Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-17 City Council Summary Minutes8 ITEM —ass CITY COUNCIL MIf1UTEs CITY Mu() ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, September 17, 1984 PAGE Oral Communications 5 0 4 7 Consent Calendar 5 0 4 7 Referral 5 0 4 7 Action 5 0 4 7 Item #1, Electrical Power System Protection and 5 0 4 7 Coordination Study Item #2, Western Area Power Administration - 5. 0 4 7 EIe tric Service Contract Item #3, Line Clearing 5 0 4 7 Item #4, Foothills Park Erosion Control Project 5 0 E 8 Phase 11. Item,#5, Contract for On-ca11 Carpeting for Various 5 0 4 8 City Facilities Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 5 0 4 8 Item .#6, Evergreen Park Neighborhood Traffic Study - Evaluation of Six-month Trial Traffic Control Plan Recess Mayor Klein re Items 13, 14, and 15 Item ;7, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation, with additional condition, re application of John_ Boyd, Boyd/Jenks Associates, for a change of zone district and approval of preliminary parcel map for the property at 718 Ashby (Lot 8 of the Crescent Park School Site Subdivision) Item #8, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation to delete "Administrative Offices* and "Research, and Development" as allowed uses in the GP(B) Zone Item 19, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation . re GM(1) Zone District and the a ppl i cation of the City . of Palo Alto for a change of zone district for property located at 395 Page Mill Road Item 110 Council Legislative Committee recommendations concerning resolutions for consideration at League of California Cities Annual Conference 5 0 4 8 5 0 5 9 5 0 6 5 5 0 6 5 5 0 6 8 50 6 9 5 0 7 2 ITEM PAGE Item 113, Construction of the Replacement for the. Blanco Water Tanks in Foothills Park Item 114, Request of Mayor Klein and Councilmember Cobb re Lease of Cubberley Playing Fields Item 115, Request of Mayor Klein re City Manager's Housing Assistance Program Item 116, Cancellation of September 24, 1984 City Council Meeting Adjournment to Tuesday, September 18, 1984: Adjourned at 12:00 midnight to September 18, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. 5 0 7 3 5 0 7 5 5 0 7 7 5 0 7 8 5 0 7 8 5 0 4 5 9/17/84 Regular Meeting Monday, September 1/, 1984. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived 8:07 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel , Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to his letter of September 13, 1984 re the Willow Road extension, which was on file in the City Clerk's office. He believed there was insufficient data and the EIR for the project was inadequate. If Council declared the EIR adequate and supported the project, it should approve the Planning Commission's 'mitigations. Candidates for election to the Council were quoted in the San Jose Mercury in 1980 as being opposed to the extension because it would not alle- viate the problems of Willow Road. Stanford now gave a different reason for wanting the road, but Council still had to determine whether the benefits of the project outweighed the detriments. He urged Council to again reject the project. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Coencilmeiher Cobb saved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM #1, ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEM PROTECTION AND COORDINATION STUDY Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign d contract with Electro Test, Inc.. for an amount not to exceed $45,000 for the Electric System Protection and Coordination Study= AGREEMENT ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM PROTECTION! A COORDINATION STUDY Electra Test, Incorporated ITEM 12 WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION - ELECTRIC SERVICE Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution approving Sup- plementary Agreement No. 1 to Contract No. DE-MS65-84WP59007 (Electric Service Contract) between the -Western Area Power Admin- istration and the City of Palo _Alto. RESOLUTION, 6309 entitled "RESOLUTION -F THE .COUNCIL •F 4 ALTO APPROVPIG A SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE WITH WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINSTIA. . TON" ITEM 13., LINE CLEARING (ENV 7) (CMR:474:4) Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the following: 1) A rear line clearing contract with Arbor Tree Surgery for $237,986;:and 5 0 4 7 9/17/84 2) f street tree clearing contract with Arbor= Tree Sur=gery for $236,974. Staff be authorized to execute change orders of up to 15 percent of each. AWARD OF CONTRACTS Arbor Tree Surgery ITEM #4 FOOTHILLS PARK EROSION (PAR 2-15) (a It is recommended that Council: CONTROL PROJECT - PHASE II 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract with George Bianchi Construction, Inc. in the amount of $78,050 for construction of Foothills Park Erosion Control Project - Phase II. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract up to a total of $12,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT George Sianchi Construction, inc. ITEM #5, CONTRACT FOR ON ---CALL CARPETING FOR VARIOUS CITY FACILI- TTES (FIN 9 - I - _.. It is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to- execute a con- tract ,with Interiors and Textiles, Corp. for 12 months or $50,000, whichever comes first. The cost per square yard will be $21.58 and $20.62 for Item #1 and Item #2 as specified in the contract. AWARD OF BLANKET ORDER CONTRACT Interiors and Textiles Corporation NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. AGENDA CHANGES, AUDITIONS ANV DELETIONS Mayor Klein added Item 15, City Manager Housing Assistance Plan. ITEM #6, EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY - EVALUATION OF lsl Alf - - Assistant Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel apologized that some pages of the -staff report were missing. Figure 1 was not 1 ncarpurated in the main body of the report and was in the Env i ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as Plan BB -1. On. page 7 of `the report, paragraph 3, line 8, the two amounts were interposed. It should read "edditional $;,700...a total of $30,400." Page 2 of the EIA, paragraph 3, 1 i ne . 2, should read "the attached plans," not "(Attachment 1)," and paragraph 3 (1), should read "between Cambridge and College." Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber presented a matrix which showed the four different-conparfsons: The triad plan --the •barrier system and other devices currently in place and reviewed in the July 26, 1984 staff report; Plans AA -1 and 88; which resulted from the citizens' committee process, end Plan 88-1, an alternativad offered by the citizens' committee --with $taff modifications, which were described in detail in the staff report. Councilmembet Renzel referred to page 8. of CMR:497:4, and clari- fied the words "do not were a typographical error in paragraph 4, line 1, and should be stricken. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the approximate installed cost of the traffic signal proposed it Plan AA. He peesumed it was a two-way signal at the "T" intersection. Mr. Stoffel said a simple fixed -time signal, changing from red to green on a regular schedule would cost from $40,000 to $60,000. Councilmember Sutorius asked about an. installed signal that was pedestrian operated as proposed in Plan AA. Mr. Stoffel said he did not have that information. It would cost only slightly less because the basic hardware and poles, etc. would still be needed. Councilmember Cobb referred to the closure plan of BB -1. He asked how the people at Peninsula Scientific could negotiate the U-turn that appeared necessary to get back out. Mr. Stoffel said anyone who drove up into the dead-end block would be going to the businesses and would park on the street or turn into the driveways. Others would be lost and would not realize it was a dead-end. They would make a U-turn, as would those who parked on the street. Those who parked in the driveways would turn in the parking lot. Whenmaking the U-turn, they would prob- ably use the full width of the street and cross both bike lanes. U-turns were allowed, and people might be confused and not realize the possibility of on -coming traffic from the north because of the partial barrier. Staff did not know what would happen until it was tested, but the potential dar-ger was there. Councilmember Cobb asked why the trial period for an alternative planplan could not be truncated so that closure could be reached faster. Mr. Stoffel said a six-month trial periodwas proposed because the evaluation period had to begin about four months into the trial to give a report to the Council after six months. Three months was the minimum to allow people to adjust to the new patterns. In Southgate, one plan was started for six months then cut off after three months. Councilmember Cobb asked if a four -month trial was feasible. Mr. Stoffel said it was possible, but meant people would have less time to adjust. Vice Mayor Levy asked for a brief summary of the original staff analysis and recommendations for Evergreen Park. Mr. Stoffel said in 1982, staff •recommended against closure or interference of any kind in the traffic on Park Boulevard because it was a collector street and might impact the California Avenue te4siness district and access to the Southern Pacific train sta- tion. Staff always wanted to maintain Park Boulevard clear. Other closures in the area did not result in much reduction in through traffic, only in a shift in traffic within the neighbor. hood. In summary, if Park Boil evard was left open, none of the plans produced sufficient advantagesto outweigh the possible dis- advantages. The initial overall conclusions were that the prob- lems did not warrant taking any action at that time. Somesmall traffic reduction could be accomplished with signs on Park Boulevard, but the recommendation was: to leave Park Boulevard open; and to not erect any other barriers s Vice Mayor Levy asked if staff still held that view.. Mr. Stoffel said yes. Having looked at all the plans, staff still found there was little reduction in through traffic, but many d ieacrantages Staff was working with the one-way concept on Park Boulevard because Council so instructed. Staff never recommended 5 0 4-g 9/17/84 full closure of Park. They recommended a one-way cio.;ure of Park only because Council requested it. Staff came up with the trial plan in effect that appeared to produce sizable benefits, which was the only real change since the original staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Levy said the standard given by Council of a 30 percent reduction . in traffic was more or less arbitrary, except staff believed anything less than 30 percent could not be measured. Mr. Stoffel said 20 percent was the minimum level of accuracy of traffic volume counts upon which such traffic reduction figures were based. The 30 percent reduction was arbitrary in that sense and chosen as being above the minimum. .. Vice Mayor Levy asked if there was any standard requiring a 30 percent reduction in the Evergreen Park traffic flow for reasons of safety, residential character or quiet. Mr. Stoffel said the City had no standards for reduction or what amount of through traffic should be present or absent from resi- dential streets. Most cities did not have arty such guidelines, Vice Mayor Levy referred to plan BB-=i which would _ reduce through traffic but not the speed on Park Boulevard. Mr. Stoffel said it was not expected to reduce the speed on Park any further than was attained and which, for the most part, was insignificant Vice Mayor Levy asked if the speed on Park was higher than on other comparable streets in town with homes on theta and schools or parks bordering them where children were apt to cross. Mr. Stoffel said to his knowledge it was not. He did not have the figures with him, but the 85th -percentile speed on Perk was measured at approximately 34 or 35 miles per hour. Most streets of that character such as Channing had simi 1 ar speeds.. Councilmember Renzel said only some of the plans contained the 43 foot traffic circle that was part of the original plan and approved for permanent installation. She asked if it was neces- sary to dlsrcuss the point, or whether the circle was inadvertently omitted from some plans. Mr. Stoffel said they were still working on the matter, but it did of matter that some plans .did not contain the circle. It was an approved policy that Council did not need to address that eve- nine. Counci ice giber Renzel asked for confirmation that the circle . woul d be 43 feet. Mr. Stoffel recalled the size as being 41 feet. The diameter was finalized and was shown in the report as part of a design he made. The finished dimension would dcp.end on what the contractor could lay out to achieve a 25 mile per hour speed. The circle would be approximately 40 feet in size. Coue ilmember Sutorius referred to the existing closure at mid- point on Park between Southgate and. Evergreen Park as shown on BB -1 with a ::hull barrier across it. It was not shown on the other plans, and he asked if anything was advocated in any of the plans other than what was already in place. Mr. Stoffel said no, as the existing closure was an informational item that was included in some plans and left out of others. It was there and due for permanent design once the remainder of the Evergreen Park study was resolved. 