding the transfer of development rights, Council talked about it for a long time, but delayed it to be included with the downtown study. She believed Council should go ahead because it was closely related to urban design, historic preservation, and to the seismic. upgrading, If Council put it off, it might make the other con- cerns more difficult or their study less complete. Councilmember Renzel opposed the amendment. She felt no urgency with respect to urban design, and believed it was great to deal with the basic land use issues downtown. The public parking structures would;go through the study in many ways when proposed and there was ample opportunity to review them. There were limited sites for such structures so that Council would not have to look far to know its option and be able to evaluate such a 4 3 4 0 3/19/84 • -1 private on -site par=ki ray required ability to con- trol AMENDMENT RESTATES: TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL STUDIES TO 3 --URBAN DESIGN AND TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT TO STUDY URBAN DESIGN PASSED by S-3, Fletcher, Ren.,el , Bechtel voting "Pre.'° POINT NO. a vote of SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT TO STUDY TRANSFER OF DEVELOP RIGHTS FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Woolley, Levy, Cobb, Sutorius voting AMENDMENT: Gomel l member Fletcher moved to add consideration of ridesharing programs to the word "program." Counci lmember Renzel asked how that would differ from the Council's policy commitment toward encouraging ridesharing. Councilmember Fletcher Reid currently the policy commitment was no more than that and was not carried out among downtown parking space users. There was considerable discussion among the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 101 Corridor Study Mitigations Committee, on which she served, to encourage smaller businesses to combine their efforts to coordinate ridesharing pro- grams, and a demonstration project would probably go ahead as pro -- posed by the San Mateo County Development Association, which was similar to the Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group. That Association was eager` to participate in the study financially and coordinate efforts to hire someone to actually work on the ride - sharing. It would not happen unless someone worked on it full time to coordinate the different businesses. It was impossible to coordinate when there were separate businesses = with no overall base from which to draw potential ride sharers. The intent of her motion was to explore ways to encourage ridesharing programs down- town. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK. OF A SECOND Counci l Member Fletcher was concerned that the scope of the study was narrow, and instead of concentrating on an economic analysis, parking and traffic its scope be broadened to consider the reduc- tion of job potential and -maximize housing. She believed it might 4 3 4 1 3/19/84 be appropriate to estabi i sh a citizens task for to work next to the rain focus of the study. She was not sure how it would work, but believed it should be considered. The problems of the down- town were 'not purely traffic parking or economics --the problems were what Palo Alto wanted for itself and it was the proper direc- tion. She asked staff to -react. - Mr. Schreiber believed Councilmember Fletcher identified d -basic goal^-1 'rc= on which stem expected Council to establish a goal, u l .. t u N v+. �. policy and direction for the Commission and staff, but did not believe it needed to be added. It was there. Councilmember Fletcher asked at which point Council established that goal and direction. Mr. Schreiber said it was after the initial study committee pro- cess and Planning Commission recommendations to the Council on the goals and policies, which was early in the process. Councilmember Fletcher said that regarding the make up of the com- mittees and sounding boards, the report mentioned property owners, neighborhood organizations, and the City, and she believed the merchant/tenants downtown should be identified as participants in the process. Councilmember Renzel supported the main motion and agreed with the scope of the study as now framed. She believed any additional economic information the Council might get, no matter, how care- fully done and potentially accurate it might be on a rational basis, assumed all decisions by private property owners were made on a completely rational economic decision -making basis. As seen in a number of instances where what appeared to the owners and. developers of properties to be rational economic decision -making turned out to be not so rational from the economic point of view and the City ended up stuck with a development not necessarily in its best interests. Some condoiinium developments were built in . Palo Alto on that basis and were not entirely successful. Since there was a lot of private decision -making that would not necessarily assume any rational economic basis by the standards that a consultant might devise, it was important for the Council to look at its goals and objects vesefor the City: and to deal- with the problems it perceived and the areas with which it could deal. She believed adding the retail Vitality element would benefit all retail, not just boutiques, because to the extent the Council could address retail vitality in some way would create an atmos- phere where the present markets would be.served. She was pleased tea-, see the Planning Commission involvement. in the study committee. She supported the motion as amended. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayer Levy moved, seconded by Mi therspoon , that the Downtown Study Committee be reformulated as a'.eorking group consisting of 18 members and representing dewntowa inter- ests, downtaera and nearby residents, ether Palo Alto residents at large, the Architectural Review Board (AID) and the Historic Resources Beard (HRB)o Mayor" Klein asked for clarification that the amendment deleted the seven Planning. Comas ssi oners and reallocated those members among the other four categories Vice Mayor Levy clarified that his intent was that the : seven- posi - tions be reallocated to the the downtown interests, downtown and nearby residential, and other Palo Alto residents- at large, and that the ARB and HR8 continue to be represented by one member each.. He did not want to pin dOwn ' the- exact- representation , -but emphasized other Palo_ Alto residents namely senior citizens and downtown and nearby residents. . Mayor Klein said the staff recommendation specified where nine committee members would ;come from among the three groups mentioned by Vice Mayor Levy, and •he asked if those would be retained. 4 3 4 2 3/19/84 Vice Mayor- Levy ciavi ied that the metion did not stipulate the specific breakdown of the committee except that it be 18 mem- bers --that one member be from the ARB, one from the HRB, and the other 16 members to be appointed .try the Mayor, be divided among downtown interests, downtown and nearby residents and other Pal o Alto residents at large. Substantial interest was expressed by the, community at large and he believed that to keep the committee a proper size as a working committee, more than only one member representing senior citizens and one member representing citizens at large was needed. There was a need for greater community representation nn the committee, and at the same time, he believed ter...,.,..._.., the Council and community would be better served by haying sep- arate input from the Planning Commission, the opportunity for it to evaluate .the overall comments and work of the committee, and comment separately to the Council after having done so. Councilmember Bechtel tended to agree with Vice Mayor Levy. She believed Planning Commissioners could be involved if they wanted to be, and that during the California Avenue Study, there were a couple of members actually on the committee, and the others felt as if they did not know what was happening. She understood that during the Planning'Commission meeting, there was some discussion about it and that was the rationale for having the Commission involved. She believed those Planning Commissioners who wanted to be actively involved in the Downtown Study could attend the meeting, but not as regular designated workshop committee members. She supported the amendment and believed it was appropriate for. the Planning Commission to review and have input after the com- mittee concluded its recommendations. Councilmember Renzel opposed the amendment because the Planning Commission expressed interest in being a part of the study from the beginning, and it was a good opportunity for it to interact on a less formal basis with the citizens directly concerned with the downtown area. It did not exclude the public, and adding more public residents to the committee would not necessarily increase nor diminish the voice of those members of the public who would continue to be interested throughout the study, She hoped there would be public input throughout, but she preferred Planning Commission involvement. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that the Planning Commissioners were members of the public at large, they were citizens of various parts cif the City and were more qualified than many citizens to be at the central part of the study. Their background was hearing from residents on -all viewpoints in the course of their duties, and she opposed reducing the Planning Commission participation on the committee. Councilmember Sutorius associated himself with the comments Councilmembers Renzel and Fletcher. Mayor Klein also associated himself with the remarks of Councilmembers Renzel and Fletcher and believed it was inappropri- ate to delete the Planning Commission from the process. Planning Commissioners, with their- experience and community wide perspec- tive from an intensive base, would greatly add to the process that would otherwise not be the case. .There would- be a great loss without the Planning Commissioners involved in the study. Councilmember Witherspoon said the Council greatly depended on the Planning Commission's input, and it would be included in any case because it world formally go through the Commission before it went to the Council. She supported the amendment because half of the committee would be appointed Commissioners which left only half of the committee to be the citizens input. AMENDNENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Levy, Bechtel, Witherspoon voting "aye." 4 3 4 3 3/19/84 MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED rrnanimuasiy. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that Council staff be directed to draft an ordinance to be returned to the Council to effect a moratorium over the length of the study period in the study area of office .developments of over 10,000 square feet. Councilmember Bechtel would not support the motion. Council had an interim parking ordinance to place which was not a moratorium, but made additional development difficult because of the parking requirements. Much as she agreed with the goal to try and pre- clude titt re developments _ she did not believe a �RI�l.y and premature .... .. _r.. --•-- • moratorium was required at that point. Councilmember Cobb reinforced Councilmember Bechtel 's comments and believed the temporary parking ordinance was a defecto moratorium and functioned like one. He did not believe the Council should pull a moratorium out of its pocket without the public being well aware with ample opportunity for discussion. AOTI0N FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Fletcher, RInze'i voting *aye.°, COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:25 p.m. p.rr.. ITEM 46, 1681-1591 EL CAMINO REAL PLA 3-6' Mayor Klein said the item proposed a four -month moratorium on applications for the development of properties located at 1681- 1691 El Camino Real, and an emergency ordinance. City Attorney Diane Lee said the emergency ordinance required eight votes to pass. Naphtali Knox, 1025 Forest Avenue, represented the Weeks' Estate, 1681-1691 El Camino. He said the property was singled out for special treatment, and the:` Estate never intended that to be the case. • _he Estate never received notice of the initial California Avenue study, or the six-month moratorium applied in September, 1983. On March 12, 1984, Bruce Freeland advised the Council that the property was not initially part of the California Avenue study area; that he exercised professional planning judgment and admin- istrative prerogative for inclusion. By action of the Council, the Weeks' Estate was out of the study area, and Mr. Freeland advised that staff "hadn't given any great thought to residential on the property." Last week, the Council excluded the property from .the Comprehensive Plan change, referred the matter to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation, directed staff to prepare an amended envi- ronmental assessment, and directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to place a new and more stringent moratorium aimed at that one property of less than one acre. During the discussion between Council and staff, it was stated that the four -month period of the moratorium would allow sufficient time for staff and the Planning Commission to study the land use and zoning aspects and make recommendations As Council now considered enacting the moratorium, he asked for assurances that the four months would not fritter away and that a complete analysis --the kind Palo Alto staff was capable of making --was performed ourirg the moratorium. At least three alternatives should be studied --housing, mixed use, and office. With respect to RM-2 and RM-3 densities, he believed the effects of the RM-3 zone should be studied. With respect to mixed use, last week Councilmember Renzel at 11:45 p.m., stated "for the record, this property should have been rezoned to resi- dential in 1978 with the then . use .grafdfather•ed in." Accordingly, staff should study A development that ,.would incorporate the approximately 9,000 square feet;of existing nonresidential into a new mixed use development based on RM-3 densities. With respect 4 3 4 4 3/19/84 to office, pienis were developed as an alternative to the CN zone; it followed the moratorium rules of a 25 -foot maximum height; and fell well below the 1:1 maximum floor area ratio. Since it was submitted for ARB review on March 12, the design was available to the City staff. In addition, pack -up studies and data could be made available to staff. With respect to the study, he requested that the amended environmental assessment consider the social and economic impacts, of each of the three uses. He hoped the planners would carefully address how the combination of each particular land use and the physical limitations of the particular piece of ,.property would affect the economic value of the land. He hoped the environmental assessment would address the kinds and sizes of dwelling units that might be anticipated on the property and how size and cost of dwelling unit plus the location of the property might determine who lived there --families, student, elderly, moderate income, high income, etc, He requested that the evalua- tion compare size and location of the property with existing resi- dential developments on El Camino --notably The Redwoods, Barron Square, Villas de las Plazas and Two Worlds. He wanted to know the distance from the curb at El Camino to the nearest dwelling unit in each of those developments, and formal direction to staff by the Council would be appreciated. Regarding the statement last week that the property had never been used as an office use, that it was always a school, he researched the question and advised that in 1962, SAGA Foods had a research and test kitchen on the site; March 10, 1967, L. B. Nelson and Associates had its office there; December. 