5 0 5 0 9/17/84 Marion Evison, 163 Park Avenue, favored the present plan and urged Council to make it permanent and end the disagreement between neighbors. If Council chose plan BB -1, she feared further dis- agreement at the end of another six-month trial period. She agreed the disadvantages outweighed the advantages in the new plan. Removal of the barrier at Birch would increase through traffic as it would be easy to cut through the neighborhood. Stephen Avis, 164 California Avenue, referred to the staff conclu- sions which said the ad hoc, citizens committee -had two different plans and could not come to an agreement. The trial plan in- creased traffic on College Terrace and Sedro Lane, and it was not unusual for five households to exit through the business district. The present trial plan created needs for U-turns through the Co-op parking lot in the wrong -direction. Removing the Oxford closure would be insignificant as only northbound cars from El Camino not using the College and Stanford entries would use it- not through traffic. Flan BB -1 would still meet the 30 percent reduction. The current plan was not popular and was not recommended by the ad hoc committees. The plan before the Council recommended nothing new. The temporary solution did not solve the problems It. cre- ated. If Council wanted to consider barriers, it should give Plan BB -1 a trial period to see public reaction. Mary Ellen Foley, 254 College Avenue, said the new plans were better than the old only because it opened Birch. The new inter- nal baffles on Ash and Birch would cause. more hassle than they were worth to the residents. She was .distressed by the blockage of College Avenue making where she lived into a cul-de-sac. She suggested leaving the present plan in place. Councilmemher Bechtel arrived at 8:05 p.m. Mac Larsen, President, Co-op, 164 South California Avenue, chaired the ad hoc citizens committee, and said the report was in the Council pac:et. As president of the Palo Alto Co-op, he was sur- prised by the remarks on page 7 of the staff report that the cur- rent plan performed well and net all the Council's criteria, with the exception of reducing speed on.the southbound direction on Park and the shifting of additional traffic to the 200 block of College. It did not acknowledge the impact statements on busi- nesses at the east end of California Avenue. Earlier consultant reports indicated the likelihood of such impacts, which were sus- tained by data he, submitted. The Generic Store was now out of business, and might have had -a better chance if it had more ac- cess . The Co-op would continue to work with others to reach a compromise that 'better served the City, residents, and business in the area. Nearby businesses were assets to the residents, and vice versa. Better access between tte two was .unanimously recog- nized as important by the ad hoc committee that devel aped., pi anus AA ,and BB. Opening Birch Avenue to two-way traffic between Cambridge and College would relieve traffic on Sedro Lane, aad plan BB -1 would reduce traffic on College Avenue --major weaknesse- in the existing system of controls which were not corrected by the staff recommendation. The _letter from the aPa l o Alto Coop urged adop- tion of plan BB or a suitable variant' such as the new pram BB -1 which included additional stop signs on Park Boulevard and re- tained the- barrier on Oxford and El Camino. He requested a shorter period of time for evaluation of that barrier, as it was already installed. Counc i 1 member Cobb asked if Mro Larsen attributed the closing of the Generic Store to retail business to the barrier -system, and if the Co-op would get more business as a result. Mr. Larsen -said -he did not necessarily think so. The barriers af- fected .both the- Generic Store and the. Co-op. Both bust nesses. were reduced as a result The closing of the Generic Store ,was ;. not a zero end gain for the Co-op. The Generic Store also attracted' 5 0 5 1 9/17/84 customers to the Co-op as it did rot have a wide range of goods, and the generic store also benefited from Co-op customers shopping there. Gimbel's,and Macy's together attracted more customers than either would have alone. Tim Slattery, 352 Stanford Avenue, said he did not support the present system. He approved plan BB -1, which removed all his ob- jections to the present system. He asked the Council to accept plan BB -1. Sarnia Smith, 2031 Park Boulevard, favored the current plan. Liv- ing on Park, she really appreciated what it did to reduce traffic and !sake the road more peaceful. She was worried about new devel- opments that would increase traffic on the street. She wanted everyone to be as happy, and was willing to compromise and find plan BB -1 acceptable. It would permit two-way access and include the business area at the end of Park Boulevard in the business district. The church people would also be happy as opening Birch Avenue would give the congregants access to south Palo Alto. John Canyon, 270 Leland Avenue, asked, the members of the public against the barriers to raise their hands. The Transportation Department opposed the barriers because the traffic did not war- rant them, and nothing had changed. The barriers had a bad impact on the businesses in the area. The Co-op needed all the help it could get, and if it was lost, residents would have to go to Safeway for bread. Three supermarkets closed on California Ave- nue, and the loss of Maximart was a blow to the area. People liv- ing in Southgate and Evergreen Park should not have to go via California Avenue to get to the Co-op. He urged that the barriers be removed. The area would be happier and the animosity would go. Joe Ercol ani , 2040 Ash* applauded the ad hoc committee, which was comprised of people with opposing views, for getting together to fora a plan. Mark Musen, 211 College Avenue, supported the present trial plan. As the vast majority appeared to favor BD --I, he would support it. He exited from his house through the business district because of the one-way block. It was an inconvenience, but the barrier- re- duced traffic on Park Boulevard. Plan BB -1 would affect -about five houses, but it was worthwhile. Plan BB -1 was an excellent compromise giving two-way access to the business- district and resolved all the complaints. Elyse Musen, 211 College, agreed with her husband. She supplied stationery to the Generic Store, and believed multiple factors caused it to fail. It was impossible to say that it would have succeeded without the barriers. She supported Plan BB -1 as a com- promise. It was an issue of the neighborhood, not of commuter traffic verses the neighborhood. Stacie Snapp, 211-C College Avenue, said she found the barrier system effective. Having College Avenue blocked would be an in- convenience, but well worthwhile. Frank Fujimoto, 225 Middlefield, said he often visited Evergreen Park and noticed there was through traffic there. Plan 8B-1 would help reduce such traffic and make it a quieter area. Betty Hummer, 2150 Park, said the barrier proposed by Plan BB -1 would be in front of their house where they had lived for only one month* but was sure the slight inconvenience would be outweighed by advantages to the commercial establishments and residents.. Robert Hummer, 2150 Park, echoed his wife's statement. They were concerned about the commercial area. He supported Plan BB -1. 5 0 5 2 9/17/84 Ron Sutton, 384 Stanford, made surveys in the neighborhood, and found four different groups of people had changed from being against traffic control measures to supporting Plan BB -1, with modifications. One agreed because Birch Street was opened, others found Plan BB -1 acceptable, although not the others. Anne Ercol ani , 2040 Ash, supported the current plan as it was the most effective method of reducing traffic. Although plan BB -1 was a major compromise in reducing traffic, it met all the access problems. If Council planned to compromise, it should accept Plan Bb -I, with the closure retained at Oxford. She thanked the Coun- cil for its time --time which the neighborhood quadrupled. Geoffrey Thompson, 416 Oxford, agitated for barriers for five years since office space exploded in Palo Alto, He recommended adoption of the current plan with removal of the choker at Park Boulevard. Although barriers removed some business, the downtown showed the danger of going in the other direction. To preserve local business and control barriers, the City had to stop conver- sion to office space. He supported thr; current plan as opposed to BB -1, as barriers should not be put in the interior of a neighbor- hood to protect it from office expansion in adjacent commercial areas but should separate the neighborhood and the commercial area. Nancy Holmes, 843 Moana Court, was a member of the ad hoc commit- tee, and thanked the Council for allowing it to meet. Some mem- bers agreed to plan BB -1, which alleviated the problems of the current system. and she urged the Council to adopt it for a trial period. It had faults, but was more considerate of the needs of all. Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford, supported the existing measures, but could live with the compromise. There was one real problem on Birch Street which led to the heart of the neighborhood. The 2,300 cars per day on Park before closure was described as outrag- eous. Before any, closure on Birch, there were 1,800 cars per day. It was now said there could be 2,600 cars per day on Birch without any problem although it was the smallest street in the neighbor- hood. There was an office building on the corner of Cambridge and Birch with wall-to-wall traffic during rush hours. Removal of the barrier at Oxford and El Camino meant the church could use the commercial driveway to go through the neighborhood. The cornea, presently residential. was zoned commercial. Without a barrier, the developer would go as deep as possible. As access to El Camino would be jammed the workers there would go through the neighborhood. The possibility should be examined while the City had an opportunity to keep it closed. Saskia Boissevain, 410 Cambridge Avenue, president of California Avenue Area Development -Agency (CAADA), ,c1 ar_i fi ed Plan AA -1, CAADA took part in the effort to address the needs of the resi- dents and the business district. Concessions_ were grade, but no consensus reached, and CAADA found Plan AA -1. was as far as it could go. The present barrier System met one of the seven requirements of the staff report and failed three. Traffic was reduced by 60 percent, but doubled 'on College and placed 800 cars per day oe Sedro Lane. The latter was unexpected and no provi- sions were wade to count the vehicles or evaluate its impact on the nursery school -there. The traffic count missed the Cambridge traffic into Sedro. It was now more -hazardous for the 100 el.der.ly or disabled who visited the Social Security office every day. Some drivers also used the church -perking lot, placing the nursery school -children in jeopardy. Businesses at the east . end of California Avenue were impacted as predicted. Rezoning to allow more retail' to help the neighborhood occurred, but the barriers made it improbable for stores to.:flourish Staff attributed -the loss of Ca -op business. to the opening of the Generic Store, but now it was closed, and the Co-op business was still doWn. A more professional evaluation of the economic impacts of . the present barrier system was necessary, particularly for the Co-op and Peninsula Scientific. Plan AA -1 more closely satisfied all Coun- cil requirements even though it failed to meet the 30 percent traffic reduction through the residential area. It would open Park Boulevard to two-way traffic with a traffic light and speed bumps to slow traffic and provide a safe crossing to the park. The average speed on Park Boulevard was 29 mph which was high in light of its many curves and eccess to the park. The plan would open Birch to two-way traffic between Cambridge and College, with Ash one-way southbound and Birch one-way northbound at College. The barrier at Oxford and El Camino would be removed. She urged adoption of Plan AA -I. She lived on the other side of California Avenue on Fernando Avenue where there was a park and barriers were in' place for years. Two children were hit there that year, and trucks still used it so she questioned the efficacity of barriers. She wanted to have streets made safer, not just move traffic from one road to another. Jeff Hook, 302 College, read a letter from Ms. Carmen Hayes at 2240 Hanover, who supported Plan BB -1 as modified by the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association by additional stop signs at Birch and Park and Leland .and Park; maintenance of the barrier at Oxford and with midstreet planters. He ascertained from the audience that only a few members of the audience favored Plan 88-1 as presented and opposed it as modified by the Association. Paul Bundy, 143 Park Avenue, urged the Council to support the present plan although he was willing to accept Plan BB -1 if the closure at Oxford was maintained, Erica Prince, 302 College Avenue, read a letter from a former California Avenue resident who still shopped there and found the rerouting not inconvenient and a small price to prr -erve the quiet and safety of the neighborhood. She was amazed everyone did not agree and urged the Council to adopt the, Evergreen Park Neighbor- hood Association barrier system. Ms. Prince also recommended endorsement of the sage plan for a six-month trial period. Martin Pert, 428 Oxford, favored the current traffic plan. Plan BB -1 would allow only those who understood the neighborhood to use it, and would make it dangerous for others, particularly the elderly, at eight. As a Co-op member for 20 years, he believed its loss of business was due not to the barriers but to high costs and poor service. The church always had 'tittle traffic on Sundays. His realtor friends suggested the church wanted both roads to be accessible because it would make the property more valuable as a commercial lot. Tommy Derrick, 396 Leland. referred to a letter from a business that used Sedro Lane as its backdoor and had no difficulty with the increased traffic on it. The Council should consider the plan as it stood. Something should be done about Park Boulevard to help the businesses there, but the barriers at Oxford and