20, 1973 California Land Title Company had its accounting and administrative offices there; May 12, 1978 Pacific Graduate School of Psychology; May 26, 1978, Hare, Brewer & Kelly. Residential Title Company; and December 24, 1979, international Psoriasis Research Foundation Medical Research. There were a com- bination of uses over the years. Don Maynor, 2471 E. Bayshore Road, said regarding the wording of the proposed ordinance, Ernie Weeks of the Weeks' Estate, was con- cerned with the present wording of the ordinance because two leases would expire within the next three months and there might be e -need for minor remodeling changes for new tenants of the structure. He told Mr. Weeks' that he did not think it was the intent to treat him any differently than a nonconforming use, and he asked for an administrative interpretation of the ordinance. Otherwise, he proposed a minor wording change to be added at the end of Section 1: "Provided that nothing herein shall prohibit repairs generally allowed for nonconforming uses pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code." The idea was that if emergency repairs or minor remodeling was necessary for a new tenant, it should not be precluded under the moratorium. - Regarding the setback issue, the Weeks' Estate tried to sell its property at 1691.El Camino Real for state planning purposes, but the moratorium caused the Estate nine months in delay. Besides the pending zoning ques-- tions, the 25 -foot setback on the small property presented a substantial marketing problem for the property o}vner. He sought to modify the 25 -foot- setback theolieh the variance procedure, but eil.countered a Catch -2, in that the :::ity required that a variance_ application refer to a specific project. Since the proposed mora- torium would not allow the processing of their project applica- tion, their variance epplica ion to the City would evidently not be processed. The situation was frustrating for the Weeks` Estate since it was the only CS property in the Evergreen Park area with .any setback requirement, and that included both sides of El Camino Real. Even the residential properties had a. smaller setback than 20 feet. An exhaustive analysis of that particular setback by the Weeks' Estate strongly suggested that the 25 -foot -setback was en anch.ronism- that should have been eliminated when the property was commercially zoned RPe3.or CS. A legal analysis prepared by the Ropers,` Ma.jeski firm icenclUdedi that the setback way= probably il-.legal. The City Attorney's office -received a copy of that analysis_ a couple of weeks ago and he requested that Council to direct staff and P1 anni ng =Commi sari ors to consider the removel of the 25 -foot setback from that particular property. Such a-, study 1 i would fit iri with the curl~evil zoning study on the property, and he believed there were many reasons to support such a study notwith- standing that the Weeks' property appeared zo he unfairly dis- criminated against with respect to the 25 -foot setback. The setback requirements contained in the residential and CN zoning ordinance as the alternatives provided more than adequate setbacks for the property --the residential ordinances provided 16 to 20 - foot setbacks and the CN provided a 10 -foot setback. He believed the appropriateness of a setback map as a planning tool should be questioned because he opined that it did not fairly apprise the public of its contents. He briefly surveyed other cities nearby, and Palo Alto and Mountain View were the only ones that continued to use the setback map as a planning tool --Menlo Park, Redwood City, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Cupertino no 'onger used the set- back map. He only found one reference :n the zoning code to the setback map, and he believed it might become a trap for the unwary. Ms. Lee was concerned about making revisions to the ordinance that evening because she wanted to study Mr. Maynor's suggestions and talk with the Planning Department personnel. If appropriate, she would report back to the Council on the ramifications. The ordi- nance was the City's standard --and generally moratorium ordinances prohibited remodeling. Councilmember Cobb said the effect of a moratorium put the status of a property in limbo, and he did not understand the point of dealing with setbacks now. Mr. Maynor said sir. Weeks tried to market the property for some time, and regardless of the zoning, they had to deal with the 25 - foot setback, and they wanted to deal with it then. The longer it was put off, the longer Mr. Weeks had to hold onto the property. There were elderly beneficiaries of the Estate, and as a matter of prudence, the property should be liquidated. As long as there was an unfair restriction on the property, marketing of the property was impeded. He did not believe anything to come out of the zoning process would change the issue with respect to the 25 -foot setback, and a developer of the property might apply for a setback under the residential zoning or whatever. Audrey Poulter, 1731 Park Boulevard thanked the Council for its decision to have the zoning of the Weeks' property studied by the Planning Commission. The developer proposed an office project under the old CS zoning, and the application for a variance to allow construction nine feet from El Camino instead of the 25 -foot setback requirement was scheduled for Thursday, and she requested the Council pass the emergency moratorium to prevent that possi- bility. If a residential zone was eventually approved, a new 20 - foot setback would be established along El Camino and a new vari- ance would be required to build within 25 feet. of El Camino. The variance would become moot if the rezoning occurred. Setbacks were important along El Camino, and adjacent to the Weeks' prop- erty were homes set back from the street. Improving the appear- ance of El Camino was a major goal of the 1981 Comprehensive Plan, and setbacks were one vehicle for accomplishing it. The neighbors would appeal a variance, and it would be costly and potentially wasteful if rezoning occurred. The variance could be easily rescheduled after the zoning review was complete.., and if no emer- gency moratorium was imposed, the developer could push his plans along to make it appear he had a right to go ahead. Since the Council decided that rezoning should be studied, the developer should not be encouraged to push ahead with plans under the old zoning. She hoped those Counci lmembers not in favor of rezoning the property- would change their minds after more study, and that neighbors ►would not be forced through the variance c►rocess while the rezoning was being studied Beverly Wood -Smith, lived for 34 year at 202 Sequoia Avenue, adjoining the Weeks' property. She sent a petition to the 4 3 4 S 3/19/84 Councilrnembers stating the views of she and 22 Southgate neig hboes concerning the project. For the record the petition thanked the Council for referring the question of rezoning the Weeks' property to the Planning Commission. The petitioners strongly believed that thousands of feet of office space on that corner would be unfortunate for the neighborhood and the entire community. They were concerned about the proposed variance scheduled for March 22, 1984, to allow the office building within nine feet of El Camino Real. The Zoning Administrator said he would proceed with the variance unless the Council imposed an immediate freeze on the property, and she requested such a moratorium to prevent a time consuming and possibly irrelevant variance hearing and appeal if the property were rezoned. Not voting for an immediate freeze prejudged the issue because the developer could proceed under the old zoning. With more time, the names of more neighborhood and City-wide petitioners would have been added to the list. Lois Johnson, 230 Sequoia Avenue, asked the Council to pass the immediate freeze on the development. The prop- erty freeze was special --it was in a residential area and the Planning Commission map showed_ that surrounding the entire neighborhood was all residential. The housing developments mentioned by Mr. Knox were not near the property, and did not conpne:. 