Birch should be retained. The neighborhood would be difficult if Birch were opened up. Ellis Jacobs, 437 Cambridge, reiterated his letter to the Council. Park Boulevard should be opened to two-way traffic, controlled by speed bumps, signs, etc. Barriers should be added to prevent traffic going through Evergreen Park. He understood the -ad hoc citizens' committeehad not approved any of the plans. David Schrom, 302 College, Chairperson of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association Traffic Committee, said the Committee still aimed to eliminate through traffic in the neighborhood. Many members of the CoMmittee found the trial plan, with mi nOr modifications, acceptable, but as a whole, it endorsed a modified Plan{ 88-1. The modifications answered the staff questions abo+'t its practicability. Additional stop signs would reduce speeds on Park Boulevard. It was feared the plan would increase traffic in 5 0 5 4 9/17/84. the ne i ghburhvud , but the residents were willing to .give it a six- month trial. the attractiveness of the through route should be reduced with median planters such as those on Fern Drive. The Oxford Street closure should be retained since its removal would have serious drawbacks. Corinne Powell, 381 Oxford Avenue, lived in the middle of the increased traffic expected from.Plan BB -1. She hoped staff esti- mates' were high;. but the barrier at the Oxford/E1 Camino i.nter- sectton would give slight protection She was At the church on Sunday mornings at the peak hour and found most people using the non -church owned route. If that became impossible, it.would use its entries from College and El Camino.. The, benefits to the res'- dents on 0xford of maintaining the barrier were reasonable. The church complained that people went through its property, but chains would prevent that. She supported Plan BB -1, but hoped the current, more effective plan would not be disregarded. Kay Westrum, .350 Oxford Avenue, also lived in the middle of the block and preferred the current traffic patterns. In the inter- ests of harmony, sLe was willing to try Plan 88-1. Her biggest problem Was the traffic from the Keystone feeding through the neighborhood. Steve Finke'lman, 381 Oxford, moved into the neighborhood two weeks earlier, and expected the neighborhood to be difficult to reach by car. He liked the current barrier system, but asked that the bar- rier be retained. at Oxford if Plan BB -1 were adopted. He lived near the corner of 0xford and Ash with . his .bedroom fronting the street. He did not want to see four times as many cars go by. He hoped that after seven years, a permanent decision would -soon be made. Rosemary Dooley, 290 Leland Avenue, was tired of hearing barriers discussed year after year. The people most inconvenienced were those living in the area who shopped on California Avenue and used either Sedro Lane or El Camino ,which were dangerous. One was too small and entering El Camino without a traffic light was hazardous to the old living in Evergreen Park and Southgate. If barriers were necessary, she preferred. P i as AA -1. Kathy Himmelberger, 1763 Park Boulevard, favored barriers, and urged adoption of either the existing plan or Plan B8-1. . The Council Lhould not throw Park Boulevard to the wolves by removing the barriers. = Although inconvenienced, she shopped at the Co-op. She spoke for the children,. who were helped by the barriers. They lost 800 cars in front of her house, and she was grateful. Jim Stapleton, 214 Oxford, lived on the corner of Oxford and Park Boulevard and supported the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Associa- tion plan, although he preferred the present solution. During the past six months they had a glimpse of heaven. It was quiet and safe and he loved it, but was willing to try something else. Jack Stanley, 253 Oxford, said he followed the discussions for five years. No one plan, would make everyone happy, and a com- promise was the only answer. He favored the ,current plan', but would support Plan BB -1 with modifications. He found any plan that slowed traffic on Park Avenue acceptable and gave reasonable access to and from the business district, which he patronized. Counci lmasaber Cobb asked .what traffic was prevented by the current barrier on Oxford. Mr. Stoffel said staff believed the present barrier on Oxford impeded the illogical traffic that a recent license' survey . showed flowing in circles.. coming, in on Oxford and exiting on Stanford. College. or Oxford. The barrier also impeder some t: aiffic_ to the north frog:. the Birch,. College, Ash route. The barrier wuul'd also impede some traffic created by the commercial businesses that went S..0 5. 5- 9/17/84 went alone El Camino and entered Ash and exited on other streets. It the barrier was removed, it would not have a significant impact because traffic counts showed only 200 to 300 cars per day. Mis- cellaneous and residential through traffic was rerouted by the barrier. Councilmember Witherspoon said it was frustrating that staff did not evaluate Plan AA -1 since it did not meet the Council criteria by achieving only a.15 percent reduction of through traffic. She asked if Plan AA -1 had further adverse effects. Mr. Stoffel corrected some errors on, Plan.- AA -1. The numbers shown were carried over from an earlier Plan AA with barriers in the interior of the neighborhood, The 3,500 cars on Park Boulevard by Cambridge should be corrected to 2,900 cars. On Birch between College and Cambridge, the correct number was 1,700, not 900. On Stanford Avenue near Park, the number 800 should be changed to 600, and on Oxford near Park, the number 400 should be changed to 200. On the one-way sections on Birch and Ash between Oxford and College, ege, the number 500 should be inserted. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified the amount of traffic would not be changed --only rerouted. The sane number of people would be going .in and out, and it was assumed the plan would not discourage anyone. Mr. Stoffel believed any plan produced -by the committee should at least meet the committee's criteria set forth on page 1 of the staff report. That was his objection to plan AA -1. Councilmember Witherspoon said the committee did not Mention 15 percent, but spoke of eliminating all .through traffic. She pointed out the dichotomy between what the Council believed its goal was and the wish of the neighborhood, which was no through traffic. Mr. Stoffel said the committee goal in no way abandoned the objec- tive of eliminating through traffic in Evergreen Park. A 100 per- cent elimination of traffic was not feasible, especially in con- junction with the other committee criteria. He had to evaluate at what point the criterion was met. For lack of any other standard guideline, he relied on the 30 percent reduction that was dis- cussed for many months. Since the 15 percent did not meet it, he dismissed the plan. Vice Mayor Levy compared Plans AA --1 and, BB -1, adding all the traf- fic from E1 Camino at College, Oxford, Stanford, and Park on each. Plan 88-1 showed a total of 4,300 cars entering the neighborhood. from El Camino, whereas plan AA -1 showed a total of -4,000. He deduced that Plan AA -1 would generaate less traffic than Plan 88-1 entering the neighborhood from El Camino. Mrs Stoffel- said or all practical purposes, the two numbers were the same. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the two pi ens, from the staandpoi nt of through traffic, were more or less the same. Mr. Stoffel said when calculating through traffic, all entries and exits to the neighborhood were cordoned off, including Park and Birch between College and Cambridge. The total number of trips in and out of the neighborhood were obtained by taking Park Boule- vard, Sta:iford, Oxford and College along El Camino, plus Birch and Park between College and Cambridge. Vice Mayor Levy :clarified if the traffic was going through, a reasonable estimate could be obtained by' taking a count at either the El Camino or the Cambridge/California ends. Mr. Stoffel understood his point, hut the trips going in and out of the neighborhood were a combination of through trips going in one way and exiting the other, plus one-way neighborhood trips. It was, therefore, impossible to look at only one side of the neighborhood. He, therefore, added up all the entries and exits at all access streets in and out of the neighborhood for both through and residential traffic. 'Vice Mayor Levy asked for the count because he wondered whether the numbers were noticeably different on the two plans. Mayor Klein said the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association sug- gested, in addition to what was before the Council in writing, two stop signs on Park at Birch and at Leland, plus pots or dividers on Ash and Birch. He asked for staff comment. Mr. Stoffel referred to the report from a consultant who con- sidered the stop sign system in Palo Alto some years earlier. The report concluded that stop signs at every other block did not sig- nificantly reduce overall speeds, as there was sufficient space between them to allow people to speed up. The report did not dis- cuss the question of reduction in volume, and he was unsure whether the neighborhood group aimed at speed or volume reduction. In order to obtain speed reduction, stop signs would have to be at every block. Staff could no agree to that as Park Boulevard was meant to carry traffic, and stop signs on every block would push traffic onto another street with fewer stop sign.;. He Pointed out that Birch Street already had stop signs on every block. It was believed. that Park Boulevard, as a collector street, should be maintained fairly clear so that traffic could use it. It was also a major bike route, and stop signs were difficult for cyclists. If stop signs were effective for speed reduction, they would present a deterrent only if people stopped at them. It was ques- tionable whether the signs would be sufficient to force drivers onto El Camino. Mr. Schreiber said a major concern was that stop signs at every block, given the relatively low cross traffic or traffic accessing Park, would create a situation where most drivers would find no other vehicle within sight, giving rise to a substantial number of "rolling" stops through the area. The ability of the City to police the area was limited, and it was impossible to have a squad car in the area for the-bbetter part of the day. Mr. Stoffel said a traffic circle was planned to slow people down on the stretch in question. With regard to the stop -sign sug- gested on Leland, it was possible that people went too fast around the curve there, and a stop might slow them. However, to achieve any speed reduction on Park Boulevard south of Stanford .would re- quire additional stop signs at Oxford and College. If that method was chosen, more stop signs would be needed. So far, planters were only used on curves to keep people in their lanes and to slow tnen down. They were never used in the middle of the street so their effects were unknown. , Putting obstacles in the middle of the street increased the City's exposure to iiabil ity claims, and it was impossible to foresee whether planters would work. Staff preferred that Oxford Avenue remain closed. Counci lmember S,utorius asked for an evaluation of speed undul D- tioos, and for a compareision between partial and full barriers. Staff commented that a caveat on controls WAS the difficulty of getting people to obey thus. The question of wandering, circular or illogical traffic was raised, and although partial barriers might not be obeyed, he wondered whether half barriers designed to preclude legal through right turn traffic continuing on streets such aa' Park Avenue, Leland and Oxford, would work. e. 5 0 5 7 9/17/84 Mr. Stoffel clarified that he rererred to along El Camino replacing the full closure at Park Avenue with one that would prevent People turning into Park while allowing them to exit. Councilmember Sutorius said his question was for informational purposes and might apply to Park, Leland and Oxford. Mr. Stoffel was hesitant to make a quick presumption with regard to the effects of a half barrier on traffic volumes and circula- tion, but anticipated it would achieve about half the effect of the full barrier. However, more subtle effects might emerge from a closer study, and generally half barriers would be more effec- tive than open streets but less than full , barriers. Councilmember Sutorius asked if it was fair to assure that some vehicles corns rag from the neighborhood might access El Camino in a more direct fashion and have less distance to travel- and intersect fewer streets within the neighborhood albeit legitimate, neighbor- hood -generated traffic. Mr. Stoffel said that would -be true, although Park, Leland and Oxford were the three least used accesses into and out of the nei gnborhood, Such changes would . not help many people in the neighborhood to exit in a convenient way although residents would again be able to exit from Park Avenue. General iy, _ staff pre- ferred to instal; something that was self -enforcing, which people could not set through, such as full barriers, and something more fully closed than the current barriers with the cement block in the middle. Less effective was a "Do Not Enter" :or "No Right Turn"' sign, which was the , least -Self-enforcing measure and often violated unless the police were present. A good example was the Alma/Churchill intersection here during school hours only a left turn was allowed. Unless the police were present, that sign, was often violated. Of the possibilities, staff preferred the tightest, safest and most controlled type of barrier. The half barriers could be easily violete4 by drivers going round them. Staff took a position on speed undulations as shown by the letter from the City Maeager to the Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, which listed reasons for not having such undulations in Palo Alto. All City Departments considered whether the situation ores different in Evergreen' Park, .and visited San Jose-ethe only nearby city to have an example of one such installation. It was concluded that speed undulations might be a lesser evil than_ street closure, and rather .than havilrg a street close.d., the Fire Department preferred to go over undulations rather than go over a block tilat might damage a truck. Staff still had the fo l l owl ng concerns: 1. Although undu l ations were legal to in tal. j , Cal trans Thad not yet developed Standard -S. for thear. Should they:be a,nstalleo to large number, and Caltrans later developed guidelines, there was the possibility the .undulations would have to be taken out and retrofitted to meet those standards. P. The undulations were not tested; in the Courts .and were so far not illegal nor tested with regard to liability, al though he understood a lawsuit was pending'in ether• Santa Rosa or Santa Monica. 