'An immediate moratorium would eliminate the need for a variance. Counciimember Woolley said the Council decided the previous week to leave the type of use open when returning the question to the Commission. In view of that decision, she asked staff if it was necessary to give further direction to the Planning Commission along the lines suggested by Mr. Knox, or whether a study of such scope would be undertaken in any case. Mr. Schreiber said the study Mr. Knox proposed was broader and deeper than the study staff intended especially given the four - month time frame in which to return the matter to the Council and get an ordinance in place, should it be changed. The concept of mixed use was not one of the detailed alternatives to be studied. Office development, commercial zoning or multiple family zoning were included, and he did not anticipate being instructed to make a detailed analysis of mixed use, nor survey other residential properties up and down Cl Camino. The previous speaker made a good point that many of those properties were not applicable to the location. Councilmember Woolley asked about the setback, and whether it was included in the study. Mr. Schreiber said no, but he had no objection to its inclusion with the other considerations by the Planning Commission, and believed it was appropriate. MOTION: Corrncilmember iioolley moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt the ordinance as set forth in Exhibit A of the staff report. ORDINANCE 3516 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE MITT ©i PALO ALTO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM FOR FOUR MONTHS ON THE !ROCESSIND OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES AT 1681-1691 EL CAMINO REAL AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY' Counci lmember Bechtel supported the emergency ordinance. Councilmemter Renzel supported the ordinance to preserve the Council's options on the property. She clarified her remarks at the previous meeting which were quoted by a member of the public, and said that because the property held a residential zoning prior to the 1976 ComprehensivePlan, it should have been kept residen- tial zoning, rather than rezoned a commercial zoning, and the then existing uses grandfathered rather than change the underlying 4 3 4 7 3/19/84 z)n ing. She ' 1 not k11ow whether she was paraphrased, or whether additional conclusions were added. to her -remarks, but she clari- fied that the remarks in context were related to .the pre-existing residential zone that was there, and. that there -was a criterion for both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, that Council would not increase density as a result of those revisions that were going on. Councilmember Sutorius supported the moratorium issue in the hope that he correctly anticipated subsequent Council action. The examinations identified by the applicant were' modest-a-nd-reason- abl e. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon '"not participating,4 Mayor Klein said the ordinance received eight votes and was adopted as an emergency item. NOTION: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher,• that the Planning_Commission bt directed to include the 25 -foot setback at the same time it studied land use for pru ii i ty at I681-1691 El Camino Real. Councilmember Bechtel believed the motion was inappropriate, and that the matter should be handled through the variance procedure. Councilmember Sutorius believed it was appropriate to consider the special setback. Counci..i_established a moratorium and asked the Commission to look at land use and zoning. He believed Council must contemplate appropriate setbacks since sideyards, rear yards and front yards would be examined. The applicant described an - anachronism not countered by staff. One single property had a special setback situation that might have had °a justifiable rationale when implemented, but the situation changed, and if the Council was to Make a fair and comprehensive study of the land use and its appropriate zoning, it must contemplate the underlying setbacks for whatever zone -the Commission recommended to the Council. The representations by the applicant were not unreason- able and were generally looked at An one form or another where responses to questions could occur in land use and zoning discus- sion on a piece of property, Councilmember Renzel understood the Motion contemplated study of the -setback map at the same time as the zoning on the property, and it would all return to the Council as a package. She asked if a Planning Commission recommendation on the setback map would return to the Council for final decision so there would be no action on the setback map prior to determining appropriate zoning forthe site. Mr. Schreiber said yes, Councilmember Renzel supported the motion. Councilmember Bechtel said her colleagues made convincing argu- ments, and in orderto not .complicate staff procedures, she would support the motion. NOTION PASSED unanimously COUNCIL DETERMINATION WHETHER TO COMMENCE NEW ITEMS AFTER 11.00 .m. Mayor Klein suggested the whole agenda be handled that evening, and no objection was ';fade by the Council. 4 3 4 8 3/19/84 ITEM #4, COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO OPPOSE AB fl TROBINS�1� MATERIALS INFORMATION RU1'T MOTION: Cosncilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renxel: to adopt the Legislative Committee recommendation to direct the Mayor to send`a message to the chairperson and members of the Assembly Consumer Protection and Toxic Materials Committee, and to Assemblyman Byron Sher urging defeat of AB 2302. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #5, BYXBEE PARK - COST REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES PWK 5--7 Ttlirrinlirrr Director of Public Works David Adams said four years ago Council approved a concept designed for Byxbee Park, and that questions were since raised about cost reduction. Final design of the first phase was about tocommence, and Council guidance was required. Deputy Director for Operations Dale Pfeiffer said with Council approval, a landscape architect would be hired to develop the final design for Stage 1, and staff would return to the Planning Commission, ARB and the Council for final site design and review later in the year. The staff report of the previous fall outlined possibilities for' landfill life extension, and the question would return to Council in mid -I985. He said Iandfilling at the present refuse disposal area began in the 1930s with approximately 100,000 tons annually. The area was approximately 145 acres with 11 acres in the Mayfield S1Qtyjh remnant, and served Palo Alto and Stanford. He showed a slide of the preliminary design, where the Baylands Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (FIR) approved by Council in October, 1980 had the Byxbee Park Landfill conversion as a major component. Council selected a conceptual park design and grading plan, and determined that it be used for passive recrea` tion, and not single purpose facilities such as a golf course. After Council approved the Master Plan, a technical report was submitted to the Regional; Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as a first step in closure permit. The preliminary pan was reviewed by Council and approved as a conceptual site design in April 1981. The landfill was to be closed in three separate sections to allow portions to be opened for- ,.pastoral park use while continuing the landfill operation, and Ito gain experience for the following stages. Stage 1 -would close in 1986.87;` -stage 2 in 1993; and stage 3 in approximately 1999. Stage 1 consisted of approximately 62 acres, and was the most aesthetic being adjacent to the Yacht Harbor and .the Flood Basin. >, It was cpmprised of meadows and peanut shaped mounds which did hot a, great deal of capacity. Stage 2 comprised' 34 acres and had the greatest disposal capacity. While landfilling it, stage 1 would be developed for parkland use. Service and recreational vehicles would use.., the present road during stage 2 while the Embarcadero Way entrance between the Treatment Plant and the Industrial area was built, and the Recycling Center would be resited adjacent to the Treatment Plant. Stage 3 comprised 50 acres, and while it was being filled, stage. 2 would be stripped into a park. Recreational vehicles would use only the Embarcadero Way extension after completing the 'landfill. Part of stage 3 was Mayfield Marsh, and once the landfill closed, the Recycling Center would 'be moved off site. To ensure that water or leachate: did trot injure the ground or surface waters, the RWQCB required- At least three feet of soil cover the landfill, with one foot .had of impermeable cap. The: slope of the lobes _had to be .between 3 percent -And 33 -percent, be protected against ero- sion, and have landscaping and drainage. The RWQCB also required the aaark be maintained fo,r its life, and it had ate be guarded against settlement, possible ponding,: methane' gas generation, and l eachate. He showed an -atrti st-'s interpretation of the entrance area to be built ddring stage 2-, with ,a. visitors'. entrance at 4 3 4 9 3/19/84. Embarcadero Way which would be the head of the pathways. There would be perimeter and interior walkways --the ink.erior walkways would be for drainage, while the perimeter walkways gave good views. They were of asphalt for low maintenance and water flow, 8 to 12 feet wide and for use by pedestrians, bicycles and service vehicles. The Mayfield Marsh, constructed from the Mayfield Slough and completely cut off by a levee from the Flood Basin was to be developed into a Wild Life Refuge and people area, like the Duck Pond at the Yacht Harbor. It would consist of eight acres of freshwater pond, walkways, observation areas, a semi -circular board walk and a wildlife refuge island inaccessible to people. The Mayfield Marsh was initially inter.=ded for use as mitigation by ITT since -its only water was rainfal i and it dried out in summer. It would not be necessary to construct hayfield Marsh during stage 3 --the observation areas and furniture were strategically placed around the perimeter of the park for the best views and to cut off the wind. It had concrete step walls for planting. They proposed planting many trees and shrubs in belts or groups to economize on soil, irrigation and drainage and to provide soil and slope stabilization; wind and sun protection; bird and animal shelter and food and color, Trees of up to 50 feet, primarily in the lower observation areas, would provide a gateway, with medium trees higher to protect against the wind and small trees for. accent. Shrubs of up to eight feet would be used for screening, color, and wildlife. Irrigated meadows Of about six inches- in the central area between stages 2 and 3 would be used 'for passive recreation. Irrigation was needed for green meadows and healthy trees and shrubs, The natural, hydroseeded grasses would rarely require irrigation. The plain concrete step walls in th4 interior would be made from stacked, recycled concrete for planting trees. They could be. sat or climbed on, curved to prevent erosion and act as a mini retaining wall on the upper section to require less soil. He showed slides of Shoreline Park in Mountain View, opened to the public the previous year, to illustrate the types of grasses and trees. The trees Were small, and many had to -be replanted becaese of methane gas in the root system. The cots for Park Development was the only area where reductions could be made since closure costs could not be substantially reduced. A straight reduction in planting numbers did not necessarily give a comparable cost savings and irrigation costs would not be reduced in ratio with planting. He reviewed the preliminary closure plan as now designed, and requested Council's guidance regarding land- scaping and otner amenities beyond closure requirements_ He would ..return to the .Council later in the year with the final design of Stage 1. Courlci lrnember Witherspoon referred to page 3 of the staff report, and asked if suggestion 4 to reduce the development .cosh by reducing the number of pathways not associated with drainage needs referred to stage one since suggestion 5 spoke of raising the contourelevations to reduce the length and. number of pathways during stages 2 and 3. Mr, Pfeiffer said that with the present contours, the pathways associated with drainage could not be reduced. By raising the contour elevations they could save a portion of the $600,000. Councilmember Renzel asked whether, at the time of . Council review, the three conceptual grading plans met the RWQCB standards and were approved. There was an 8-10 year plan; a 10-15 year plan and a 20-25 year plan. Mr. Pfeiffer said he understood the consultant brought all three grading plans because of the difficulty in drainage in some areas. He believed they all received preliminary approval, and once Council selected a grading plan, staff Would go back to the Ri1QC8 with a technical reports Councilmember Renzel asked if the City was required to raise any contot!rs in order to meet RWQCB standards at the time. 4 3 5 0 3/19/34 Mr. Pfeiffer said no because the City compensated for the low con- tours by drainage pathways, and it was accepted. Councilmember Renzel ascertained that the park development costs did not include ongoing maintenance costs, hut were for setup costs only. She asked if the road that went from the gate to the refuse area out to the tide gates still existed, and if so, whether it would be maintained in phase 1. Mr. Pfeiffer said it was presently a maintenance gravel road that would be maintained at 12 feet for maintenance vehicles. Councilmember Renzel said her major concern was that the access for maintenance purposes would continue to exist, Mr. Pfeiffer said the wider walkways on t';e perimeter lanofill were for access for either Water District nr1City vehicles. Councilmember Renzel referred to the Mayfield Slough remnant, and said the last few times she was there, -it appeared the stockpiled cover materials came right down to its edge. She asked if there was a policy about it, or whether it was an accident. She asked how the existing Slough remnant was being protected. Mr. Pfeiffer said it was a stockpile of impermeable soil, and would be taken back as stages 1 and 2 were covered. Councilmember Renzel asked if the part that actually went down to the edge of the water would also be removed. It went down the side and appeared difficult to take away, Mr. Pfeiffer said it would be removed to cover the first two stages. Councilmember Renzel asked if the access road along the edge of the dump was eliminated by the stockpiling. Mr. Pfeiffer said it was presently used as a roadway. Councilmember Renzel said she was on the opposite side lately, and could not see the road as it existed. Mr. Pfeiffer said it was now higher, but the roadway around the Mayfield Marsh was still there. Councifinember Renzel said access for handicapped in particular was important in the planning process, and she asked how much money would be saved by eliminating perimeter pathways, where the best views and closeness to the water were presumably enjoyed. Mr. Pfeiffer said in order to answer that question he would have to look at which pathways were related to drainage. Some pathways on the perimeter had to be built to give access for the Water District to various areas of the Flood Basin, and he could not quote- a figure for a possible, reaeee;cr-et that time. Councilmember Renzel referred to the part of the proposal to save money by eliminating park fixtures, which she presumed meant benches, etc., and asked if it also meant lighting fixtures. Mr. Pfeiffer said no lighting was proposed. It refers ec . to benches, bike racks .etc Councilmember Renzel asked if the suggestion to remove trees also involved those with the recycled cement walls. Mr Pfeiffer said they, would 100k at that question. If - the Council removed a certain proportion of the trees, they would look to see which step wal 1 s could be removed. Councilmember Renzel was concerned because provisions had to be made for people to sit down in the huge 154 -acre area. She assumed all seating would not be eliminated in order to save money. Mr. Pfeiffer said that was up to the Council. The step walls were layered to provide small amphitheaters, and if landscaping was cut by 50 percent, seating would be reduced to a large extent. Councilmember Cobb thanked Mr. Pfeiffer for separating the devel- opment costs from the closure costs. One approach, to a scaled - down project was offered in the staff report, and he understood it was not a recommended approach, but only a possibility. Mr. Pfeiffer showed slides of Shoreline Park as something Byxbee Park could look like, and he asked for a value judgment as to what the result of option 2 on page 4 of the report might be, and if it could still be an attractive park, albeit a less elaborate one. He understood it would be a more natural, less developed park. He thought the Shoreline Park to be a fairly well -developed, almost finished park. He asked if Byxbee Park would look like that if they followed Option 2. Mr. Pfeiffer wanted to show what it could look like because of the rolling hills and young trees The trees planned for the landfill had a specific purpose -,•there was a strong wind in the afternoon and the trees would provide shelter. The shrubs and other plantings would provide food and shelter for wild life. Cutting back on the amount of landscaping, they could still have an aesthetic park. Councilmember Cobb said that was the answer he tried to obtain. He did believe the City should cut back on the elaborateness of the park, and would like it to be natural. From the point of view of wild life, the more natural the park, the more the environment would be served. He wanted the park to be nice, reasonably acces- sible, and environmentally positive, and believed those ends could be attained at a substantially lower cost