3. If . streets were resurfaced, the undul`ati ons had to be taken out and put in again They _taste approximately $1,000 for the signs, striping and paveaett, 4. There was some evidence`` of certain types of vehicles bottoming out in some. instances, although it did " not . appear to be a mejor problem. e 5 d 5 8 9/17/84 5. There were delays to fire trucks or any large emergency veiticle where normal speeds of 50 mph would be reduced to - 15 mph. Mr. Stoffel said those major reservations were not insurmount- able, but should be considered in the technique. Vice Mayor Levy asked about the traffic counts which defined normal residential and arterial streets in Palo Alto. Mr. Stoffel said the guidelines used were not hard and fast. The upper limit for local residential streets was 800 to 1,000 vehicles per day, preferably 800. Collector streets in most situations in Palo Alto tended to top out at 4,500 to 6,500 cars per day, although when next to an arterial such as Churchill and El Camino, the number was considerably higher. Arterial roads carried traffic in excess of 5,500. RECESS FROM 9:30 P.M. TO 9:50 P.M. Mayor Klein called on a member of the public to speak whose card was misplaced earlier. David Gleason, 422 Leland, said compromise was important. He thanked everyone for the long and valuable process. People had rigid attitudes, and an enormous effort was made on both sides to come up with the compromise plan E`sB-1, which he supported, although he originally wanted Park Boulevard closed. Plan B8-1 would provide some relief. Mr. Stoffel referred to Vice Mayor Levy's request for figures for Plans AA -1 and 8B-1 relating to the respective reductions of 15 and 30 percent in through traffic. One further figure on the Plan AA -1 Vice Mayor Levy referred should be corrected. At Park Avenue and El Camino Real , the number of cars should be 2,300 and not 1,300, making a total reduction .of 15 percent in through traffic for Plan AA -1, while Plan BB -1 showed a 30 percent reduction. POTION:. Cosecf l member Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt the Evergreen Park Traffic Centre] Plan 111.1 one a five -month trial basis, with the proviso that the Oxford barrier be allowed to remain, and consist#mg •f teee following elements: I. Fell street clamor's es Park, Leland, and Oxford Avenges near El Camino Real at the beeesdary beeteeees the commercial and residoeetial zones; 2. A fell street closure ea College Avease at -Park Bee4evard; S. Fell. street closures on Birch Street between • Oxford and College Avenges, and on Ash Street between Stamford *ad Oxford Av!esees (exact i •cat t •ens to be determined); 4. One-way traffic seutbbeeead en Park Boulevard between Oxford and College; Step si gees as Bow located ter the cerrent trial plan, except replace stop signs ea Oxford at Ash, add stop site sea Birch at Stamford, and remove stop si poles one Col 1 oge • at Birch and On Colleges at Park S: . t . i.. •Ns . farkleg swine, sees ss tles nsrtb side of Cembridle Aveemes at El Catalan Beal, with a right ° torn lase; and ea the. east side of ,E1 Cselee Real at Cambridge avenge. 1jESigi.ifl#!O AAER sotitlad PRESOLOTION SF IRE COMB. Of, INPLENESTIMO - AN EVERGREEN PARC TRAFFIC CONTROL.. PLAN ASS MUGS TIE C I TYM IOE STOP INTERSECTION OAP, (Cost1Ameed frolvO/13/14) 5 0 5 9 9/17/84 MOTION CONTINUED ORDINANCE 3568 entitled `ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE tItT OF 11111 ALTO AMENDING TNF MIDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1984-85. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPRIOENE1T PROJECT NO. $2-23 'EVERGREEN PARR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS)" Councilmember Cobb made the motion even though he believed bar- riers were fundamentally a lousy solution . to traffic problems. The problem in the neighborhood _ was that the California Avenue area was overdeveloped with office and other traffic generating uses, which spilled over and caused serious problems. El Camino was at saturation and a way was needed to get it to flow again, which would be the ultimate solution to a lot of traffic problems in Palo Alto. Neighborhoods close to the office developments would have unusual problems. The previous plan was flawed in terms of its impact on the businesses in and around Peninsula Scientific, and the previous testimony regarding the geed for in and out - access for people in the eel ghborhood to the business dis- trict was important and needed to be recognized. He hoped the trial worked because one of the measures to be applied to the trial in addition to its ability to control the traffic in the neighborhood was whether it had any dilator°ius effects on the businesses in the California Avenue area. Businesses were impor- tant and Council should be cognizant of their needs, as well as the needs of the neighborhoods, and he hoped the balance of the particular plan would provide that result. He did not want to solve one person's problem at the expense of someone else. He spoke with Fire Chief Wall who was concerned that barriers be used rarely and only in unusual circumstances. and that they be de- signed in such a way that in major City emergencies, they could be moved in order for fire . trucks to get in and out. He would make a separate motion to, cover those concerns. He asked if there was any problem in having a less than six-month trial. Mr.., Stoffel said a four -month triad would be minimally accept- able. Councilmeraber Witherspoon said she did not support the motion. She was philosophically .opposed to barriers and : i f she had to try and keep traffic out of neighbo hoods, she preferred one-way streets and things like the island between Park Boulevard. '+he was not interested in another .six-month trial,- and if -the motion passed, she doubted that anything more would-be learned.. She pre- ferred Plan AA -1 and was proud of the community and the neighbors in the .area ; who.. fel t strongly and worked -- hard. to. -fi nd a compro- mise. She did not believe there was a compromise, and those who did not want any through . traffic in their neighborhoods were not going. to; . eccompl ish it., -_The neighborhood -Aid. not have a 'serious traffic problem compared, to other -neighborhoods in Palo- Alto. Her goal was to discourage as much of the inappropriate through traf- fic as possible :in all. neighborhoods, but -traffic- studies showed that 40 percent of the traffic in Palo Alto -did net originate in Palo Alto and did not have Palo Alto as its destination. The Evergreen Park 'neighborhood was in- the forge of a cul. ds-r sac, and in some ways it was. more- -protected -than other neighborhoods. She would support Plan AA -1 i f -the motive fei led. Council -member ,F1 etcher supported the i ti un . She was" not enthu.s i - ast1 c because she : befl eved- there.. wou l d :- be added ..hazards by" Aov.i ng the barrier _ one:: b ock down. J14:14, would likely IA_ any , U-turns with on-coming,trefflc,_ beet in -the spirit af.: compro ise and -seeing if- it assisted the businesses. she would support the mots on .Eventually, 114-e wanted to :0Mbve: tow rds'havin _a g ,_serias. of traffic circles send undvl:ati ons. :The _plan needed :to . be tr#ed. Vice Mayor Levy d d not support the: motion 'because. 40,10 . back to the beginning of the City's studies. traffic- counts .'in Evergreen 5 0 6 ;0 9/17/84 Park were no high, but were average. In many crises, traffic counts for the residential streets were below the levels con- sidered to be standard in Palo Alto for residential strec a e. The traffic count on Park, the collector street, was also below level, or about half of other collector street -s around town. Regarding the comments that the traffic in Evergreen Park changed over time, data indicated that the current traffic counts in Evergreen Park were comparable with those .of five or ten years earlier. They Might change during - the next few years as California Avenue was more developed, but the Council should deal With those changes when they occured--not in light of the current situation, which was not a change from past traffic countss Evergreen Park was not substantially different in the way traffic moved. Other residen- tial thoroughfares carried the same amount_ of traffics and other arterial streets throughout town such as Channing, Cowper, Middle- field, Churchill, Meadow, Newell. Stanford Avenue. carried as much or more traffic as Park Boulevard, all were adjacent to schools or parks. had chi l cren crossing them, With traffic moving at speeds similar to, or in access of the speed on Park. In addition, many other neighborhoods were adjacent to El Camino and had streets that entered their neighborhoods from it. If Plan BB -1 passed, Council would set a precedent for every other neighborhood in town to block off streets entering the neighborhood from El Camino; block off residential streets even though traffic counts were below 1,000 cars; ,and block off the collector streets, etc. .Ever- green Park had been a patient for a long time, but Council, as the doctors, had not done a good job of diagnosing the situation or - prescribing the treatment. He looked at a number of the elements staff referred to in Plan . BB -1. On page 4. of CMS ; a9? ; 4, staff mentioned that BB -1 might increase traffic substantially in a num- ber of blocks on Evergreen Park, which did not meet the Council's earlier criterion that there should be only minimal shifting of traffic between neighborhood streets. A second element related to the way Park Boulevard was treated. Drivers, especially those parking on Park Boulevard, would probably make U-turns on Park Boulevard onthe south side of the one-way barrier, posing a dan- ger to cyclists and on -coming southbound traffic on Park. He was concerned that the plan, as with the trial plan now in operation, was not expected'. to reduce speeds southbound on Park Boulevard. Concern was justified about the high speeds there, and whatever was done should have as its first standard the reduction of traf- fic, Questions -about U-turns and random turns were particularly important in Evergreen Park, more so than in other neighborhoods where residents quickly became used to taking routes that were not dangerods. However, in Evergreen Park, a number of nonresidents used the commercial areas or the church once a week or less, and were more likely to become confused and a hoard to all. For those reasons, he had difficulty implementing the plan. The cor- rect approach was to look down the road to the concept of undul a - tors on Perk Boulevard. Taking the proper steps on Park Boulevard to reduce the traffic would. reduce the major hazard in Evergreen Park and not produce the other negative effects caused by a plan involving a major use of barriers, Councilmember Woolley made a balance sheet of the pros and cons for the : barriers during the August discussions, and di seovered that for each argument for, there seemed to be a good argument against They came out even, and she_ supported Plan,_ 8B-1, because it was a reasonable compromise. She noticed *ore support, at least among the speakers, for that approach. Park would remain one-way, which would help.minimize the impact of future growth; the plan .deterred through traffic in a north direction; it allowed two-way access for the neighbors; and the Co-op, which she consid- ered the heart of the, shopping area, supported it. She had, a problem with the traffic,diverters along'fi Casino at Park, Leland and Ward', and d14 not believe -those WV** used to : deter through traff#c, Which was her justification :fa,r the direrter"s. :. She believed they were = being used to solve' Other. probl ems-apa rki ng from businesses on El Camino which soil led over into the 5 0 6 1 9/11/84 .: neighborhoods; elimination of trash from the Evergreen Park neighborhood; and to prevent delivery trucks from going around the block. Those were improper uses of traffic diverters. It established.a precedent, and the Downtown North area might want to remove parking from their streets by constructing barriers just past Lytton. The Barron Park and,Mldtown residents might request the same arrangement. . AP9£ii8NENT: Coeeci laeember Woolley moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to #.al etee from the . Plan the traffic dt verters at Park Avenue, Lel tired„ Und Oxford,. Councilmember Renzel opposed the amendment. 