by making it simpler and more natural. He was inclined to move in that direction, but did not know how to specify it. He believed Option 2 on page 4 of the staff report was good, and asked for guidance from staff on whether it was reasonable to attain the desired ends. lir. Adams said it was essential that staff know the 1984 -dollar figures for which to shoot. He asked the Council to paraphrase the other types of things it wanted, to lead staff in the right direction. The dollars could then be tailored to ►patch by modifying the number of pathways, etc. The str.ff needed to know the Council's preferences concerning benches, Mayfield Marsh, and whether work should be under=taken as scheduled or postponed. It was important the Council comment on soda matters. The sugges- tion was intended as a type of . phrasing only —not a proposal. Councilmember .Cobb sail for the Council to give a dollar figure would be starting at the wrong: end because a figure might be picked half -way between a poor and .a good solution. He preferred to give direction as.. to the type of park desired, with the added direction, if necessary, that it be scaled back substantially in terms of dollars. They could talk about an overview >or .gross per- centages, but he believed the Council should state its objective, and then find out whether it represented a small or a major cost saving. He did not, thifsk giving a dollar figure would necessarily give the right result. . Mr. Ada s had no problem with that, but requested a better defini- tion of '°substantial," and whether it : meant a $1 o►r $2 million reduction. The park was designed in accordance with the desires of many people, and the budget Matched those desires. Councilmember Cobb believed'the reductions shown were "substan- tial. 4 3 5 2 3/19/84 Vice Mayor Levy said page 2, paragraph 3 of the staff report stated the current staff projected expenditures were "approxi- mately $15.8 million," of which $5.54 million was for park development. He believed that should be $10.2 million, of which $5.54 million was park development. Mr. Adams said $15.8 mi 11 ion was the total cost most people also- ciated with the Park development. The $5.54 million was park development costs in 1984 dollars. The $4.65 million closure costs had to be spent. Vice Mayor Levy said if the total cost was $15.8 million, then park development costs became $8.6 million. Mr. Adams said that was correct, but most people looked at the total figure, assuming they could attack the whole $15 million Staff tried to point out there was a great scaling back when it was looked at at the present dollar rate, and also because nearly half could not be touched because of regulatory requirements. Vice Mayor Levy said it meant that almost half the money was for closure costs, and a little over half was park development costs. He asked how that translated in terms of garbage disposal costs to an individual homeowner with two garbage cans. Mr. Adams said that 50 percent of the current garbage rate went to Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) for pickup. Approximately 25 percent was for landfill disposal --paying the crews to bury the garbage --and 25 percent went to a refuse reserve fund for closure and park development. Vice Mayor Levy said in relation to the park development costs, he wanted to know the total amount an individual would have to pay to have garbage collected; and how $100,000 saved in park development costs would impact the individual homeowner. 1 Mr. Pfeiffer said the two -can garbage rate was about $7.35. Mr. lane,' said approximately $1.50 a month of that went to the reserve to huild the park and for closure costs. Vice Mayor Levy said approximately 75. cents of the $7.35 charge went to the park, which meant that every million dollars saved represented 10 cents per month to the homeowner. It did not seem like much money. He understood they were not tasking about any changes at that time in stage 1, but that Council was asked to give guidance for stages 2 and 3. Mr, Pfeiffer said the Council could change amenities of stage 1 -- planting, etc. --but not the contours. Vice Mayor Levy asked how much money would be saved if everything possible was eliminated from stage 1 at that time. Mr. Pfeiffer said in terms of park development, the figure would be $1.859 million. Vice Mayor . Levy said it seemed like a lot of money, and he asked for confirmation that if Council closed stage 1, the City would save $1,8 million if it did nothing else, Mrs Pfeiffer said that was the park deveopment figure for stage 1. Vice Mayor Levy said some pathways were required: 1 Mr. Pfeiffer.said the pathways related to drainage were part of the closure .costs. 4 3 5 3 3/19/84 Counci !member Woolley asked if part of the reserve was for alter- native solutions to the solid waste disposal problem, such as resource recovery, or a burn facility, or whatever was decided upon. Mr. Pfeiffer said nothing was put in reserve because staff did not know what it would entail. A 10 -year projection was made every year for closure and operating costs, etc., and only in the last several years was there participation fees for the Solid Waste Management Authority. Otherwise no money was budgeted for it.. Councilrneanber Woolley asked where the money canoe from. Hr. Zaner said no funds were put in reserve for any alternate disposal system. Had the Joint Powers Authority succeeded, there would have been a bond issue, and each participating jurisdiction would have gone back to the rate structure and raised them suffi- ciently to pay off the bond to build the proposed plant. Counci member Woolley asked i f , in the future, when stages 2 and 3 were being closed, a refuse disposal fee might be needed to cover the cost of the alternative disposal. Mr. Zaner said that was where the money would come from. Mr. Pfeiffer did a calculation each year, from which it was estimated the rates would increase approximately 15 to 18 percent per year. Anything beyond that --an alternate landfill operation, or a disposal operation --would be additional. Councilmember Woolley said it was pr:cent to not spend any more money than necessary since there might be other calls on the home- owner refuse disposal fee not presently envisioned. She referred to possible reductions listed on page 3 of the report, the third of which referred to replacing irrigated turf" areas with natural dry grasses, and she asked where those areas were. She understood Mr. Pfeiffer to say natural dry grasses would be planted in the loops in stages 2 and 3. Mr. Pfeiffer said the irrigated turf area was the peanut -shaped areas and between the peanut -shaped areas and the stage 1 development. The rest of the areas surrounding the park would be natural grasses requiring no irrigation, Councilnember Woolley asked for confirmation that the grasses requiring irrigation wou:e not be the natural dry gasses.. Mr. Pfei ff e4 said it would be irrigated turf .about six inches hioh. Councilmernber Woolley stated that the fifth reduction said raising the contour elevations could reduce the amount of pathways needed, and she asked if staffneeded, guidance then because if the contour decisions were not to be made until mid -1985, it would be difficult for the Council to provide guidance at that point. Mr. Pfeiffer said staff preferred to wait until 1985. councilmember Woolley asked regarding Mayfield Marsh, .if Council decided to do nothing,`whether any irreversible or more expensive problems would occur if it wa.s later decided to go with a more formal area. Hr. Pfeiffer . said no irreversible problems would occur other than inflation of the costs of, doing the work. It was completely separate from the flood basin and landfill landscaping. Counci lmember Sutorius said regarding the reduction of additional costs by cutting down on the number of planned trees and shrubs, there would be a different survival .rate for new plantings in that 4`3 5 4 3/19/84 environment than would he experienced away from the shoreline without the same wind situations, but he understood the tree costs projected were only the initial implementation costs and whether it was at 100 percent of current proposal or some reduced amount, an appropriate replacement program would go under main- tenance costs and not be associated with the initial costs. Whatever was lost would appropriately be replaced. Mr. Pfeiffer said there was a two or three-month period where