9uiing the many months of discussions, it was found that any kind of solution to through traff.ie problems had .to be comprehensive. All the plans presented were carefully studied by staff, and the various clo- sures' were deemed necessary because of the creativity of motorists, who, when one route was closed, opened up another. It was important to maintain the barriers' on Park, Leland, and Oxford at El Camino. She did not believe it was invalid for Council to consider whether gasoline trucks sheuld be using residential streets to turn the corner. They shculd stay on El Camino, and the barriers encouraged theca to do so. It was a reasonable- thing for a neighborhood to want --they had a right to expect it and the Council had an obligation to provide lt if it was possible without too much difficulty to the :neighborhood. She heard no complaints from the neighborhood or even from people at California Avenue about the barriers on El Camino. They served as part of the comprehensive traffic plan BB -1, and should be retained. Otherwise the Council would create a plan that was flawed from the outset. Counci lmember Sutorius believed the inclusion of the barrier on Ash in Plan BB -1 made the circling motion less apt to occur. The rationale for the amendment was reasonable. A five -month trial period was planned if the motion passed, so an opportunity to test the effectiveness of the amendment would be given. If it worked, it meant that outward and inward access would be opened up which was legitimate to the residents and visitors to Evergreen Park. There would not be the circling caused by the barriers, and the safety access for emergency vehicles would have greatly improved. He supported the amendment. Counci lmember Renee] asked staff how much additional money it would cost to remove the barriers in terms of the budget amendment proposed for Plan BB -1, and if it was later decided to put them in again, how much that would cost. Mr. Stoffel said the barrier removal could be effected without any amendment to the budget ordin:ence although replacing the, would require some i t.i ona i money.' Counci lmeu ber Renee] believed the removal of the barriers on El Camino, even though the barriers at Ash and Birch would remain, would cause the circling to become wider to avoid trucks backing out, or anyother problems the truck drivers currently perceived, A small cross barrier at Ash or Birch would not stop such circling activity, but drive it deeper iota the neighborhood. Councilacember Woolley pointed out that the only way to enter Park Avenue, Leland, and Oxford was going north and making a right-hand turn.. `There would be no advantage at that point to through traffic making a right-hand turn and entering the neighborhood. If the objective of the plan was , to cut down on through traffic, the barriers made no difference. FALU.e by 41 vote of 44, W el i el,, Levy, Ii therspiree. 4lid Uteri's vet1eg laye." 5 0:-6 2 9/11/84 Councilaiaaiber= Sui:ur=ius saki the computations nagged at him, and he likened the situation to a maze. He concurred with CoMfcilmember Witherspoon and Vice Mayor ' Levy, and bel 1 eved' that the citizen, Planning Commission, and Council processes took 'many actions to alleviate traffic problems. Significant rezoning along El Camino Real, California Avenue, and Park Boulevard took place, and that evening two more such items were to be acted on to reduce the growth potential and traffic generation surrounding California Avenue and Evergreen Park. The key concern was addressed posi- tively although he did not concur With all the rezoning. He agreed with Vice Mayor Levy's approach to the problems and to advise other neighborhoods about handling their traffic problems. He bel ierred the' City shoutd not (create' labyrinths as suggested in the _plans throughout Palo Alto, aril the residents •of other neigh- borhoods would not support those requests particularly in view of the traffic counts. He opposed the motion. Mayor Klein said he unenthusiastically favored the motion. He was not ee fan of barriers even if they' were useful in some situations, but it was important to canslder why barriers could be useful in Evergreen Park and not in all neighborhoods. The idea that through traffic could be eliminated in Evergreen Park or any neighborhood was unrealistic, and while it would be nice for society to be less dependent on acitomobiles, it Was only fair that all neighborhoods bear some of the burden of through traffic. It was possible to reduce through traffic, but there was a difference between reduction and elimination,. The town was developed during different eras, and configuration and geography inevitably. led to some areas bearing more traffic than others Although inescap- able, incremental changes could` be made in the system to improve the neighborhoods by reducing through traffic and making the streets safer. Evergreen Park was unusual, as its streets were laid out in a fashion no longer useful. It was different than indicated by the traffic count because it was squeezed between two business areas on the west and the south. Immediately to the south was the Oregon Expressway, all of which lead to current and future heavy pressure on the neighborhood. Heavy traffic on the Oregon Expressway caused by office development in the area and elsewhere had to be remembered. He wanted to send a signal to developers and present and future residents- of Evergreen Park that the City of Palo Alto was committed to retaining Evergreen Park as a residential community and did not intend to allow it to be sub- jected to undue pressures and converted by people who argued in favor of condominiums and then offices because of the heavy traf- fic. It was important to analyze the heavy, burden placed on people. It ±ERs. argued that allowing barriers in Evergreen Park meant allowing' barriers elsewhere, but the City COunci 1 was elected to make distinctions. There ware obvious differences between the barriers proposed and a barrier across Middlefield or Erabarc:adero. Differences in degree were important, and Council - members assessed each `set of circumstances. The present ci rcu*- stences were that ' ba rr1 ere did not place an undue burden on other sections of the community. A main drawback of barriers , was that they- ehi fted the burden from one neighborhood to another, but thet was not the case in Evergreen Park. He hoped the compromise plain would':rea.ove the burden from the merchants; whose complaints that the first 'barrier "p oglraa hurt them were justified. Much of the shifting was to El. Camino Real and Oregon Expressway, which were designed to carry the traffic. The internal movement would be somewhat bothersome, but it was a small price to pay,': and anyone traveling through the neighborhood shoel d be willing to pay' to help preserve its character.. The suggestion to make Plan BB -I peemanent was a tempting suggestion, but as traffic engineering was not an 'exact science, ,and; the system would involve the later action ,of thousands of humans, the outcome -of the Plan was unp,re- dictabl'e.. It behooved the?Council to take another 100 to Sill* how citizens reached. He was ready 'to hear lne..further. session -in five months' time, when he hoped the plan would be found to attain what was wanted with minimal . dlsco,mfort. to others. Counc i l me ber Bechtel said Evergreen Park was . smell gre..n � �r� ,��� � ���i�l l neighborhood heavily impactcd. by El Carat n4 Real and Cal l foeni Avenue, a grow- ing shopping Area. An . attempt was made, to bullet a neighborhood with'an older grid system into a newer one such as those built in the last 20 years 1 n Cupertl no, Mountain View, artd Sunnyvale, which had barriers in the form of cul-de-sacs. The barriers along El Camino and Coleridge at Middlefield and Embarcadero were already -forgotten, and the latter was an attractively landscaped barrier and net discernable as such .Those barriers were erected as a result `-of .d _ ecision"s :thy former City Councils, and 'the 'motion before the Council was worthy of a further five month trial. Counci lmentber Renzel concurred with her col 1 eagues _ who favored the motion. The 'first objective `in the jransportati"on ,element' 'of the Comprehensive Plan :was to . prsteCt residential ne,i ghborhoods ; from through traffic and espeoiallyy .comMutee traffic. The objective was not completely achievable, but Evergreen Park lent itself to protection, partially. because it had the rei1road tracks on one side, only two entries to Callfornie. Avepue on another, `and one 'pr'in'ciple entry from El Carni_no. It al_so._ meant that any 'through traffic had more ' i ►pact .beca-u'se -beet h' es were' Made for the key intersections, When the congestion figures for peak hour traffic were looked at, the eeighboehocd was ringed by orange dots at Alma Street, Alma/Oregon/Page Mill, Page tai 1 l /El Carei no, Stanford Avenue/E1 Camino: Churchill/ E1 Camino., and Churchill/Alma. The _199Q projections showed .bigger (range dots, meaning it would be heavily ' congested, The nei ghborhoOd well d - c1 ea rly face an i n -- creased problem if nothing was done.: Council should make it clear that traffic. headed for Stanford gni versity should not travel through the ' nei ghborhood. `The plan i,n place was tested, and ' i t successfully removed through traffic. There were no reported emergency problems during the trial period although the Fire Department preferred not to have barriers. Tiie're was no confirmed barrier- related business losses, as there was no ability to tie the reported financial losses of companies to the barriers. Those were the .results of the plan in place; which was more restrictive of traffic. Plan BB -1, was 'a coMp,romise to the neighborhood, Would not allow a worse situation to occur, and waa worth a trial She preferred to stay with the present plan as it seemed to work a.nd hid no major problems. Since some parties believed problems to exist, she was ready to try Plan BB -1.. She hoped it worked and that everyo'n;e would be satisfied when the five month triail "peri.ad was Overa CouPci lmember Witherspoon referred to. Mayor K1 ei n `s inference that C.ouncil+eentbers who Oppose the motion were' against the prevention -of residential eeighborhoods being inveded by traffic dried said she did root believe' i n sending indirect signals --1 f Council wanted to reduce, commercial areas in town, it was on the agenda for later that , eveni ng and was the correct way to go about it, It was a nei gelborhoed .traffic' problem that was being 'addressed, not a global issue. She would vote against the motion as she did not believe the barriers would have the impact, and she was leery of spending any more resources --financial , staff, citizen 'or Council time —en the, problem. .She asked what criteria would be used to evaluate the success of the .plan in five months` time, 'when' it would 'be difficyit to judge the exact traffic flow, and what resources would'be spent. --Mayor Klein said the. criteria were eel up when -_-the original' plan 4as- passed six eonthtearlier. Hr. Schreiber, confirmed the one major area that would not be covered was the ecanotaic enal._ysit, es the effort entalled wars riot fetind to be 'productive. No speed survey on College .would be taken, but otherwise, traffic counts and the $►ese basic criteria used for the first trial would, be, repeated. Eounci lrember Witherspoon asked if the goal would again be a 30 percent reduction. Mr. Schreiber said the target would be 30 percent, which would be a measure of degree of change and success. Counci lmember Witherspoon obtained confirmation that the budget amendment was included in the motion. Mayor Klein said there was a request to split the two motions, but the Council would vote on them as one. Vice Mayor Levy said most people who lived in Palo Alto chose to live there, and were not natives. If Council changed a neighbor- hood, it accepted the burden of chance. If there was no good reason to change a neighborhood, or if there was much controversy in the neighborhood around i t , Council should not change it. There was clearly controversy in Evergreen Park, as shown by the letters in the packet whenever there was discussion or a poll - of the neighborhood. Additionally, a number of his colleagues stated they were philosophically opposed to barriers, and were only ready to use them because of the extreme situation. Council should not tamper with a community unless there was a clear need to tamper and a clear, almost unanimous, desire for such change. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Levy, M1itherspeoa, Sutorius 'sting Nee. Councilmernber Cobh asked staff to look into a barrier design con- cept that would provide maximum access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Schreiber said the topic was already discussed by the Planning Department, City Manager's Office and Fire Department and an assignment was unnecessary. MAYOR KLEIN RE ITEMS 13, 14 and 15 MOTION: Mayor Klein reeved, seconded by Levy, to move item 13, Replacement Rl eaco Neter Taus in Foothills Park; Item 14, Lease of Cubberley .laying fields; and Item #15, City Manager's Reusing Assistance Pr*ilrem .te be beard after Item fie* Legislative ;C aa1t. tee Recommendations,. NOTION PASSER by a .vete of 8 1, Setor.icas voting i'mo i c' { MOTION: Cared) men kaer Cobb moved, seconded by l el e, beat Items 111, Ordiraace re *aratotim Procedures* = aid Item fit, ;Ordieeaece Imposing 4 1laraterism of: the .Rs/War Meeting of Monday, September 17, be adjourned_ to renew. tint Adjaur*ed : *eating Alf..Mesdary • September 11, 19$43 . en Tuesday, September MOTION PASSER ueaeim.esly. TEM #7 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WITH Planning Commissioner Mee Christensen said the Planning Commis - Sian was happy to pass along the unen,mous recommendation. She urged tn.e Council to support the + Commission's condition_ that allowed flexibility for the lut ure, El andowne rs to make minor = alter- attons r in ,the .landscaping end structure plans :so :they were not locked into the PC zone. 5 0'6 5 9/17/84 Gouncilmember Witnerspoon asked how the plan modification would work., The Council was always strict about changes to. a PC zone, and future owners might have different needs from the buyers. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said there was the precedent to include a condition such as Section 4(b), condition 4, which allowed homeowners to make minor changes allowed under the R-1. district regulations. The property owners would be required to maintain the landscaping under condition 3, but could make minor structural changes such as adding a rear deck or a hot tub to the property without a full PC modification. Councilmember Witherspoon 'said in order to add a bedroom or a bathroom, a PC change would be required, which was expensive and defeated the purpose of low-income housing. Mr. Brown said dependent upon the extent of the modification, it might be construed as a minor change, which process entailed Arch- itectural Review Board (ARB) review and Director of Planning iu.oproval. Councilmember Witherspoon assumed the Palo Alto Housing Corpora- tion (RAHC) had a right of first refusal on the properties as in the case of ; the other condominiums. Mr. Brown confirmed,that the standard Below -Market -Rate (BMR) pro- visions applied. Councilmember Renzel believed the plan was reasonably decent for the neighborhood. When Council approved the subdivision.; there was a condition requiring the duplex lot to be dealt with after the other lots were developed to allow neighborhood participation in what occurred there Mr. Brown said the condition was not formal, and he did not recall discussions along those lines when the subdivision. was discussed. Mayor Klein declared the public- hearing open and as - no member of the pu.b l'i c wished -e0 speak, declared the public hearing closed. ,hiOTl$O: ,Conn4-I.I.., *r Bechtet: moved, seconded lo.vbilitherspeeav to adopt the staff ``i to* endat 1 oa to approve tlee .Proposed prel i ■1- nary parcel nap and waft ordinance approving a mho Osage from R-2 to PC, Miffing- fair a#Wapp1icatloas that ha detr ; tal impact on the onvi riaaent °w4 fl toswl t. F1asT- IEA$Ida -e*t$tled .1OAR1 0CE >O TAE ALN ALTO ANEUi1NN SECTION- -14.441;04,J -OVTHE PALS ALTO aUIICIPAL CONE MK ZONING MP) TO CRAM .Tf -CLASSLF.ICOTI O Sir P•It0PE*1! EOM -AS 710 A$IlOT 'RIVE FRON R--2 TO PC. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that his. "no* vote on the motion Seas 4o refleOtioN.: on the proposed design, He agreed with the .ARB acid Planning, Commi,sioh comments rewarding the design, but believed pr1.`,viet trees were not -.a good choice for 14adscapfng. Psis vote �agai nst was consi stem with-the,position he took -et the Pi an- ning Corwmissian- because he did not consider that eendit' on (c) ten page 2 of the staff `report to 'the P1aru 1ng Commission was met, which required the uses and site development- ,regulat=lans to he consistent with the Comprehehsave Plan and Compatible with exist- ing or potential uses on adjoining sites or in the vicinity. Councilmember Renze1 concurred with the remarks about the privet trees. She asked whether :their choice was discretionary ` at a later stage, or whether. soave action was: necessary to change it. Mr. Srown-- boel i eved Council could ask staff to work wi tin` the appl i w cant to change the privets to more appropriate .trees. 5 0 6 6 9/17/84 AOLNOHLMT: Councilmember Renzel moved,, seconded by Witherspoon, that Staff work with the applicant to replace proposed privet trees with mere appr®piate tree plantings, Councilmember • Renzel suggested the privets not be replaced by Monterey pines. Vice Mayor Levy said he was not a horticul tural ist and asked 1-f a policy decision was involved. Councilmember Renzel said privets were in the landscape plan, and unless Council instructed staff to modify it, they would show up as a requirement Vice Mayor Levy understood that but wanted to know whether the objection was to privets per se, or to trees described by name in landscaping plans. He did not want to vote against a privet, but to make,a policy decision. Councilmember Renzel said in the subject case, the privet was specified as a principle landscaping tree. Privet was a shrub, and many people were allergic to it. Privet was inappropriate and did not have the stature to be required in a plan. She did not know how to elevate it to a policy level , but the law regarding Planned Community zones required a fair degree of specificity. When ordinances were approved, they .included plans that contained all the specifics 'o that if someone moved in who did not like privets, he could not remove -them. She encouraged the use of a tree that was more apt to meet with, general acceptance. Her amendment would leave it wide open for staff to negotiate the issue. They could take as a guideline what was happening in the rest of the subdivision. Mayor Klein said he would vote "no" on the amendment as it was a level of detail in which the Council should not be concerned, and it was a Planning Commission item. The Council should set poli- cy, Councilmember Renzel generally agreed, but understood staff to say the privet trees were in the plans the Council was approving, Therefore, Council was at that level of detail, whether it liked it or not. By doing nothing, Council approved privet trees .as the preferred tree for the site. The amendment removed the privet as the preferred tree and allowed staff to deal with the detail. Mayor Klein disagreed. To manage things correctly, it was some- times necessary to allow those responsible to make decisions, even though one eight not necessarily agree. It was an example of where it was • inappropriate for the Council to get down to that level of detail,. Councilmember Witherspoon said her objection to the: P1 anned Commu- nity for a residential zone was the residents were to be stuck with all the plants approved. Theoretically theywould be in vio- lation of the. PC if they changed: enyi She .had real concerns about having., a residential_- zone in : a PC with two residences in it, Mayor problems would arise in about .Six. years. Cooncileeeber Sutorius said Commissioner Cullen brought ,up the questionof theprivets at the Planning Commission meeting. . Coun- cilmember Renzel was correct , that it was Council's .responsibility to, des_ i with the whole subject, , and it was a pity Council had to spend so much time discussing it, but it was a part of the PC review pr ecess at any level. Atitpinfot PASfiU:,by •-Grote: of: 1-2 Lowy, .Itla#o vottia* * Ti8 AS MENSES ,PA$$ft by a, mats= of #- ,. Sstertas. voting few," 5 0 6 .7 9/17184 ITEM #8, PUBLIC HEARING: - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO Crliiir-UrTrrUnwirrr.-XT t Commissioner Christensen said the Planning Commission basically supported the staff view. Counci leember Witherspoon said the criteria for the proposed dele- tions were based on traffic, but many concerns, such af tax rev- enue, were more important to the City es a whole- The City just lost Hewlett Packard's offices to Mayf Reid Mall, which meant the annual: sales tax i revenue of.. approximately $400,000 would now go =to Mountain View. She asked what kinds of offices the ordinance change would eliminate from Palo Alto that might he future sales tax sources. Mr. Freeland said it was difficult to say. Although possible, it was not clear that administrative offices, which .were at issue, would be the function generating sales tax. Councilmember .Witherspoon asked how -it :was determined .which county or citee received sales tax revenue from a certain enterprise. She believed Council should be aware of such issues. before deciding willy-nilly that the Ci ty di d% not ,want administrative or general offices anywhere in town. There was currently paranoia about offices, which would give way in the normal course of events to a new fear. -In the meantime, the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. The question only became important the past three or four years, but would grow in importance, especially if Jarvis IV passed, It should be a criterion when items were brought to the Planning Commission to be included in their evaluations on the physical effects on the City. Mayor Klein said staff seemed to believe those were arguments, not questions, and to ehich they had no answers. Councilmember Witherspoon said the answer was that staff did not know what kinds of offices generated sales tax. She suggested theyfind out. Councilmember Fletcher said by preserving the manufacturing. uses, the .city _preserved the sales :tax ,revenue. = The manufacturing uses yenerated the sales tax, and she was.unaware of sales tax coming from office use Mayor Klein .declared the public hearing open. Denny Petrostan , 443 Ventura: Avenue, .reminded the Council of the many offices approved but not yet built. The City •did not have to worry about a shortage of offices. A high vacancy rate for some developments was projected in the rear future, and ogre of the original :intents for the item was :. to preserve the General Manufacturing areas specifically for small businesses that were of a senv'lce nature,. It was clear a developer would chose R&D before smell •business, and small business would go. The Council had to be aware of the choice it was making. It should also -remember the ease with which R&D could be converted into offices and the diffi- culty of monitoring it. All the good iriteet.s and hours spent to restrict the job potential would go out of the window if R&D was allowed; to coatinee in the GM(R) zone. She urged Council ` to pass the ortin<ance. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: C•v cl lmemMer . Uteri's mewed, secooded by.,Raswel , is aeieft.: the 1!a a ";—its;Misr--ree�esesidatt es' t1 t et. that rmseeal of wadmisistrative office services" and °research *ad development* fro tae list, .of uses permitted is the 411( 6) teas -will sot hovees adverse a wi ress.atal impact, cad than; the 611(11) rose be re rtsree to deletes those a see. MOTION CONTINUED ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING. entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE runnr-urTilirerrrlirTATTALTO AMENDING CNA►TER 18.$7 (GENERAL rMANDFACT_ORING. COMBINING DISTRICT) TO EXCLUDE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SERVICES AS OSLS",. Councilmember Cobb supported the motion, but as _ an owner of a small administrative office who wanted a • somewhat larger one to accommodate growth, ne confirmed that office space was in short supply in Palo Alto, which was why so many were being built. The prices were outrageous, the supply short, and it was difficult for those who wanted email offices in town to find them. It could drive him out of town. There was an unmet need for smal i offices in the City, and businesses such as his generated sales tax, as did service industries. The sales tax came not from the manufacturer, but where the sales office was He believed Councilmember Witherspoon's point was well taken. .If Jarvis IV passed, the City would need every available sales tax dollar. The City should learn mere about the question. Councilmember Fletcher said the ordinance was being.. enacted because service was being lost in the City to offices. Offices had more detrimental effects,. generated more traffic and employ- ment in the City, although the employees could not be accommodated with housing. The Council spent much time protecting neighbor- hoods from through commuter traffic, and rather than spend it later, it was more cost-effective to not create or intensify the problem now. Councilmember elith.erspoon_.opposed the motion, .as At, was a total overki l I . Staff could not point to a fact that .there was.:an ex - cess of office intensification in the zones, as:was made clear in the staff report to the. Planning Commission. There was not a problem, only a potential perceived one, Currently, administra- tive offices and R&D were low traffic generators when compared to other kinds of uses. They were reasonable, and she argued that small RAD sites for entrepreneurial types, of businesses was the way the Valley started, She did not feel an,y :sense of urgency that, it was a major problem, _and saw no indication in the staff report that it was, It was a matter best not attacked indirect- ly. Councilmember Renzel argued that offices were permitted in many zones, and agreed with Councilmember ember Fletcher the kinds of GM uses in the few ,areas where it was not allowed, made it necessary to protect the zones to provide: for such uses. Reports .were received showing largo :amounts of office space in Palo Alto available, even though rents were high, and the offices might. be in blocks. Also, there was a lot of office space ,on the books to be built, and while the City vas not in danger, the GM zone was. The Council should protect it bearing in hind that the GM zone was not designed to accept -high traffic type uses. MOTION PASSED by a vete of O-10 Ni tkersp000 voting 'e•.' magi caleaciiimobor Ni therspaaa _ sawed, s•coodsd by Cobb,; that staff : 1•vest1Oat•F whick,.