landscape contractors guaranteed plants but after that period, it was part of the operation and not included in the assess- ments. Councilmember Sutorius said on the contour level, he heard staff was not requesting a decision that evening, and that one was not required until mid -1985, but he asked if it would help to have such a decision that evening. Mr. Pfeiffer believed by mid -1985, staff should have a better idea about where it was heading in terms of a long-term solution, and that a stronger recommendation on the options could be made then. Staff was only concerned with stage 1, and it was pretty well set in terms of the contours. Robert Braud, 1900 Embarcadero Road, said all property owners on Embarcadero Road were represented at the meeting and the owners were concerned about the large dirt trucks that were part of the landfill and charged up and down Embarcadero Way since the first of the year. A good part of Embarcadero Way was owned by the City, but the private development was office and research and development. Embarcadero Way was a narrow street and as trucks want up and down, mud, dirt, and dust spewed out. He complained many times to the Police Department, and was assured the trucks would be slowed and the street would be cleaned, etc. After talking with staff, he learned there would be a point in time when Embarcadero Way would actually be the entranee to the land- fill. The owners had no objection to Embarcadero Way being the entrance to Byxbee Park, but objected to 9t being used as the entrance to the l ands` i 1 1 . He pointed out that none of the owners received notice of the EIR, and having whatever trucks going up and down Embarcadero Way was a safety factor. The street was not wide enough to support that type of traffic, and the truck traf- fic going down Embarcadero Road and making a. right turn on Embarcadero Way could not make the corner without swinging into the lane of the ongoing traffic. He spoke with the original builder of the street and was advised that there were only six inches of base rock and two inches of asphalt on Embarcadero Way, and his parking lot. normally contained 12 inches of base rock and six inches of asphalt, and they were not designed to take truck traffic on a regular basis if ever. The Council should consider if landfill trucks were going to go down Embarcadero Way, the street should be replaced all the way to Embarcadero Road. He requested that Council stop the dirt trucks from going up and down Embarcadero Way and prohibit opening Embarcadero Way to the landfill. As he understood the staff report, some time between stage 2 and 3, the current entrance would be closed, and he would face the problems. He believed it was best to solve those prob- lems now. Counci 1meaaber Bechtel said the EIR referred to by Mr. Braud related to the EIR for the Baylands Master Plan, and was done about six years ago, She was ,certain the property owners would have been notified at that point, and said the plan was always for the entrance to be on Embarcadero Way, including access to the landfill between stage 2 and 3. NOTlek: Cosatilaesher ` Sechtel sieved. sesoaded by ., Cobb, is ret al a the ices! ge project l e, its pieseet fora except as follows MOTIOl4 CONTINUED 1. Delete work associated with Mayfield Marsh and retain it in its present state; 2. Replace the irrigated turfed areas with natural dry grasses; 3. In addition to the above, make other adjustments as necessary to reduce the total park development costs from $5.5 million to approximately $3.5 million in 1984 dollars; and 4. Reduction of additional costs should retain 50-15 percent of trees and shrubs but may reduce park furniture and observa- tion areas, and pathways as necessary to achieve the targeted budget. Councilmember Bechtel clarified that any pathways would be handi- capped accessible to the extent possible. Mr. Pfeiffer said that was correct. Ceur;cilmember Witherspoon objected to the Mountain View park _because it was too formal. Palo Alto had beautiful formal parks, but she believed it was more appropriate for the proposed park to be natural and to follow the breeze, happ aego-.lucky landscaping around the treatment plant. She supported retaining as many of the natural plants as possible, and the park benches could be put in later if needed. She did not believe are irrigated turf area was necessary, and as long as there were places for people to walk and wander, the City could have a great park with a saving of $1.5 to $2 million. Councilmember Renzel generally concurred with the motion, and regarding part C, she asked what the language "otter adjustments" might include. Councilmember Bechtel believed those adjustments would be from the items mentioned in Part D. The figures on the previous page, Part 3, estimated the total of shrubs and trees at $2.5 million, and she believed open areas were pleasant and some shrubs were needed for wild life hiding areas. She believed the furniture, shrubs, trees, pathways and observation areas could be reduced and there would still be places for people to sit. Mayor Klein clarified that Council was not setting a budget, but rather a more general guideline for staff, .and that ,Council was looking for staff to return with a plan that implemented those guidelines. Councilmember Renzel was concerned because she did not support raising the contours and saving on drainage pathways, etc., cud wanted assurances that Item C in saying "make other adjustments as necessary" did not allude to that particular option for saving money. She asked staff for confirmation that the other .adjust- ments were related to Item D. Mr. Pfeiffer said staff would not touch the contours --staff would return for that in raid -1985, Councilmember Renzel believed the shrubbery was more valuable to the area than trees and would probably be more successful and propagate itself through the park naturally, She emphasized retaining shrubbery and deleting trees --particularly the tall growing ones that were not natural to the area --and believed some perimeter pathways or pathways giving access to the perimeter- at selected points -were important for the public to truly enjoy the nature of the area. She felt strongly that benches at selected intervals were critical for people enjoy the area and take walks out in some considerable distance and be able to.:,rest 4 3 5 6 3/19/84 before returning - particularly for elderly and handicapped. She did not want benches totally deleted, and was satisfied that some of the step walls might be reasonable substitutes for sitting places, but believed there must also be some official sitting places. Councilmember Woolley clarified that the pathways would not be those necessary to achieve drainage, and she asked snow the path- ways related to Item 4 on page 3 of the staff report. Mr. Pfeiffer said a good portion of the pathway not related to drainage was on the perimeter, but around the perimeter close to the flood basin, there were two pathways --one lower for access for maintenance vehicles, and one higher at the top of the slope. Staff would look at perhaps eliminating_ the upper pathway still providing access. Councilmember Woolley clarified that it was essentially a dupli- cation because they would be so close together and not related to drainage. She was concerned about making a $2 million cut because only $1 million looked like it would come from Mayfield Marsh and the irrigated turf Brea so that there would be another $1 million to cut from the trees and furniture. The place was windy, and if Council wanted to truly make it appropriate for the elderly and handicapped people, wind protection was badly needed. With some reservations and not knowing the details of where the trees were and how many, she did not want to cut back too severely. Vice Mayor Levy asked whether the cuts were being made because they were too costly or because the City did not like the project and wanted to eliminate elements because they were found to be distasteful. Councilmember dechtel believed the Council must look at its long-term expenses for many projects, and did not believe money should be. wasted. She believed the City had many attractive areas in the Baylands--including the Interpretive Center and the Flood Basin --and it should not be intensively developed with elaborate pathways and benches. It would be just as appreciated in a more natural state, and she did not like the idea of green turfed areas that had to be mowed or lots of benches or tall trees. She believed shrubs were appropriate, and she wanted to save money. Vice Mayor Levy asked how much was being saved per month per homeowner. Mr. Pfeiffer said that would take some investigation, and he could provide that information at another time. Vice Mayor Levy said they were talking about a total cost of $8.6 million, and he calculated a savings of about ten cents per month per homeowner. He asked if that was the right ball park figure. Mr. Adams said those figures were based on the assumption that staff would continue with the same relative ratio of costs. The 10 -year projects made by Mr. Pfeiffer figured a cash flow - requirement so , as years went on, a higher cash flow was required to develop the park and the ratio increased. He did not know how it would all be figured, but discouraged that assignment because he believed it would turn out to be meaningless when it was all done, Mayor Klein asked about the ratio of collections from business as compered: with .residential. Mr. Pfeiffer said it . was two-thirds commercial, one-third residential. 