•ffici- oses potentially: $toeratst sales tape dollars. . . ) MOTION PASSED or,. a vote of O-1, Pletcher totlog ITEM D9 :PO8 N.EAR1f4G.' PLANNING rtrimarrizortir COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE M Commissioner Christensen said the Planning Commission believed the zone provided some flexibility for GM uses. The intensification issue was handled by lowering the floor area ratio. The Commission found the zone appropriate te_the site suggested cs it allowed.some :future shift of uses from General Manufacturing in an area the City Council proposed to make more residential in nature. The potential traffic :irspact i would ber c lowered by reducing the floor area available. Anne Ercol ani , 2040 Ash, referred to Table II in the staff report listing alternative future development scenarios. Two options were given for the GM zone --one efor= manufacturing, -the other for R&D. She hoped Council would consider the difference in' traffic even though the same square footage would be allowed , and allow GM(1) with.manufacturing only and not . the R&13. The site was on the intersection of Page Mill and Park. There was discussion on whether a new. building should be allowed' there that 'generated only 100 trips , but the one use 'change ratsed the number —to to 500. Denny Petrosiarn , 443 Ventura Avenue, disagreed with the staff recommendation. The GM(1) new zone permitted 650 =more cars per day than currently generated by Hewlett Packard. She presumed a high percentage of those cars would head for the on -romp during the afternoon, traffic, which was not factored into the level of service calculations considered for Page Mill Road and 311 Park Boulevard. There was an 80 car reserve on the on -ramp, and it was a giant step backwards for Council to apply that zone inconsis- tently' with the item previously passed. Great concern was gen- erated over the 20,0+0 square foot' building on the opposite sloe of the street at 216 Page Mill Road. A GM(1) zone for the prop- erty would have an equivalent redevelopment potential of approving another 40,000 square foot office building on the site in addition to what was already there, and right , on top of the on -ramp. It was not acceptable. Because other zoning alternatives generated more- car trips than the proposed GM(1) zone, it did not make 650 cars insignificant. It WAS a significant ex.patrsion, and many appeared before the Council to try to prevent it in the area. Hewlett Packard wanted to redevelop - to R&D --not continue nanufacturing:. R&0 was easily converted, into office use, which was difficult to monitor, and cost more tax money, which was not acceptable In _view of -anticipated tight budgets. In conversion to offices, the car trips per day would escalate beyond the 650 trips proposeda An alternative would. be to create a •GM(B) (1) zone- which precluded both R&D and offices and reduced the floor area ratio to . 6, which was critical. The 395 Page Mill Road site was almost as big as the Maximart site, and right on the on -rare. All her conditions were necessary to take care lof the development poten- tial. The zone could be used for other large 'sites in town with hiyh job -creating potential. The staff presented the GM -B(1) zone as an option, and page 5 of the staff ;report identified it as the most beneficial alternative. Half the number of car trips in the GM(B) zone meant 1,095 car trips for a GM(B)(1) zone, or an increase of only 125 car trips over the 970 currently generated by Hewlett Packard. Staff rejected the option with the rationale that Palo Alto :should retain the expansion potential for large- scale manufacturing. However, the site was on top of the Oregon on -ramp. • ilewl ett = Packard 'vas= not interested in ReD, - not manufacturing expansion, and possible total conversion. No largeescale anything was ameeded In Palo Alto for . Job creation at present and perhaps for�the r~oming deoede. The : orginal reasons for rezoning properties in the area were to preserve and encourage small service businesses associated with general manufacturing in the GM zone and 'host to ,ekpand l ergs- manufacturing# concerns possibilities for R&D and office, also to decrease traffic pressure on the on-reip, The _,C 4(B) (1) zone best ; re,f) ected , the reasons. fer. init1ating a rezon1n Mayor Klein delared-the=public hearin%. closed. 5 0 7 0 9/17/84 NTlvri: Co•aci imewber Oechtei < moored, secoedei by ; swtori as, to adopt the Planning, Commission recommendation that the two proposed actions will ,mot 'have adverse eavfrenmeatal impacts and that: 1 1 1. A new CM zone be adopted; and Z. The zone district of the property at 3!1 Page Mill Road be changed from GM to GM(1). ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING eatttlee 'ORDINANCE OF TNE mum I !NE' MITT OF PALO ALTO ADDING CNA►TER 11.51 (GEiIERAL NANIFACTORING COMBINING DISTRICT (1) REGULA- TIONS), TO TAE. PALO ALTO MONICIPAL CODE' ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING •*titled 'ORDINANCE OF TOE MICH. of '!RE PITT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 11.01.040 OF TNF PALO ALTO MONICIPAL CODE (TAE ZONING MAP) TO "CNAiGE TNE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF TNE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 5!5 PAGE HILL ROAD FROM GM TO GNU)" Mayor Klein said the two ordinances should be voted on separately, as the secon'a could not be considered until the first ordinance was passed. NOTION DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS Cuunci lmember Bechtel said after listening ,to Ms.= Petroslan's arguments, she looked at the other options aioailable. The car trips with GM(i) would increase the, car: trips from 570 to 1,62Q. The alternative with a straight EGM would give a potential of :7,000 trips per day. The GM(1) increase was not unreasonable in that case. She wondered if staff could differentiate between manufac- turing and R&D. Her husband was An that business, and there was a fine line between the two. She did not think there- could be'a clear definition of the. number of trips generated by R&D and by manufacturing* . Such efforts were mixed in many plants, as they were doing R&D and manufacturing at the same time. It was difft- cul t to say automatically there' would be So-and-so *anymore trips and people with- R&D. It would also depend on te, type of R&p. Mayor Klein did not consider it an increase, but a .substantial reduction 1n the trip potential. 'tie found it a reduction' in the order of 70 per`dent of the traffic generating potentl al . Councilmember Renzel said it was Clear there was a significant reduction ih the potential trips By the same token, in the sub- ject location the number= of trips ,could --Le critical. She believed Ns. Petrosian raised an important Point With respect to the like- lihood of the site being redeveloped for R&D and what it might mean. Counci l melber Bechtel ' s argument regarding the fine line between R&D and manufacturing suggested even lore that the Council should err on the conservative side, for that reason, she offered a substitute motion. SVOSTITOTE NOTION: Caucil*ember Bonze, moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt a mew &M(S)(1) zoned Councilraember Rerizel wanted to _see a 6M(b)(1) zone to limit both the floor area 4.rati o -and the type of use that might occur. Otherwise, Counci<i. would face a, major. increase despite the Tact that traffic' wodl'd' -be less than . t'he., potertttal Having; '_caked at the Colprehen%I ve` Plan with the 1.F9e orange dots showing heavy traf'tit in: that particular 1+cat ion-,, she: did n fl d that' desir- able. : The GN(B)(1) Zone iaou1dr 6e 'the GM(,L) 011:0 c hinet! witin. the .5 f'l.9or' ire*. +100s Mayor Klein speti f i e6' the substitute motion el iii !sated ' RRD ' a s an showed use. Counci l nember Fletcher justified seconding tire" !notion because of her concern about the on -ramp, which `was presently ' at capacity. If the site was in a different location, she would'Fhave 'no problem accepting the recommended actippn byy. the Plann trig .Commission,. fi, Since there was already a proble ' she wanted to reduce pntential trips as much as possible, Councilmember Sutorius would vote against the substitute motion and in favor of the main motion, lie associated himself with the comment and` consideration tgt en' to the ;subject by Commissioner Christensen, .Alive was A re:si.dential street", and if at some junc- ture manufacturing- switched ,oirep 'to R&D, it Thight produce a more satisfactory situation for the adjacent residential area at there might riot be, the same evening and night shi f act i v i ty that was . associated with manufacturing. The earlier traffic analysis con- sidered the area and the critical. 0`regon Expressway on the basis of 2,40©: cars_ per day when the on=reep was projected to reach level of service' "0." .The'. proPosed change would _ ?educe the.: trips to 1,620, which was a positive and fain' step and a constructive change. He appreciated the single property owner supported the change, which -Made a. significant reduction eh the usage of a- niajor parcel. S®NSTITilTE NOTION FAILED by a vete of .7--20 Ouzel, Fletcher voting "aye.' FIRST PART OF NOTION PASSED ereanimeesly. SECOND PART OF NOTION PASSED eeeauimores1y. ITEM #10 COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE irOMMITTE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING gmli T I N N 5 "" r i �€ `�i` R A" r�`O '°°��' ." �._.T l��'iF t� t C I 1 T Es ice" 1 Mayor Klein said he would be the 'sole representative from Palo Alto at the League of California Cities Annual Conference, al- though originally several Councilmeaebers intended to participate. Executive Assistant Vicci Rudin said the Council Lerislative Com- mittee met the previous week to briefly cosider the .50 resolu- tions submitted to the League of California Cities for considera- tion at its conference the following week. Staff previously reviewed the resolutions, and generally agreed with the recommend- ations of the Policy Committees of the League that reviewed them, with four .exceptions. The exceptions were the prodct of staff and legislative Committee` recemmendatlons , y/ and were referred the to the Council that evening, The Committee wanted to reserve Idle right to bring further resolutions before the Council for discus- sion as the time for review was brief. The report discussed the exceptions in detail. Councileember Fletcher: explained Resolution 50 - Off -Premises, Freeway -Oriented Signs. The League's Transportation Policy Com- mittee. referred it to ,th_e Environmental Qual icy Committeee,e There was no",:-syaepathy for the `tesolutton a.bng thr co aittee meMbe.rs, but they believed it was not- a transportation issue. ` She ' coh- curree that the resolsetion ehould be opposed, which would curve before `tie nv i ronmenta:l.; Quality Control Coemi ttee' i e Anihei i, F. tI.OAi.. r itay.r 141,1° ved , " cer44e4. by 3.chtel.i ,te ,idept Corm - t . Lar0,1 p l alt j ve 006,100-- reteeawssdaat i oh to 41000*th. .are s+sl 1- i s e# rat d.d : aj tea LeagN• *el I car . C 1 tte.s thAWOeex- cept i eao' •f I*stl et i eas ill.. 17 •ad_.' ' S rrla t Al tlave1 i iii. di s- eporav' i, - ilssOlst$•._ s Na. 2S and "11e. 3S *hick --s esIa ` , aiueei- ed prior. to .i,prital , -'•sd shield lmstre tt the C#eetIa:'s Wetlm, eelelate atto0410g1y. Counci 1member Cobb found the League statement in - opposition, to the so-called *son of Jarvis" or Proposition 36 weak. Two weeks earlier he received the misleading property tax mailer and that day heard the i ii=sV radio commercials on Lreiia i of Proposition 36. Although they made him angry-, they were effective commercials. He saw no evidence of ' a concerted effort to campaign against Proposi- tion 36. He urged the Mayor and anyone else who attended the meetings to make a large case for making more than just a resolu- tion, and to try to get people involved in the most active cam- paign possible. It was a clear and present threat to the City, and he saw no action being taken .against it. Mr. Jarvis was doing an excellent job i n promoting his cause, and he asked the Mayor to take that message -to the League. It was not a resolution, but a position that the League of California Cities should do much more than pass a mild resolution. Councilmember Sutorius referred to Item 17 which the Legislative Committee recommended for disapproval, as opposed to the League Committee on Resolutions which recommended "no action." He con- curred with the Legislative Committee because the proposal was couched in mandatory terms that would apply across the board to all municipal agencies. He told the Mayor and any other Council - member who would attend that if something rack' •rred to bring for- ward a revised motion with a local option, the City's decision could be altered to a "no action" or a potential support. The sense of the recommendation was understandable, and should not be precluded if the City wanted to initiate a separate approach to the retirement process. MOTION PASSED umamimously. ITEM #13, CONSTRUCTION. OF THE REPLACEMENT FOR THE BLANCO WATER Director of Utilities Richard Young said staff contacted as many of the people who expressed an •interest in the situation as possi- ble. 'Those whom they were unable to contact were sent copies of the staff report and a letter of explanation. Thcse who were con- tacted expressed interest in the concept, and all agreed it was an equitable solution to a problem everyone faced. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the alterntive was better in terms of protection against fire in the foothills. Mr. Young said, yes, based on putting the pipeline in and adding two hydrants along Page Mill Road. . There would also be adequate pressure, considerable additional flow, the capacity of the upper tanks would be brought into play, and overall it was an excellent fire protecxtion scheme. Councilmember Witherspoon said the first page of the report men- tioned the tanks were used to provide service to homes west of Foothills Park. It also pointed out a possible drawback was that it might encourage development in the foothills. By that she assured the water serviced private homes. Mr. Young said the present tanks were used as a pressure device to supply the appropriate pressure to the specific areas to the west. Councilmember Witherspoon presumed they id not provide the hones with the water in the tank. Mr. Young said the wate flow went in that direction. CourzcilmeMber. Witherspoon asked whether- the water was from Hetch Hetchy or wells. Mr. Young said it was all Hetch Hetchy water. -Councilmember Witherspoon understood the water was_. stored up in the foothills until required. She obtained confirmation from Mr. 5 0 7 3 9/17/84 Young that the alternative plan would else ise Hetch Retch; water. She preferred not to use Hetcn Hetchy water to put out a fire in the foothills if some other source could be used. It was men- tioned that water could be pumped from Boronda Lake. Mr. Young said Hetch Hetchy water was the only source used. The water would come from the reservoir up above. The water would not come directly from the lake, but from that general area. Councilmember Witherspoon did not understand the reason for having the lake there. Chief Engineer Ray Remmel explained the reservoirs referred to were the steel -- tanks up the hill --the Dahl and Montebello reser- voirs. No water was pumped from the lake, and all the water pumped up the hill and into the reservoirs was Hetch Hetchy water. Councilmember Witherspoon ascertained those reservoirs would not require any work. A pumpl i ne would be put into them and they would be used instead of the Blanco tanks. Mr. Remmel said they would use the capacity of the water tanks that existed up the hill rather than replace the Blanco Teak. Vice Mayor Levy asked who brought the alternative to the attention of staff. Mr. loung said when Council directed staff to go back and look at any alternatives available; Mr. Remmel developed the concept and brought it to him. After discussing it, staff found it had merit. It would cost approximately $3,000 more, which staff believed was a worthwhile investment for the appearance of the area. Councilmember Sutorius asked if implementation of the alternative would have as a net effect on the total primary and secondary water storage in the area a negative 60,000 gallons from the cur- r=ent amount, or 150,000 gallons less than the City would have had if the earlier proposal went forward, Mr. Young said that would be true for the net result, but in terms of what was usable in various areas, the City would come out a l ors-, way ahead. Councilmember Sutorius said there was no negative impact from the design, but some favorable ones. Mickey Bernstein, 10920 Page Mill Road, was a neighbor of Foothills Park, aed thanked the Council and staff for their con- cerns relative to his. problem. He urged Council to adopt the alternative plan. It meant much to him in terms of both fire pro- tection and aesthetic aspects. He asked Council to approve the recommendation on behalf of the Peninsula Conservation- Center Foundation of which he was the upcoming Vice President, The Foun- dation expressed major concerns about the original plan and its impact on. Foothills Park. He personally hoped that in future decisions relating to specific special resources such as Foothills Park, Council and staff would pay special attention to the impact of developments such as water tanks. It was unfortunate it took a citizens committee to come to.: the Council to, request reconsidera- tion and to point out the problems. With the exception of Coun- cilmember Bechtel, the Council did not, :::.give too much support at the beginning, but he thanked all for their final support. The Purissisea Water District expressed a keen interest in the proposed project. At some time in the future staff should contact them to find out if a reciprocal agreement could be reached. The District told him they -wee -e willing to pay for a mutual line. They had a water tank contigaoui—ii It project, and the City could probab- ly defray a great deal of expense on an emergency. basis within the Hetch Hetchy contract and provide reciprocal fire protection for the whole area. 5 0 7 4 9/17/84 dark Hatts, 11270 Page Mill Road; thanked the Council and staff for taking a second look at the project. He encouraged a favor- able vote on the alternative. The pipeline would provide a pres- ervation of the scenic hillside, which was an objective of the zoning, and also enhance the fire protection and provide the nec- essary improvements to the water system. He knew there were many maintenance problems with the existing tanks, and the alternative was a good solution that cost ' al most nothing, and everyone came out a winner. Lyn Bernstein, 10920 Page Mill Road, thanked the Council and staff for reviewing the Blanco Tank replacement plan. She completely supported option 3 of the new staff report for an alternative pipeline. Councllmember Bechtel was delighted with the staff alternative. She was opposed all along to the huge water tanks. MOTION: Coencilweaber Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt staff recommendation to instruct staff to: 1. Proceed with design development approval process and preparation of plans to install the pipeline alternative to the Blasco Tank replacement; 2. Incorporate these plans in aN. appropriate Park Improvement Ordinance which shall contain provisions prohibiting connections tc the proposed pipeline for the pvrpese of serving private properties; and 3, Retire to Council with the appropriate approvals, the park Improvement Ordinance end enn trrctlon bids to be approved by Council. MOTION PASSED eanatnaaaaarsly. ITEM #14, REQUEST OF MAYOR KLEIN AND COUNCILMEMBER COBB RE LEASE Mayor Klein said he and Councilmember Cobb wanted to provide an additional direction to staff with regard to the lease of the Cubberley playing fields, MOTION. Bayer Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to implement a mew formalaa for a credit system for lease of Cubberley haying fields as follows: 18P percent first year; 5v# percent the sucend .year; 3T-1/2 percent third year; and nothing for fourth year - aced remaining years towards perches* •f Cubberley. Mayor Klein said staff, originally proposed the City receive credit for any payments made on the Cubber l ey si to to be applied to any acquisition of school property within the District. After discus- sion by :the Council it was modified to provide 100 percent credit against any purchase of Cubberley playing fields, and the School District` balked. He and Councilmember Cobb recommended the City not receive any credit. After various discussions_ between the School District, School Board membe> s and Councilmembers, the pro- posal as stated in the motion was understood to be accep able to the School Board. Council member Fletcher asked about the lease costs.. Couocilmember Witherspoon said it was =$41,259 annually. Counellaaember Sutorlu said that was the :calculation for the first year under the formula worked on by the :two, staffs, and which tire. school and City committee reviewed. Mayor Klein said the amounts were already approved as part of the budget,, Cnunri l memher Fl etrhar believed it was a generous arrangement to take over the complete maintenance of the City's facility, which would essentially be used the way it always had as well as for considerable capital investment the City projected to put into renovations and possible upgrading. She_, did not know if other school districts were being given that type of arrangement, but said a few weeks ago San Carlos made an arrangement with its School District to take over the maintenance and that was it. She realized the resource was valuable and -would have preferred to go with a 100 percent credit. In the interest of compromise, she would support the motion. Councilmember Renzel agreed with Councilmember Fletcher, and believed her questions in terms of dollars related to the fact that the City would have credits of some $400 0000 and if there was an inflation clause, it would be substantially more under the system ass passed by the Council. .They were talking about some- thing on the order of $70,000 that would be credited for the City. She believed Councilmember Fletcher : was correct that the City's arrangement .with the School District was generous because it was basically vacant land of little value to them until they were pre- pared to develop or sell it. The City was paying for it, main- taining it, and the School District would be otherwise obliged to maintain it in some fashion. She was not sure the compromise was sufficiently beneficial to the City. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the City would still .get its benefit from the first three years if in year seven the School District put the property on the market and the City exercised its option. Mayor Klein said that was corrects Councilmember Witherspoon asked what happened if the School Dis- trict decided to sell in the eleventh year. Mayor Klein said the City sti i i had the option to renew. He clar- ified that staff would return to Council with a precise lease. The mots en was to direct staff as to one item which remained in contention with regard to the negotiations. Councilmember Sutorlus said when Council first considered the mat- ter, it was estimated it would cost about $13,000 for immediate needs, and $25,000 a year thereafter for ongoing maintenance. While those were shared with Council on the basis of being esti- mates, he acknowledged it was a fair amount of money. As time progressed, staff closely evaluated the immediate needs costs and the ongoing costs, and he understood that on the $25 000 figure, the City had the opportunity to .include those fields in an exist- ing contract, and. by doing so, the maintenance costs for the first year would be in the vincinity of $13,000 to $15 000--a'4 op of at least $10,000 from an earlier estimate. The contractual arrange- ment was successfully utilized on other City fields that were maintained by an outside vendor, rAnd it had every reason to con- tinue satisfactorily in that way. In terms of the money the lease price, if it continued at the $40,000 range on an annual basis, was already calculated or .the basis of the Naylor Act, and the City was, therefore, getting a beneficial lease price. Mayor Klein endorsed Councilmember Sutori us' comments. He did not believe it was a giveaway. Pal. _ Alto's citizens would gain some benefit In that they would get. better playing fields. If the City did not take over the playing fields and maintain them better, it would not be done because the School District's priorities had to be with education. He hoped the credit would never have to be used because he did not _want -to see the School District set l i ng off the Cubberley site. He believed the approach was fair. Councilmember Reozel reiterated that, the land was vacant. The only 'way. it could be developed was to come in with are approved --5 0 7 b 9/17/84 i plan and to offer it to the City to purchase at today's prices under the Naylor Act. The ten year period under which the City was leasing the property escalated the price of the land, and Council was reducing -the credit it soul d receive against the prop- erty. Councilmember Cohb spoke to the likelihood eef the Jarvis bill passing, and that - could have significant effects on the City's ability to purchase Cubberley In the future. She was not comfortable, and believed the -City had stronger bargaining power than it was using. She believed that while the City paid the rent, its ability to buy the site would be continuously eroded. Vice Mayor Levy supported the motion. While he carefully watched City funds, the property had value to the School District. The property could be leased into the private sector for other uses, and while its value was low, so was its rent as reflected in the Naylor Act. There were other options available to the School Dis- trict, and because of those, the City must recognize the value to the School District of leasing the land, He believed the price the City would pay was fair, reasonable and low, Counci l member Cobb observed that whereas Cubberley field was vacant in the sense that there was no structure on the land, it was not vacant in terms of use from people involved in recreation- al programs. It was important to bring the Cubberley fields under the wing of the City i n order to eliminate the temptation of the District's selling the land off for some kind of development because the City needed it for its recreational programs. Further, it was important to bring it under the City's wing because the property was beginning to deteriorate since the School District could not afford to maintain it. As indicated by the letter from the Greenmeadow Association, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, he spoke to their general membership meeting, and believed everyone agreed that even if the City had to make some substantial sacrifices to hold it, it was important to those people in the area. He urged that Council move ahead and bring Cubberley i'rer the City's purview in order to preserve one of the most valuable recreational resources in Palo Alto. NOTION PASSED by a rate of 7-1, 1lenzel voting 'ho,' 3i•olley °abstaining.' ITEM #153 REQUEST OF MAYOR KLEIN RE CITY MANAGER'S HOUSING MOTION: C•uncilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt the staff recommendation for the following actions to allow the City Manager to exercise the sale and repurchase provision of his housing assistance program: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Receaveyance •f property held under the present deed •f trust open payoff; 2. Make the, appropriation for and authorize the Director •f Finance to fund the new loon; and 3. Authorize : the City *afar heir to issue escrow instructions intended to carry net related transactions. RESOLUTION .1311 untitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL ,OF 1 it LITT OF. PA11.0 ALTO APPROVING TNE LOAN AND NOTE 'AND DEED OF . TRUST EVIDENCING SAME T®GETNER VITN AUTMORIZA TIOII TO CARRY DDT NELATED ACTIVITIES" ORDINANCE 3S6O entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TNE ' fl OF PAL """ALTO ADENOIDS THE RUIN€T FOR FISCAL YEAR 11414-1S TO ESTAOLIS1i AND PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL INPNOVENENT PROJECT NO. .D4 -SO 'CITY MANAGER'S ROUSING ASSISTANCE, PROMISSORY NOTE -- William Zanier 5 0 7 7 9/17/84 MOTION PASSED waanihowsly. ITEM #16, CANCELLATION OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1984 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3 j _. MOTION: Mayor Klein sewed, seconded by Becktel Q to cancel the City Council meeting of September 24, 1984. NOTION PASSED asanimews1y. ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 Council adjourned at 12:00 midnight to 7:30 p.m., September 18, 1984. ATTEST: APPROVED: iiiiisf