4 3 5 7 3/19/84 Mayor Klein said that 42,000,000 of savings and 70,100 house- holds provided a savings of $700,000 (one-third of $2,000,000) attributable to households. Dividing 20,000 into $700,000 gave a savings per household of $35, and he agreed with Mr. Adams that it was a meaningless exercise. Vice Mayor Levy disagreed that it was a meaningless exercise. The figures showed about 20 cents month between now and 1999 --the end of stage 3. It was not much money, and the Council should make sure it got the right kind of project. He was unclear about where the Visitors' Center costs entered into the picture, and whether those were considered to be unaffected. Mr. Pfeiffer said the idea was eliminated. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that: there were no restrooms except at the Nature Center. Mr. Pfeiffer said that was correct. Vice Mayor Levy said it was hard for him to envision the total project, but from a policy standpoint, if the City was going to make the area useful, it was important to make it attractive for people, and in an area that large, it was important to have a satisfactory number of benches for people to relax and enjoy the area. The major costs were the Mayfield Marsh, and another $1.25 million in the reduction of trees and shrubs. On page 3 of the staff report where the costs were listed, trees and shrubs repre- sented almost half the cost of the total park. From a policy standpoint, he asked what was done when not .so much was spent on trees and shrubs. He asked for clarification that the big change was the elimination of the turfed area and staff indicated that most of the benches would be eliminated. Mr. Pfeiffer said that staff would look at 2(d) and the total picture. The exact eliminations were not set --it was a general cost reduction. Staff could not say how many benches would be remover until the entire picture were reviewed with the aim of a reduction on the order of $3.5 million. Vice Mayor Levy was uncomfortable with suggesting an elimination of $1,000,000 worth of expenditures because over a 15 -year period, it was not a large amount of money. He preferred that Council think in terms of the proper kind of park rather cutting costs because it was uncomfortable with an extra 20 cents per month for homeowners' garbage collection. Mr. Zaner said that 1f the motion passed, staff would return with a reduced scope park de n, down roughly $2,000,000, and with replaced irrigated turfed areas. Councilraember Sutorius was happy with Mr. Zaner's comments, and did not want staff left with the impression of a unanimous feeling toward certain of the reductions identified as possible. The Mayfield Marsh was a major category in the motion --$726,000,. and he understood the sense of the Council to be a postponement as opposed to,an outright deletion. There was $360,000 asso- ciated with irrigated turfed areas L ing eliminated, and they were up to $1,000,000. The remaining one million would come from the $2.5 million associated with trees, shrubs, etc., and he guessed that 1t was the drainage, soil and used concrete .reten- tion system and the labors associated therewith that was as expensive as the shrubs and trees themselves. He was concerned that in a final landscape plan, the City not short itself on the basic preparations fundamental to alongerange appearance and use of the park. The stepping involved in the retention walls; and t*s manner in which soil was being -added was . a design element with a multi -purpose and if Council cut back by 50 . percent f what trees and shrubs would go in, to effect the full savings, Council would have to cut back on the retention design and 4 3 5 8 3/19/84 to alter he appearance the park, use, and potentially add the � �urunc�: of its u potentially u to the City's future costs if it later decided to add in some of the things eliminated in the first stage. He hoped the motion would not be considered as necessary to come back with a forced $1 million of savings if it disrupted the design and future use of the park. 1 1 Councilmember Fletcher was uncomfortable with the process of cut- ting back on a certain amount of money without really knowing the details. Mr. Zaner's assurances that staff would return with a design for Counctil to approve later alleviated that concern some- what. She asked staff to respond to the concerns about Embarcadero Way, and to communicate the situation with the member of the public who voiced -concerns. If the road was not built to carry the heavy trucks, she wanted to know. Mr. Pfeiffer said he contacted Mr. Braud, and the use of Embarcadero Way could not be eliminated because after stage 2, it was the only entrance to the landfill.. The present entrance to the landfill would be turned into a walkway so it would have to be used in 1994 for refuse vehicles and anyone using the lano- fill--there was no way around it. In terns of the dirt trucks, staff was stockpiling some of the impermeable soil around the perimeter in various locations, and because of the congestion on the present entrance, access to the areas could only be obtained through rmbarcadera Way. In terms of the cross section, staff had a pavement management system and no deterioration was noticed. Based on all the construction at the treatment plant, the pavement should have shown something by now. Councilmember Renzel said with respect to Mayfield Marsh, it appeared there was some use by off road bikes and other vehicles that basically deteriorated the landscaping or natural materials normally growing there in addition to the encroachment of the stockpiled fill down toward the waters edge closest t+ Matadero Creek. She asked to include after the word "retain," "and pro- tect the Mayfield Marsh." It was an historic slough remnant and she believed ground water flowed into it so there was water there most of the year. She ►anted to ensure the City did not inter- fere with any ground water flows that fed the marsh and in that respect she wanted the word "protect" added to keep the Council mindful that it was policy to retain the area and protect it. Councilmember Bechtel said the City Clerk asked the Council not to incorporate language into a motion after a half hour of dis- cussion already transpired. She was not sure it was appropriate to consider landfill design as part of the discussion. Councilmember Renzel said it was a feature of the area and it. would not do any good to retain it if all the marshy fringes were destroyed by bikes or fill. AMENDMENT: Couoci1e+ember Reuel moved to add the language °and protect" after the word areteie." AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Vice Mayor Levy was uncomfortable with the process because he did not believe Council was setting a significant policy decision, but wa►s asking staff to recommend ways money could be saved on the project. He went along with that in the hopes that when staff returned, it was not an all or nothing situation, and that there would be specific delineations about how the recommenda- tions would impact various costs so that when it was time for the Council to approve or disapprove, it was not $2 million or. nothing, but rather the individual cost changes suggested. MOTION PASSED unaalmensly. 4 3 5 9 3/19/84" ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:10 ATTEST:. 7 ty et a .m. APPROVED: