Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-24 City Council Summary Minutesi ITEM Ural Communications i;un sent 7,.alendar ary COUNCIL M1NUTEs CITY CAF ri1i\J ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, October 'wa, 1983 PAGE 3 8 9 b 3 8 9 7 Referral 3 8 9 7 Item #I, Stop Sign System Updating 3 8 9 7 Action 3 8 9 1 Item #Z, General Agreement of Indemnity and Bill 3 8 9 7 Guaranty Bond for Interconnection Agreement Item #3, Street Tree Trimming 3 8 9 8 Item #4, Front Easement Power Line Clearing 3 8 9 8 Item #5, Removal of City -Owned Trees and Stumps 3 3 9 8 Item #6, Temporary Employment Services 3 8 9 8 Item #7, Parking Zones for tie Handicapped 3 8 9 8 Item #8, Resolution Approving Association of -Bay 3 8 9 9 Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Housing Need Estimates Agenda Changes Additions, and Deletions 3 8 9 9 Item #9, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 3 8 9 9 recommendation re resolution amending- the Comprehensive, Plan' to clarify conditions under which existing housing may be replaced- by new residential condominiums Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning -Commission recommendation re proposed amendMent to the Resource . Conservation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan relating'. to the analysis of potential resource consumption due to new construction Item #11, Planning Cot aissivn recommendation re decision of Zoning Administrator to deny a variance application by zltanford University for property located at 200 El Camino. Rea: (Stanford Shopping Center) 3. 9 0 1 3 9 0 3 :3894 10;24/83 ITEM PAGE Item #12, Historic Resources Board recommendation re application of Michael J. Lee and Gary J. Cummings that property located at 145 Hawthorne Avenue, 201and 207 High Street, 164 arid 170 Hawthorne Avenue and 202 and 206 Emerson Street be designated as a landmarkfor inclusion- in the Palo Alto Historic Buildings inventory Item #13, Ordinance re Moratorium on Developments in the California Avenue Area (Emergency) Item #14, Evergreen Park Neighborhood Traffic Study Item #15, Byxbee Park Conversion 7 Status Report and Future Policy Considerations Item #16, Request of Vice Mayor Witherspoon re Resolution of Appreciation to participants in Downtown Architectural Charette Item #17, Request of Vice Mayor Witherspoon re Virgil Carter Item #18, Cancellation of November 7, 1983 Council. Meeting Adjournment 3 9 0 7 3 9 0 7 3 9 1 5 3 9 2 6 3 9 2 6 3 9 2 6 3 9 2 7 3 9 2 H 3‘8_9 5 10/24/83 Regular Meeting October 24, 1983 the City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers dt City Hall, 25U Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 1:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb,, Fletcher, Fazzino Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Nancy L. Pleibel, 301 Bryant Court, said there was a sewage backup problem at the corner of Bryant _ante Everett Streets. She managed the apartments across the strdet, and several ten- ants asked her to brim the problem to the attention of the Council. The sewer problem got worse each year, and when it rained, the wafter backed up to the apartments. The founda- tions and inside of corner units suffered rain damage. Pedes- trians walked into the street and standing rainwater caused drivers to lose their brakes. There were near accidents througn rear endi rty, and City workers marked off areas where trees were to be planted. She presented a photograph of the. area taken earlier that year which showed how one tree would be almost under water. Residents preferred that the sewer problem be addressed rather than planting new trees. Mayor Bechtel thanked lis. Pleibel, and said staff would be in touch with her.. e. Mabel Cesari, 313 Bryant Court, said in 1978 after paying $82 for a sewer problem she was advised the problem was the City's. She called the City each year since that time. Water basked up into her tub and toilet, and if she was riot home at the time, there was a mess. She did not believe she should have to jeopardize her health cleaning up a sewer problem that was not her fault. The City worked for an hour and a half the previous week and believed the problem was cl eeed. That morning, in respunse to a request from her neighbor, _the City came again and worked on the sewer. A worker advised ,ter the problem was caused on the other side of the street, and. that, she was getting the back-up from the apartment buildings.' It was not fair for her to have the problem, and if it could not he resolved, she would call the Board of Health. She requested that the problem be•solved. She loved Palo Alto and the.trees, but did not understand why money was being spent for new trees rather than to solve a sewer problem. Mayor Bechtel thanked Ms. Cesari, and said she would be contacted by staff :3., Douglas Hensley, Envirex, Inc., 7%.00 Edgewater Drive, Suite b53, Oakland, said his conkpany bid on a project for sludge de - watering equipment. The Interests of his company, and of Pa}o Alto, would be adversely affected by the actions being contem- pldted. Bidders must pass Part A of the evaluation process in order to pass Part B. :His company scored 96 percent on part A, dna ifb percent was required . Only three bidders passed Part A. His company failed Part B, due to various exceptions and clarifications identified An their bid, many of which ad- dressed sections that were inequitable, erroneous and inappro- priate. None adversely affected the quaiity,of the equipment, nor the expected performance of th.e dewatering process. Ad- verse affects on the rights and expectancies of the 3 8 9 6 10/24/83 Gi ty were speculative and conjectural. The City had not ad- hered to the procedures and a provision in the documents that a prebid conference would he held. Many deficiencies identi- fied in Envirex's bid could be resolved to the benefit of all other bidders and the City because the problems would cause future conflicts with the successful bidder. There were many discussions with City personnel, oral acknowledgments of the deficiencies of the document, and Envirex believed that cor- rective addenda would be issued. None were and Envirex re- stated its concerns on the bid documents. The changes would benefit al l bidders, and subsequent costing would benefit tax payers. The errovs of the City and its consultants could be documented, and Envirex requested that Council initiate reme- dial actions to reconsider it as a potential supplier of equipment; or reject all bids and rebid the project with cor- rected documents. A large sum was involved, and Envirex be- lieved a prudent recommendation would best serve the constitu- ency. The reading of the bid was scheduled for October 26, and he asked. that one. of his recommendations be accepted before that time. Mayor Bechtel said no action could be taken as a result of an oral communication, but a staff member would be in touch with him, 4. Harrison Otis, 909 North California Avenue, a 55 -year resi- dent, asked that the traffic_ speed be controlled on Embarcader o Road. Radar antagonized people, and took an of- ficer's time in court, he suggested one motorcycle unit be formed. Children were in jeopardy,- people disregarded stop signs, and police officers could not be everywhere. One motorcycle would not cost much, and could be leased; CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Councilmeiber Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval of Consent Calendar Items I through 8. Referral ITEM #I, STOP SIGN SYSTEM UPDATING (CMR :558:3 ) Referral of the Stop Si yr System report -to the Policy and Proce- dures Committee meeting -of October 25, 1983. Action ITEM #1, GENERAL AGREEMEI T OF :'NDEMNITY ANL) BILL GUARANTY BOND FOR �lFieP�.R3Tei 4 is� l 1 9 ! 7 b sf !e flt - - Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution approving_ and authorizing .execution of the General Agreement of Indemnity and the i 1 i Guaranty Bond between the Northern California Power Agen- cy and Aetna Insurance Company and United Pacific Insurance Co.m- panj; and that the City Manager be authorized -to -execute .any fu- ture documents per requirements of the Interconnection Agreement for additional security. RESOLUTION 6188 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF T T 1'Y —iii PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A BON© AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT PURSUANf TO THE PORE . INTER- CONNECTION AGREEMENT' AGREEMENT Northern California Power Agency/PG&E 3 8 9 7 10/24/83 ITEM #3; STREET TREE TRIMMING (CMR:562:3) Staff recommends: 1. The Mayor be authorized to execute contracts with Troy Payne Tree Service and The Pied Piper, Inc. in the amount of $120,114 each for street tree trimming services; and 2. Staff be authorized to execute change orders not to exceed $12,000 for each contract. AWARD OF CONTRACT Troy Payne Tree Service The Pied Piper, Inc. ITEM #4, FRONT EASEMENT POWER LINE CLEARING (CMR:561:3) Staff recommends: 1. The Mayor be authorized to execute a contract with the Pied Piper, Inc. , in the amount of $78,478 for 2040 crew hours of work; 2. Reject bids from Davey Tree Surgery, Arbor Tree Surgery and Troy Payne Tree Service; and. 3. Staff be authorized to execute change orders to the contract not to exceed $7,800. AWARD OF CONTRACT The Pied Piper, Inc. ITEM #5, REMOVAL OF CITY -OWNED TREES AND STUMPS (CMR:560:3) Staff recommends: 1. The Mayor be authorized to execute a contract with the Pied Viper, Inc., in the amount of $18,839 for tree and stump. removal and 2. Staff be authorized to execute chance orders not to exeed, $2,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT The Pied Piper, Inc. ITEM #6, TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES (CMR:556:3) Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements with Roberta Enterprises, Timesavers Temporary Services and adia Temporary Services. AWARD OF CONTRACTS Roberts__ Enterprises, Inc. Timesavers Te+oporary•.,Personnel Adia Temporary Services ITEM #7, PARKING ZONES FOR THE HANDICAPPED (CMR:563:3) Staff recommends that Council adopt the ordinance which authorizes the City Manager to designate parking zones for the physically handicapped. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE C RC EL OF THE CITY or -mu ALTO AMENDING SECTION 10.40.010 AND 10.40.020 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES FOR AND MARKING CURBS DESIGNATING HANDICAPPED PARKING" 1 /2418 ITEM #8. RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSOCIATION OF RAY AREA GOVERNMENTS' Staff recommends approval of the resolution confirming the 1980-- 1990 Housing Need Numbers of the Association of Bay Area Govern- ment. RESOLUTION 6189 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 'trr— i r-oF ?ACQ ALTO APPROVING ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENT'S HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATIONS" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None ITEM #9, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE G USING -'MAY BE REPLREU-11Y NEW k SIDEF(TIAL C IVIIN TWI U MS lif : 5 4 i : 3) .�.. Planning Commission representative Ellen Christensen said the. Commission believed the amendment was given careful considera.ion and was a long time in coming. The amendment clarified the con- ditions for development to replace existing rental housing in multi -family zones in the City. Further; the Commission hoped the new program would act as a protection for the City's. valuable stock of multi -family housing. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of the amendment, and Commissioner Hirsch "did not par- ticipate" because of insufficient background. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open, and receiving no requests to speak, declared the public hearing closed: Vice Mayor Witherspoon said development for residential condo- miniums were perceived to be a problem two years ago when several rental units were being lost to new coridomi Oums. She was .con- cerned about the Planning Commission's proposed approach, and pointed out that alternative suggestions had been given in public testimony before the Planning Commission, and were in the packet. Some rental units in the downtown area were substandard, and some qualified for historical status. If they based the rules on imme- diate previous use, then they were encouraging the landlords to evict tenants so there would be no rental units existing when the redevelopment plans were presented. She preferred the use of incentives, rather than prohibitions. After all, the City does need to renew some of the housing stock, and. she was not sureshe could support the proposed resolution. She believed the private sector should be persuaded to use IRS tax write-offs for rehabilitation rather than make laws to preclude redevelopment of rental units. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the staff and Planning Commission recommendations to approve the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan to clarify conditions under which existing housing may be replaced; by new residential condominiums. RESOLUTION 6190 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF WrInlirlrmnto ALTO ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CLARIFY : CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH EXISTING HOUSING MAY DE REPLACED BY NEW RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS' Councilmember Klein said the program was discussed for the past two and one-half years, and was needed. He respected the comments 3 8 9 9 10/24/83 Corrected 2/06/84 i t 1 of Vice Mayor. Witherspoon that generally it was better to use in- centives, but none were available at the time. From the federal level down, the entire incentive program was for condominiums rather than rental units, and the Council was net in a position to compete with incentives along those lines. He believed the Coun- cil had no choice but to adopt a .policy that was not vague, and provided yuidance. It was necessary to preserve rental stock, and to provide developers with clear guidelines to avoid the large ex- penditure involved with developing-eeacceptable plans. The pro- posed guidelines made sense, and he urged their adoption. Counci lmember Cobb asked what would happen i f the ordinance was passed and an owner of property beyond repair could not meet the three conditions,outl-fined, and the nature of the property forced the owner to make a contrary decision Councilmernber Klein pointed out that only one of the three alter- native conditions had to be met. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland -said it was rare for such a situation to arise. Excluding the College Terrace area, 137 of the multiple family lots in downtown were underdeveloped, with less units than the zoning allowed. Relatively few properties had the inceptive to develop under the present zoning, and of the 137 properties, lUb met the first test of 100 percent gain in the num- ber of units. Uf the remainder, few would be substandard. He did not discount the possibi l ity that the situation could occur, but the project would be in violation of a Comprehensive Plan policy. Another Comprehensive Plan policy required the existence of an overriding consideration. That was currently a difficult policy, and staff did not want a policy to provide a loophole for sub- standard dwellings. It was possible to get caught by the possibi- lity mentioned by Counci lrnember Cobb, but few cases might occur. Counci lrnei{rber 'obb asked if a property owner could ask for a Com- prehensive Plan change, or whether they had any recourse other than the exception procedure before the City Council. Mr. Freeland said Comprehensive Plan compliance was judgmental. A case could only arise on a small project, on an isolated lot, and where economics did not work to provide one of the listed al- ternatives. Although he could not guarantee such cases would not arise, they were rare. Counci lmenber Levy asked for clarification that the resolution :applied to single family residences. Mr. Freeland said it applied to multiple family areas. If a sinyle family residence was the use on a multiple ,family lot, by definition there could not be rental housing unless the single fami ly house had rental cottages in the rear. Councilmember Levy asked whether the use would be- considered rental housing if the owner rented it in its entirety. Mr. Freeland said no --the definition of- rental housing for replacement was the number of units exceeding one. Counci lmember Levy asked whether a rented single ,family house would fa I 1 within the program. Mr. Freeland said it would logically, but if an owner had one house, tore it down and replaced it with one house, the definition of urentai4 came into play. Under condition 8, all rentals would have to be replaced. As the number of rentals was the' number past one, no rentals would have to be replaced. However, if two units were built, that - 'would be a one hundred percent gain, and would never prevent redevelopment of a single family house on a multiple family lot, 3 9 0 0 10/24/83 Counci lmernber 1 evy asked about renting rooms in d single family house; Mr. Freeland said if rooms, as opposed to units, were rented, it would not apply. The definition applied to "units," meaning with a separate kitchen. Vice Mayor '- itherspoon asked whether an exemption procedure was built into the Comprehensive Plan. She referred back to sub- standard lots, and said some units in the downtown were 50x50 feet and wall-to-wall. She asked if an owner could apply for an exernption under hardship provisions. Mr. Freeland said it was not set up that way. Another Comprehen- sive Plan policy would have to be found as a basis for approval. If the problem was a major concern to the Counci 1 , additional policies should be made when the Housing Element was updated. The Commission's concern was directed toward not creating a substan- dard loophole in the policy. Vice Mayor Witherspoon was also concerned about not creating a loophole, but believed there were many substandard properties in the downtown, College Terrace, etc., and it was incredible there was no procedure for an exernption. She asked whether an over- ridiny policy was required under the Comprehensive Plan for all policies. Mr. Freeland said that was the case, but if the Council believed it was essential to draft a hardship provision, and consider cases on their own merits, it could be done. The Commission did not want property owners to think that rentals could be eliminated if their properties were allowed to become so run down as to be unfit as a residence. Mayor Bechtel supported the Planning Commission recommendation and the motion on the floor. It clarified a situation and gave an explicit message to a potential developer as to the Council desires, thus eliminating situations that arose a few years ago when the message ryas ;.'infused. The job was well done, and discus- sions in March led to preliminary approval of the resolution. Councilmember Menzel concurred: with .Mayor Bechtel and Council - member Klein. It was important in the present housing market that there be a significant net gain in affordable housing should. any rental units be demolished. She believed Program l3 -A and the modifications were valuable contributions, and supported the motion. MOTION PASSED unanicsously, Eyerly Absent. ITEM 010 PUBLIC ilEAtii NG: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE -0/137RThTION ELEArNT OF Eft PALO ALTO III PREHENSIVE PLAN It):LA • • Planing Commissioner Ellen Christensen said the Planning Commis- sion dtd not comment on or exarnin'e the ordinance before the Coun- ci 1. The Commission unanimously recommended the proposed amend- ment to the Resource Conservation;_ Element_ of the Comprehensive Plan together with a wording change that was supported by staff. the new_Wording helped clarify situations where new projects would be subject tv resource conservation review., The Commission was `satisfied that the new process would operate fairly and construc- tively to increase the resource conservation potential of crew con- struction' in the_City. Some discussion, and conceriaewas expressed. at the Commission level -of the process and its application to the Terman site and U rch Court, arrd the Coramission was satisfied it was 'applied equitably -and _was satisfactory where solutions were worked out tor projects being accomplished by --private developers in -the City. 3 9 0 1 10/24/83 Councilmember Cobb referred to Condition 2, and asked whether it could he used as a condition of. approval if the Architectural Review board (ARU) found the energy conservation of a project in- adequate, or whether the matter would then go before the-Cwncil. Conservation Manager Jeanne Clinton said the proposed ARB autho- rity would give it discretion to look at a project, but staff recommended an outline of four specific guidelines as a signal for developers of what was expected by the AIRB. Beyond that, the in- tention was to work with the professional design community and for them to voluntarily incorporate other features of energy design in their projects. Councilmember Cobb asked what wruld happen if the voluntary process broke down. Ms. Clinton said staff -only recommended the four requirements out- lined, and made no further recommendation. Councilmember Fletcher asked what staff had in mind when they recommended that solar energy design options be incorporated "when practical and cost effective." She asked if that meant over the life of the building, and how to determine cost effectiveness. Solar Program Coordinator Rick McClure -said Appendix A of the report incorporated a cost effectiveness analysis and used the different systems staff found to be cost effective in Palo Alto. Such analyses would be applied to each project to find its cost effectiveness and practicality.. As mentioned by the Planning Com- mission, the tax break was not available to the developer and the analysis would not hold on Birch Court. In that event, staff would attempt to work with the developer to find cost effective alternatives, although it might not be possible. The report guidelines were applied to individual sit+rations to make sure they worked. Councilmember Fletcher asked for confirmation that it was not left to the developer, and that he could not refuse to spend an extra $500 because it was not cost effective. Mr. McClure said they were definitely looking for input from de- velopers as related to their buildings. Staff had a sound analy- sis, and would discus options and availability oedifferent proj- ects. Councilmember Fletcher Said the Planning Commission also discussed the exclusion of R -I's, and she asked whether .a process existed to encourage peopl to go to the ARB when adding, rehibil'itating or starting from scratch, and whether -conservation advice was avail- able at the ARB-,level. Mr. McClure said the services were available without going to the ARB. Anyone interested in designing or remodeling a home could talk with staff. The City had much information and was glad to work with an owner. Councilmember Fletcher asked whether the policy should be made formal in order to inform the public. Ms. Clinton said the solar staff did a void job in making the pub- lic aware that guidelines and technical assistance' for solar ser- vices were available. An educational brochure would go out to the community in January which described all services, including the availability of voluntary plan review and checking. Councilmember Fazzino said he was concerned the ARB was being provided with general policy directions, but no specific authori- ty. He understood the four specific recommendations for which the ARB had authority, and that a number of items were being developed by the conservation staff together with the ARB for voluntary 3 } U V 10/24/83 implementation. He asked w ,,tier the AE b had an opportunity to review the prupusa is and whether it was in a good position for proper implementation. Mr. Freeland said the ARb reviewed the proposed process and changes to the ordinance, unanimously supported the proposal, and commended staff for the way in which it worked with architects and accomplished much and minimized the need for conflicts before the Atli. He introduced Tom Kabat who worked with the developers. Counci lrnember Levy was pleased to see the matter before the Coun- cil. He asked for a standard definition of "cost effective." Mr. McClure responded that the definition in Appendix "A of the report was "a 10 -year life cycle cost analysis." If it was favor- able to solar after that time, including all factors listed on pages 82.6 and 82.7, it was considered cost effective. The analy- si.� -.contained approximately 42 variables, and was relatively straightforward in terms of life cycle cost analysis, based on 10 years with a two percent real discount rate also applied. Courcilmember Levy clarified that if it paid out after, 10 years at a 1U percent real discounted rate, it was considered cost effec- tive. Mr. McClure said for the purpose of the analysis, it was based on a new construction to remain in place in Palo Alto for 30 to 40 years A 10 -year pay back was reasonable. Mayor Bechtel -complimented staff an a detailed and good report. She declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public. to speak, she declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon Droved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the following staff recommendations: I. Adopt ahe resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the City's policy to encourage cost-effective energy efficiency in new buildings; 2. Adopt the ordinance -to explica,ly provide the Architectural Review Board with authority to examine the energy efficiency of all pro,>,ects before it, and to seek use of cost-effective solar energ,' designs and conservation techniques; and 3. Authorize staff to communicate with local AIA and related designer groups as'wel l as local universities and colleges to seek creation of professional training opportunities in energy design for local designers. RESOLUTION 6191 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 0 ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHEN- SIVE FLAN RELATING TO THE ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL RE- SOURCE CONSUMPTION DUH1NG NEW CONSTRUCTION REVIEW BY THE CITY" URUIPANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE AL0 ALTO AMENDING SECT1Gy 16.48.120 OF THE PALO xLTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY DESIGN ELEMENTS* MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. ITEM d11,. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE DECISION OF ZONING AU ATI)R TO UEHY 1� RR 1' KY LO IARIANCE APPL Ms. Christensen said much time was spent discussing the -number location, and type of bicycle spaces for the shopping center. 3 9 .0 3 10/24/83 The Commission could eta : old ke the necessary findings to grant a variance which included exceptional circumstances surrounding a property; hardship to the property owner, and lack of detriment to the public welfare. The applicant did not argue exceptional cir- cumstances or hardship, but suggested that the ordinance which required more spaces was unreasonable and unnecessary. The appli- cant asked to be excused from the provision, and the Commission voted five to one to deny the variance. Commissioner Sutorius held the view that a $5,000 donation to promote bicycle use would be a public benefit, and thus provided grounds for granting a var- iance. Counci lmernber Fletcher said she testified on the item before the Loniny Administrator, not realizing it would eventually come be- fore the Council on appeal. The City Attorney advised her not to participate at the Council level since she previously partici- pated, but sne would participate from the audience. Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked whether bicycle spaces could be deferred. Mr. Freeland said staff needed to confer on the matter. Frank A. Morrow, Director of Real Estate for Stanford University, referred to his letter to the Council of October 10, 1983, which is on file in the City Clerk's office, and said he was available to answer questions. Harrison Otis, 909 :North California, liked to ride a bike at Stanford. Students did net drive cars, and he believed bicycle places sriould not be suppressed. He wanted the traffic problems resolved. Stanford University should respond to Palo Alto and youngsters by providing adequate parking spaces for students' bicycles, so they could go to the Shopping Center to shop and eat. He did not believe the parking space requirements should be reduced by even one. Councilinember' Fletcher, speaking from the audience, showed some s l ides taken a few years earlier. Her book on bicycle parking sold in te United States, Europe, the Orient, Australia and Latin America. She had become an expert on the matter, and her slides had been used for presentations at various conferences and meet- ings, and illustrated how bicycle parking, when conveniently lo- cated and visible, was utilized. She went to the Shopping Center on the previous Sunday, and the ,racks between the stores were overflowing. She 'said there were no employee Class 1 parking spaces, although sne urged Stanford to put some in. Wren the Cen- ter was built out, she estimated the employee number -to be about one thousand. The requirement called for Class 1 parking, which was required routinely of any employment center. She Was con- cerned about locating the spaces in an alley because spaces not frequented by pedestrians were unpopular because of vandalism. The alley was not visible, and employees leaving at night would not want -to use it after the place was deserted. She suggested that racks In the parking structure completely unoccupied on the previous Sunday be.placed closer to Neiman-Marcus, which would be convenient to employees. The AR8 said that if the City `requested the relocation-, the appl'ca.tion would be processed- expeditiously since the amendment was minor. She urged the Counci l to uphold the decision of the Zoning'Administrator and deny the variance. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown referred- to Vice Mayor Witherspoon's question, and said that bicycle parking could be --adjusted, Out only upwards. The number of venicular spaces could be substituted by bicycle spaces,_but not the reverse. Councilraefber Levy referred to observations on parking at the Shopping Center, and the Stanford University representative's statement that 15 percent of theabicycIe racks were unoccupied on average, and Mr. Brown indicated th-e figure might be closer to 50 3 9 0 4 10/24/83 percent. He personally ciieckcd that day and found y2' percent of the racks unoccupied at 2:3U p.M. Mr. brown said staff_ nad no substantial data, only intermittent observations by staff members and Councilmember Fletcher. He often visited the Center and was cognizant of bicycle parking since the application was submitted. He agreed r. hat during the day there was tittle bicycle parking, and said during peak hours on Saturday, bicycle parking was up to 50 percent, counting all spaces at 'the Center. Certain convenient and visible bicycle racks were utilized over 100 percent, and in the area close to where Neiman-Marcus would be located, on Saturday October 15 there were 26 bicycles in an area that held only 12. Bicycles were chained to light standards and bushes. Certain areas were highly utilized, others not at all. Councilmember Levy clarified that there was no need for additional bicycle parking, that the variance pf ocess was incorrect, and that a zoning change process was in order. He asked whether Mr. Brown was concerned over the process rather than the facts of the matter. Mr. Brown said yes. He suggested that staff consider a zoning ordinance amendment rather than the variance procedures since the variance required findings of uniqueness relating to the property. He believed d zoning ordinance modification for the required num- ber of bicycle spaces was the route to follow which process would Deyi n in December. Councilmember Levy asked why Stanford chose not to apply for a zoning ordinance modification. Mr. Brown did not know. Councilmember Levy asked if there was a charge involved. Mr. Brown said the application was free. Councilmember !ivy asked if the Stanford Shopping Center was the only area affected by zoning modifications. Mr. Brown said the site was the only shopping center in the com- munity defined as being over one million square feet of retail shopping space. Councilmember Levy asked whether extra bicycle parking was needed, whether things should be left status quo, and whether a -variance or zoning modification would be required. He understood- Mr. brown believed that a zoning modificati,on..Was appropriate, while a variance was not. Mr. brown said he believed there might be a need for some Class 1 covered bicycle spaces for.emplayee , such as locker facilities, and a need to rel`ecate some spaces to more visible areas. He did believe it was an`inappropriate variance request, and suggested that a zoning Modification was -the more rationale approach. Councilmember Levy asked how a zoning ordinance modification could be initiated. Mr. Brown said usually. Councilmembers, Planning;Commissioners, or members of the public expressed a desire that certain sections be modified with appropriate reasons. Counci lme%ber Levy asked how. long -it took. Councilmember Kie said he understood that City Council action was necessary t_o change the zoning- ordinance, and that a member of the Council or the -staff had to put the item on the agenda. 3 9 0-5 10/24/83 Mr. Freeland said possible changes to'the zoning or-dipapce were batched and reviewed annually. During that period, the Cdunci l and Planniny Commission could suggest items to staff. The items were•taken to the Commission with a recommendation whether to con- sider, and the formal process of the Council was started. Councilmember Levy understood that the spaces would not actually beyin until the new Neiman-Marcus store was built, possibly some years in the future. He asked whether the variance request should be denied that eveniny, and whether the applicant would have time to request a zoniny ordinance modification to properly reflect the actual experience. Mr. Brown said there was more than ample time for staff to review a proposed modification and take action. The whole process nor- mally took less than six months. Councilmember Levy said he never had trouble parking his bicycle at the shopping center. A rei_ocation of some of the bicycle park- ing might be necessary, but overall there was ample parking. He agreed with staff on the specific variance request, but Was open to a zoning ordinance modification as procedurally the right way to a'ccompiish the applicant's desires. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt Planning Commission recommendations that the decision of the Zon- ing Administrator denying the variance request be upheld, with the following findings: I. That the applicant failed to deaoi str ate that except, i'ildi or extraordinary circumstances are applicable to the property in- volved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The applicant's contention that the property is ex- ceptional in that bicycle parking currently provided is not fully utilizede:does not relate to uniqueness of the property, but rather to the reasonableness of the zoning ordir ance re- quirement for bicycle parking facilities at shopping centers; Z. Tne applicant failed to demonstrate that the provision of 28 additional bicycle parking spaces would create an unreasonable property loss or hardship; and 3. The granting of the variance could be detrimental to the pub- lic welfare and convenience in that development of a new de- partment store in an area where existiag bicycle parking facilities presently experience a high incidence of usage would create inconvenience to bicyclists and may be detrimen- tal to the successful use of bicycles for transportation. The variance request is also inconsistent with Program 36 of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element which states: "Con- tinue to require facilities for storing and locking bicycles at business and employment centers, multiple family develop- ments, transfer points, and recreational facilities„" Councilmember Levy said he would be responsive to request for a zoniny ordinance --modification. Councilmember itenzel said although she seconded the motion, she did'not second Councilmember Levy'.s comments concerning a request for a zoniny ordinance modification. -Councilmember Mein said the issue was narrowly= focused on whether to grant a- Nariance,:and the'discussion was irrelevant. The ques Lion, --from a loyal standpoint, was whether the applicant estab- lished the, conditions for a variance. 'There was no question that -the. appliCant did not the -et the tests. and therefore a variance could hot be g,r.anted. Whether a zoning !ordinance. modification u_l sho. d bes onsi tiered was a separate issue and -should be brought -up separately. Stanford iln i vers,i ty knew the procedure_ for applica- tion, and could proceed accordingly if it desired, - 3 9 U 6 10/24/83 1 1 1 NOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent, 1-letcher "not paartici- patina. ITEM #12, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION 14 cHAEE . LEE AND GARY J. CUMMINGS THAT PROPERTY LOC Al EU AI n STPEET, 154 AND 1/6 TIAW BTJ N� AV1NUL ANU �2 AND 20S E IERS0N i TRVENI- MR: 9: Vice Mayor Witherspoon said, after walking through the neighbor- hood, she concurred wholeheartedly with the Historic Resources Hoard recommendation to deny the application. -One of the bui ld- inys was already beiny remodeled, and she believed there were fine examples in town of the craftsman style of architecture, but that the buildings in question were not among them. MOTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt the finding of the Historic Resources Board that the area in question -is not a distinct and significant historic district, and that the buildings specified in the applications do not possess sufficient architectural or historical merit to be considered -of exceptional or major importance and deny the applications. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Fa zing voting no, Eyerly absent. ITEM #13, ORDINANCE RE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENTS IN THE E R M waraT MR :5 : 3) Uirector of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber s?id there were two different exhibits to the staff report. The first responded to the Council directive last week for a' moratorium establishing a height limit of 35 feet and a floor area ratio of twice the size of the parcel. Exhibit B was an additional recom- mendation by staff for the Service Commercial (C5) area of a 25 foot height limit and a floor area ratio the same size as the par- cel. Mayor Bechtel commended Messrs. Schreiber and 'Freeland and other members of the planniny staff, and the City Attorney's office for respondiny to the Council within a few days. Mike Galick, 366 California Avenue, spoke for the California Avenue Area IJe.velopi ent Association (CAADA) and its concern about new developments in the drea under the CC zone. . He spoke of, the parkiny difficulties after the buildings went up, and said three developments under consideration passed the ARS, Which would bring ln.,an.additional 214 cars to the present shortfall of 11/ spaces, making a total deficit of 331 spaces. CAADA believed it strongly suyyested they meet the.shortfall which meant purchase of the Key- stone property and double -decking its the lots adjacent to the Post Uf.fice and opposite the Social Security Office; and triple - decking lot C-5 (tfe parking garage). That would provide about 214 ear spaces,e. He analyzed the cost to be more than $6 rni 1>i icrn, plus City sta.": )s estimate of a 20 percent override. The office bu:lcflny where, he worked was: a 50x125 feet lot, or. 6,250 square feet. There was an additional $2,b39 dollars in interest per. $1,UUU spent en additional parking. -Calculating on a 50 percent. land' spread ana 50 percent square- footage of the buildinge it would be 119,1513, or $1,628 per $1 million put -chased. ,For a bui l d- my on Sherman_with a 90 foot frontage, and total footage' of 92,920 square .feet,. assessable square footage of 23„000, the purchase of $b million worth .of parking woulo' ,cost an additional $34,000, based on present G bond ;'formula., or calculated on 50 percent land spread,- a sum_ of $19,000 annually. Help was' needed. CAAE3A made a study_, aid was. paaying- for it. 11 the new 'structures came in, it was doomed because CAADA did, not know+ how to pay for parking. If - no parking was provided, the area would -stagnate. The' extra cars would overflow into -Evergreen Park and south to Grant Avenue. The - 2 9 0 7 10/24/83 problem was major: and he nagged the Council to wait until the study was completed and an analysis could be lade. The CC zone was beautiful on paper, but was detrimental to a parking district. the parking district paid dearly for parking --at one time it paid 13 per hundred of assessed valuation. it always paid its way, and would continue to do so, but needed help. He believed the study should go with the moratorium. Counci member kenzei asked if she understood Mr. Golick to request that there be no exceptions to the moratorium. 1 1 Mr. Golick said that was correct. Ted Thompson, Chairman of the CAAOA Parking Committee, supported a moratorium without exceptions -apart from remodeling work for tenants, and that new construction pay its fair share. At the meeting of October 11, fairness and the East Embarcadero area were mentioned. The East Embarcadero property furnished its own park- ing, while it did not on California Avenue. The parking shortfall on new constuction fell upon the district, who did not know how to pay- for it. New buildings should pay a portion of the parking, and CAAUA was willing to meet new construction half way. He sug- gested there would be no charge for the first floor, the Second floor would be charged half, and there would be full charges for the third and fourth floors, which offer was better than in any other area of the City. The developers should be fair and not flood the area with pa ok i nn requirements that could not be met or for which the City was unprepared. The study must be completed, and he requested the Council hold back building until that time. A moratorium could legally be imposed, and the fact that the three projects passed the ARE was a criterion only if the Council desired. The only real criterion was it a substantial investment was made into the project, ,which decision was made by the City Attorney. He urged the moratorium with no exclusions. Nat Gorham, Arabian Horse World, spoke on behalf himself and Jan Shuler with whom he bought the property at 409 Sherman. He did not know whether hi' property was included in the moratorium. A letter was sent to the Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and the Ai'4, copy of which was on file City Clerk's office, strongly protesting the City Council action to impose a moratorium on new construction in the California Avenue commercial district which might result in substantial losses to property owners Committed -to commercial or office development under the existing zoning ordi- nance. His property was presently a small rental house, and it was planned to move or demolish the house and erect a three-story building to meet the existing footprint formula and 35 foot height limit for their business. It took 16 months to find the site, and it was selected _because of its appropriate zoning and the availa- bility of nearby permit parking. Their agent contacted City staff who provided courteous help, but never hinted of a possible change. The height limit presented no problem, -but a reduced floor ratio would meke the building too snmaall,;and meant they pur- chased a building they could not use, lost 16 months of time, fees for plans, and could not meet commitments to contractors. They were nut contacted or forewarned about the policy change, and ;wuu l d not have bought the property if they had been because their minimum requirement ►aas 1Z,000 square feet. . A six month rnoratore ium would completely disrupt the timely construction of the build- ing and affect the functioning of their business. They were. as- tonished the City contemplated radical downzoning in the aftermath of the Arastra land fiasco,- and were prepared to use every legal means at their disposal , but hoped a -sense of 1-ogi c and fairness would prevent the imposition of a moratorium. He was not a major developer,. not a, big :corporation, nor building _on speculation, and spoke as someone who bought bleacher - Yeats for" nine innings. of baseball), and was told after the -first -pitch that there would be only seven innings. 3. 9 0 0 10/24/83 [!avid Gleason, 396 Stanford Avenge, president of the Evergrccn Park Neighborhood Association, who supported the merchant's request for complete moratorium on the California Avenue area. Several hundred cars were unable to park in the California Avenue district, and hundreds were parked on neighborhood streets. With further development, parking congestion would only worsen to the detriment of the California Avenue businesses and the area. The neighborhood was under siege from parking overflow, and could not afford to a 1 l ow new development to push even more traffic onto their streets. He urged adoption of the moratorium to cover as much construction as possible, excluding tenant remodeling. The problem could be dealt with during the temporary halt in develop- ment, and with the California study under way, the Council had time to resolve the issue. He urged support of the moratorium. Stephen Avis, worked for the Palo Alto Co-op, 164 South California !%venue, and requested enactment of the ordinance and imposition of a full moratorium with no exceptions for a period of six months. The purpose of the Ca 1 i fornia Avenue Area Parking Assessment Com- mittee meetings was to determine an equitable_ means of providing adequate parking for the district, and projects_ excluded from the moratorium would make additional demands. The project at 250 and 27r) Cambridge Avenue would result in the use of the Co-op parking lot for many non -patrons, and was particularly disconcerting since the retail stores at 101 California Avenue also expected to use their parking. The Co-op provided almost all the parkiny'required by both City and Wilbur Smith requirements, and the cost to the Co-op would be high when additional parking in the area was re- quired. To protect the Co-op°s investment ;n n�rr.,r" J reduce the cost of providing additional parking in the area, and allow time for the California study to be completed and staff recommendations made based on a status quo situation, he urged the Council to enact the building moratorium as proposed by staff, with the exclusion of Section 2. Saskia HUis evain, 410 Cambridge, agreed with the building mora- torium to continue until the study was completed. The real issue was parking, and she experienced the lack of parking every time she attended a Council meeting. She requested the three pending developments on Ca1rrbridge Avenue be included in the moratorium rattier than receive the grandfather clause as proposed. If they were not included in the moratorium, the developments. would not share in the overwhelming parking costs the California Avenue property owners crow faced. The property owners paid the addition- al bond, and that filtered down to the tenants. She hoped the Council agreed that the small businesses serviced California Avenue, and warted them to stay. If costs were too high, people would move, and much planniny was necessary and should involve parking. Harrison Htisi, 909 North California Avenue, lived in town for a tong time and had seen California Avenue get the short end of the deal. to prevent a blighted area, something feasible had to be done. There were banks, stores, and the Co-op, and he did not be- lieve Co-op people would g, in and jeopardize its parking. The City needed the tax revenue, and his:only interest was rationality and sanity. - It was necessary to consider the problems of ethe sma l i . nee^chants. He talked with people in the area yesterday, and aesthetic -wise, the City -should consider some of the developments. He had no vested interest in Hare, Brewer and Kerley, but believed their developments were something of which the: City should to proud. He hoped their applications would not be denied because their developments could rectify a bii.ghted area. :,The south end of California Avenue showed the effects over the years, and if the oevetopments were permitted as he hoped, the City's capital reserve wouldbe rectified, and it could'` -be proud of the project. 3 9 0 9 10/24/83 • Geoffrey Thompson, •416 Oxford -Aveoue, asked the Council to pass - the moratorium as written, with the exception of Section 2, to. allow buildings with AKb approved projects. The California Avenue Parking District allowed new development to come in without paying its- fair share of the cost to the community in terms of private parking space - for some time, and the moratoria m was the City's only chance to rectify the situation. Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash, also spoke for Audrey Poulter. They sup- ported the moratorium and the proposed addition to the CS zones on El Camino. They approved the 1:1 floor ratio with a maximum height of 25 feet. She lived next door to 1681 El Camino on Park Boulevard, and Ms. Poulter lived next to the Weeks property. MOWN: Vice Mayor Witherspoon .moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the ordinance establishing a six-month moratorium on certain developments in the area covered by the California Avenue Area Study with the addition to the ordinance of. Section 1(c) and Exhibit B. ORDINANCE 3481 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ALTU IMPOSING A MORATORIUM FOR SIX MONTHS ON ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION WHICH EXCEEDS A CERTAIN SIZE AND/OR HEIGHT IN THE AREA OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE, EL CAMINO REAL, AND PARK BOULEVARD AND DECLARINGAli EMERGENCY" Vice Mayor Witherspoon referred to -the speakers who were concerned about parking: She asked how much parking Was provided by the four projects that were excused from the moratorium under Section 2. Mr. Freeland said of the four, the 100 California Avenue project was outside the parking assessment district and would provide all its own parking. At 2391 El Camino, 38 spaces would be supplied, and the requirement fo' spaces was calculated according to a for- mula used with the California Avenue study --not the zoning ordi- nance. Some factors were developed by Wilbur Smith and Associ- ates, which reelected more closely the actual amount of parking required in a business district, "and would be brought forward es standards for new proposals for the district. Under the proposal, the project regr:ired approximately 100 spaces, or a deficit of 62 spaces. The building at 250 Cambridge supplied 28 spaces, and ac- cording to Wilbur Smith criteria, it needed about 113 spaces, or an 85 space deficit. The building at 350 Cambridge would supply i8 spaces, and Wilbur Smith believed it needed 85 spaces, for a deficit of 67. The figure of 214 used by Mr. Thompson was cor- rect. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said several speakers urged deletion 'of Section 2 of the ordinance so those projects would not be exemp- ted, and would theoretically be included in the financing under the California study of the new parking structures. During the six months, it was .assumed a solution would be found to the parke :ng problems, and she. Asked staff whether they had a formula_. to include ali buildings in the districts. . She,'believed if proper- ties were irhproved,.they should be assessed. Mr. Freeland said all new properties Would be assessed equally. A formula credited spaces provided, and the -concern was that. the 214 -spaces would have to be provided -at a cost to the .district. In the past, as new buildings went ups- they had existing surplus or a small deficit in parking and were not faced with having to build new structures.: Therefore the cost was passed en across theedis- trict through boards, rather than being borne by individual proper- ty owners. - The point_ was again reached, as i t had been years ear- lier-, where errew parking was' needed, and -the c'vsts had to be faced. They would contribute to the bc►nds, but no more than any other property of a similar size and similar sited buildings. 3.9 I 0 10/24/83 Vice Mayer ! itherspoon said_ that was true of any building erected efter the moratorium. She understood the magic line had passed, and spaces would have to be created. Either the building on E1 Camino or the one permitted when the -zoning was sorted out would -trip over that magic marker. Mr. Freeland said that was true, and a number of ideas were being considered. At least one would result in new projects being re- quired to provide a share of on site parking that would be a direct cost to the developer. The concern was that those build- ings might pay less than future projects if a,formula was used that required, for example, half the new parking, to be provided by the development and half by the assessment district. -The four projects would provide about ore -third of their needs, and a 214 space detriment was high. He believed that pooled parking in .lots allowed the number to be discounted, as retail and offices did not peak at the same time, and the use of parking lots by both allowed some doubling up. The number could be reduced realis+:ically by 25 percent to about 160. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said if that was done, it changed the whole formula as to whether those buildings_ provided one-third or one- half of the parking needed. It was a numbers game, and she was not convinced that the people exempted, when the Council asked that the ordinance be written, were not tied by the rules in place when they went through the design process and met their share of parking. Had they not provided any parking, she would not be sym- pathetic, but under the old formulas a great deal more parking was provided, and, in some cases, as much as the new formula might require to cover the deficit. When the issue of who was to pay for the parking was breached, she would insist that it be all buildings. If it was legal, buildings that bumped the City over the magic marker should be required to contribute a little, more. She believed that was fair, and was not prepared to to delete Sec- tion Z. Councilmen oer Henzel followed up on the consultant's formula for calculating the parking requirement, and asked if it was higher ,or - lower than the zoning ordinance currently required. Mr. Freeland said it was generally lower, except in a few indi- vidual cases. It was based on the fact that the City's zoning or- dinance looked at parcels in isolation --a commercial parcel on El Camino was looked on the same as one in a business district. No parking was required in an assessment district, and it was be- lieved that in a business district people had multiple purpose trips, but parked their cars only once. An individual drug store had to provide its own parking, and sharing of parking took place in a business district. The standard took the multiple -purpose trip destination into account. Councilmember Henze' said that the 214 space shortfall' was based on something less stringent than the zoning ordinance currently required, both for retail and office development., :,She was inter- ested in the comment that because the spaces would be shared, a 25 percent reduction would tot result in a shortfall. She asked whethef- it vas presumed to be primarily a retail use. Office ein- ployees left their cars all day, and were different from shoppers Who went to various shops and then home. Mr. Freeland said staff thought of the buildings as primarily of- fices, although one was partly designed as bank space. Offices had peak parking periods during the day at about 10:00 a.m., and many office workers went in and out during the day, whereas the peak was between 12:00 noon and 1:.00 p.m. There was an ability to overlap and share, and it worked out empir-ically. Staff tried to account for the spaces and, even using the Wilbur Smith factor, it seemed to work when retail and office were pooled in a large park- ing lot. 3 9 1 1 10/24/83 1 Councilmember Renze l understood t`rra Wilbur Smith factor and the current zoning ordinance made an assumption that a certain number of employees would park all day, whereas others would be in and out, and staff verified that factor empirically. Councilmember Cobb asked if it was legal to get at the parking -- either the assessment or the requirement for parking --on the four projects that passed the AR8 review. He asked if the requirement could be retrofitted or otherwise applied. ` ., . City Attorney Diane Lee understood that one of the projects would not be covered. As to the other three, Council had to rely on the engineer's report for an appropriate assessment of what the par- ticular benefit would be of the new formula to be adopted, and was not something to be grappled with that evening. Councilmember Cobb asked if it could be discussed once the new formula was received, Ms. Lee said yes. The Council could discuss application of the formula to those projects, but could not exempt them from the or- dinance. If they were exempted from the ordinance, the new formu- la could not be applied. Councilmember Renzel said if the projects were exempted from the ordinance, the assessment formula would not apply, and she under- stood Councilmember Cobb's question to be whether the additional parking burden created by the developments could receive a dif- ferent assessment. Ms. Lee said no. Councilmember Renzel said everyone would be assessed on the same formula, and the property owners doing nothing to increase parking demands would pay for the new ones. Those old property owners would create virtually no increase in parking demands, but would have to participate in paying for the 214 shortfall. ►1r. Schreiber said one of the basic rules in assessing property under the assessment district process was to establish the bene- fits received from the assessment. Early in the California Avenue process, differential benefits based on the distance from a park- ing lot or some other such factor was discussed with Bond Counsel, The advice was that although it was possible, it would be diffi- cult, and would have to relate to a direct finding of benefit, to the length of occupancy or size of structure. Counc i lnernber Renzel asked if an amendment could be made. From what she heard from CAADA and staff, the three projects in the assessment district --and exempt froaie the moratorium --would create an . additional demand for approximately 214 spaces, which, if the 25 percent mentioned by Mr. eFeeeland was subtracted, was still in the vicinity of 150 to 160 space shortfall. She was:not confident that 25 percent could be realized, and ca1Ci_lated 164 spaces AS shortfall. Therefore $4,920,000 worth of parking, based on the. $30,000 par space at Keystone, Would be required. Mr. Freeland said the figure was too high. -It only had to be based,_ on the. cost of .the spaces gained i'n Lot 3 downtown. Although the structure on California Avenue might not be designed - the satire or have the _ same -characteristics; ' i t cost -$19O000 pert. space gained, That was not the average cost of spaces in the lot, but the cost of the spaces gained, and was for a multiple.level garage type space. Councilmember Renzel said for the purchase of the Keystone proper- ty, she heard the $30,000 figure mentioned. 3 9 1 2 10/24/83 Mr. Freeland said that was a separate matter. There were !any choices io the district. Parking could be provided for less if lots were double -decked instead of -using multiple -story struc- tures, and $30,000 was too high. Councilmember Renzel asked if Mr. Golick was correct that in order to provide 40 additional spaces, approximately five lots would have to be double -decked, plus another deck on the Cambridge lot, plus the purchase of the Keystone property. Mr. Freeland said it sounded plausible, but he shad not made the calculation Councilmember Renzel said that regardless of whether it cost $30,000 or $19,000, it was a lot of money to be borne by the re- tail merchants through increased rents in the California Avenue area as a result of the three exemptions that would not provide adequate parking.. That was astounding, especially when consider- ing fairness equity and consistency. In the Council's action on East flayshore, it exempted properties which provided its own parking and did not shift the burden to its fellow developers and land owners. In the subject case, people were going to receive the brunt of the burden of the additional developments.. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to delete Section 2 of the ordinance for oil but those projects that provided all of its required parking under the zoning. Mr. Schreiber said the three sites under consideration had a total of 88,187 square feet of approved development. If they were not exempted from the terms of the moratorium, but the rest of the moratorium ordinance was approved as proposed, those sites could come back to the City for development at 2:0 floor area ratio. The moratorium only applied to ratios greater than 2:0 and heights exceedi►tg 35 feet. If those sites came back and each had a 2:0 floor area ratio, they could provide 80,009 square feet, and under current rules, they would not have to provide any parking. Courecilmernber Renzel said if they were not exempt from . the mora- torium, they would be covered until the California Avenue study was completed and the recommendations adopted. Mr. Schreiber said yes, except the moratorium as presently writ- ten only applied to projects beyond a 2:0 floor area ratio. A site without current development or one with a smaller building on it could, under the terms of the moratorium, come in and apply for a new project and ARB approval, as long as the floor area ratio did not exceed 2:0 and height did not exceed 35 feet. Ms. Lee said she understood that at least one of the projects had a building permit, and cautioned the Council about the concern of vested rights. She realized the discussion was centered on park- ing concerns, .t Ott with respect to one of the projects, if the Council wanted to change a threshold, it should be done at the building permit stage. The City Attorney's office was not com- fortable about trying to make determinations about substantial sums having been expended in reliance on a building permit, but if that was the wish of the Council, it could be reviewed. Councilmember Cobb asked if the Council could go with Section 2, as proposed, exempting those projects with ARB approval except with regard -to the parking assessment that would develop after the zoning changes were made and the California Avenue.. report was finalized and approved. Ms Lee said she did not think so. ..Councilmember Klein opposed the amendment because it was unfair, Unworkable, and did not accomplish anything. Mr. Schreiber ade- quately pointed out that it did not do what the maker and second 3 9 l; _ 3 As Comer. e 10/24/8 2/06/84 had in mind, but beyond that, he believed the Council exempted the three projects from the moratorium for yood and sufficient reasons which had not changed. The City was obligated to play fair with people, and to include those projects would not be fair. The parking problem was not new, and the discussion was unfair in that it implied that the three developments caused the problem. California Avenue had a parking problem and University Avenue had a worse problem, but development was not stopped. It was inappro- priate to stop development on California Avenue where the people went forward in good faith, obtained ARB approval, and one had a building permit. Having made that commitment, it was only fair that the City allow those developments to go forward. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that the $19,0001 per space gained figure in Lot J did net include land costs. If the Key- stone lot was purchased, the price could be doubled. She doubted whether the. $30,000 per space was out of line because the compar- isons were not the same. Mr. Freeland said if the assumption was that all spaces would be built on the Keystone lot, the average cost would be higher than $19,000. He assumed all spaces would not be built on the Keystone lot. Councilmember Fletcher said the question of -- fairness Should in- clude the bigger picture of the enormous cost to be borne by the businesses, such as the Co-op on California Avenue, because of those develpments. They were not being asked to never develop, they were being asked eo wait until a firm policy was developed as a result of the California Avenue study. She believed the ques- tion of fairness could be looked at from that angle. It was not only a question of fairness, but what the City wanted to see on California Avenue, should the businesses similar to the ones on University Avenue be squeezed out. She did not understand why development on University Avenue was not stopped., Councilmember Renzel said when the Council heard the ;natter be- fore, there were good and sufficient reasons for exempting the properties. One reason was to try and be consistent with the mor- atorium applied east of Uayshore. An Important distinction was made between the East.Bayshore area and the California Avenue area in that there was a concern emong residents in town about the preservation of the retail businesses that served families in --the California Avenue area. With the kinds of assessments of $1-5,000, $34e000, $25,OUO, as mentioned by Mr. Golick, falling on the smal- ler'.prope,rties within the assessment district, she did not see how the smaller businesses could survive and pay to keep up with the existing situation. It was totally unfair-, and she did not under- stand what. fairness was involved for -someone who had not yet built, and who simply drew a few pictures for .the _ARU. She urged her colleagues to support the deletion of the exemption except for those properties that provided their full parking requirements. Vice Mayor Witherspoon agrecl with Councilmember• Klein's comments, but ,roi nted out the parking situation would not go away after the moratorium because all development in the _California area would not be stopped. Further, if the fouenprojects were included in the moratorium, the building could come back with up, to 2:0 ratio without any parking. She expected 'that the buildings would remain tear many .years and would pay --assessments for the parking not pro- vided. Councilmember Menzel said she was persuaded by the -City: Attorney to 1nClude,the cut off where a building permit was issued. AMENUME$T RESTATED: EXCEPTIONS RE ALLOWED FOR PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF THE PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHICH NAVE NET ALL OF THEIR OWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND FOR THOSE PROJECTS WHICH ALREADY RE- CEIVED BUILDING PERMITS AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Fletcher, Reszel voting, loge,. Eyerly absent. 3 9'1 4 10/24/83 Mayor Bechtel clarified that, the main motion included the staff recommendation of do additional amendment to the CS regulations on page 2, Section i(c), and that the ordinance would pass as an emergency measure if it passed by -a four -fifths majority. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly-absent. RECESS FROM 9:40 .m. TO 9:55 .m. ITEM #14, EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY (CMR:555:3 Mayor Bechtel commended Carl Stoffel for his report. Director of P Lanni ny and Community Environment Ken Schreiber com- mented that Exhibit A(13) identified areas in the neighborhood likely to have increased traffic based on the preferred control plan. The projected increases of 200 and 100 trips per day were noted for Stanford Avenue and Colleye Avenue near El Camino. The increase for Colleye near Park Boulevard was not noted on the map in the staff: report and was an estimated increase of approximately 200 trips per day from 600 up to 800. The staff report indicated on page 15 that if authorized by the Counc.i l , the trial could be implemented within eight weeks. The eight week estimate -assumed the work would be divided in such a way that no contract exceeded $10,000 and required City Council approval. The estimate was optimistic because of the inherent difficulties in getting work done during the holiday sea5ori. If approved that evening, he anticipated a trial program, could be in place by the middle of January. The change in Park Boulevard to one-way southbound between College and Cambridge would impact existing on -street parking in that block. There were 16 parking spaces, and a one- way street design could reduce the parking to as low as six s,.acues. Staff did not refine one-way design in the area, and if authorized, staff would meet with the adjacent property owners, tenants, and representatives of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee and Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association Traffic Com- mittee, as well as the business district, to review the design alternatives in an effort to minimize the loss .of parking spaces, provide appropriate protection to:bicyclists and motorists, and have adequate access to adjoining properties. Mayor Bechtel pointed out that several letters were at the Coun- cil places concerning the recommended action. Wi l l ie ison, 1885 El Camino Real, owner of the Shell Station at El Camino and Leland, said he sympathized with those in the neighbor- hood on the parkiny problems, but said he would have a problem yettiny supplies if the plan were implemented, The Shell truck could only gain access from Park Avenue, to a right at Ash and out at the light at Stanford Avenue. If the truck went down Park, it would have to go all the way down to Stanford Avenuf in the neigh- bo hood. If the barrier were cut at the commercial line at the back of the station, people would use the station as a turnaround, and there would be people coming in for gas, and people trying to turn -around to yet back on El Camino northbound. He clarified the supply trock would. have room to get into the station ,from the curb cut, but would be required to leave northbound because .there was no left turn due to the island, no U-turn was allowed at the ight, and it could not go down EEmbarcadero because it was prohibited. The present route was down Park, :a right at Ash, and use the light and right-of-way at Stanford Avenue and El Camino. )Dave Swartz, lived at 237 Stanford Avenue since 1956. He and his family opposed the _concept of barriers on publicly maintained streets. It was onerous to be for=ced to drive 12 blocks tp s.l<rop where he now only drove four, and it was difficult to understand that wisdom. Those opposed to .barriers must stand'and`be counted, otherwisethe neighborhood -wou:l d `be radically altered. 3.9 1 5 10/24/83 Jour Canyon, 2713 Leland Avenue•, said in a prev;ryus report the Transportation Department stated that there was a moderate amount of traffic An Evergreen Park, and he asked if thec was a reason to ' se drastic measures like barriers and one-way streets on Park Boulevard. On Sunday, there was no movement on his street at all. He dirt not know what the people were complaining about. The neighborhood was quiet, and he did not understand the need for barriers. When barriers were ,erected, it forced traffic onto another street, which was unfair. The barrier on castil leja and Park required traffic to go down Churchill and was unfair to those residents. The worst part of- the plan was the one-way on Park Boulevard. It was unacceptable to go shopping on California Avenue and: have to go onto El Camino to get back. He urged that the plan not be implemented. Hob Savoie, Z150 Birch, said he lived in the neighborhood for about ten years. Before barriers existed to the south of Califor- n ia Avenue and the neighborhood to the north--Southgate--he con- tinually used the residential streets for:his through traffic. It was a convenience for tiro, but there were a lot of residents in those areas who were disturbed by through traffic on their streets. He no longer used those areas ' for through traffic and now drove down El Camino to get to downtown Palo Alto, and Alma to yo south. He did not find it to be inconvenient, and said it was easy to adapt to different patterns and use streets intended for through traffic. He advocated barriers to prevent through traf- fic, and preferred to see the entire area blockaded from the California Avenue area to eliminate through traffic. He Supported the staff recommendation because it would do a significant amount to reduce through traffic. He understood a number of others sup- ported the staff recommendation, but were unable to stay long enough to speak, and requested that everyohe in support of the staff recommendation stand. Mike Golick, 390 California Avenue, said Evergreen Park had ap- proximately 200 homes, and the Co-op believed approximately 50 percent of those people were members. If there were two drivers t4` each home, there were 200 drivers. All available records and findings indicated 100 percent of the residents in Evergreen Park and Southgate, prior to its closure, shopped at California Avenue. A survey was Trade 25 years ago, and he believed a survey would reflect the same figures. If the people only shopped twice a week, that was 400 extra trips into their area. 1\f people went to the Co-op, they would either have to take California Avenue or Cambridge to get home. He understood six parking spaces would ae taken away to make the right-hand turn easier on Cambr dge,'• and three more spaces on El Camino would be taken in order to see clearly because the corner was precarious. He believed the plan was poor and predicted there would be many accidents. )le did not under=stand what the City was doing --nine more spaces being elimi- nated. He spoke with Cour_cilmember Cobb concerning the last is- sue, and was angry that the Council could not see the endeavors in that area. He asked for help—reet to be hurt. led Thompson, 410 Cawbrid,e, said =__'ambridge wasea dangerous i, ter - section due to the lack: of visibility towards California Avenue. The value of a parked car -was more than most.people realized be- cause it meant money to the'merchants. He suggested. that the cor- ner would call }'or lights, and under the staff plan, he asked how l-ony it IwoOld take CalTrans to put in a signal or control system., College Avenue -Was a broad street with..mostly `apartments, and if the Evergreen area was blocked at Ash and Birch, there would be a primary street to go back and- forth, easier -access 'to El Camino w ith better visibility, more free flow, and the traffic would not .be as heavy on Cambridge„_,If the Flan was adopted, he_ suggested the barrier -be at- at Ash -and :lurch on the _north side of College and. include College into the free flow area;, of the California Avenue districts '3 9 1 6 10/24/83_ Liyse liar oett-Museu, 2ii College Avenue, supported the staff recommendation, and believed it was a good compromise. She read a letter from James Gorman, 299 California Avenue, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, who supported the staff recommenda- tion, but was unable to attend the meeting. There were some people oho were strongly opposed to the barriers, but —to some it was not the traffic control per se, but the issue ,of access to one's business. She questiorued the methodology in, the staff report where effect on business would be measured by looking at receipts during the months preceding and months after implementa- tion of the plan anti she believed business would be better before Christmas. She was a Co-op member, and part of the philosophy of the Co-op was cooperation, serving the local people, and she would go through the extra inconvenience to gat to the store. Everyone had to compromise, and. she was on the corner where there would be increased traffic on College Avenue, her driveway would be in the one-way section, and she had more inconvenience getting into her driveway, and the parking lot was outside her home. It was a mat- ter of compromise, and a minor inconvenience to pay for a safer, quieter and more peaceful neighborhood, hark Husen, 211. College Avenue, thanked the Council for its move last month directing the staff to prepare the plan. It would not provide the neighbors in Evergreen park with everything they wanted, but was the best solution, and would minimize the impacts on the business community. He was grateful for the barriers along El Camino, the street closure at Birch, which -was critical not only because of the business traffic which flowed onto College Avenue, but also because putting the street closure at Birch, if the staff removed angled parking as opposed to parallel parking, could create more parking places if the plan were implemented. He would have preferred complete closure of Park Bouelvard, and staff clearly showed that it would be the most definitive solution in terns of traffic control. The choker was a fair compro ise, and a one-way street without the choker would not work because the stop sign at the corner of Cambridge and Park was mostly violated, the posted speed limit was violated, and he was concerned that without an obstacle in the right of way, people near the Co-op would try and traverse the one-way block in the wrong direction without getting caught. He wad concerned about traffic in Evergreen Park, and the .t i e to assess ttie. traffic proolem was around .b:03 p.in. on d weekday and not a Sunday afternoon on Leland Avenue. The plan would probably do an excellent job, or at least provide a start toward controlling the traffic problem. Ken Museri, Stanford student, said he frequently biked using Park Bouelvard to the California Avenue District shopping area. He supported the traffic control plan and believed the plan would increase safety and would not decrease his shopping time in the area. Richard Hamner, 1921 El Camino Real, forwarded a letter to the City Council expressing his objections to the plan, which was on file in the City Clerk's office. He clarified he:did not object to the spirit of the program, but rather to the effect it would have on his business and some of his ancillary rights in terms of trrnsitian f_ rein his customers within the area.. His business was the site of a restaurant for 40 years-, and he believed the majori- ty of those who bought -'-their homes in Evergreen Park knew that a commercial business,_;existed with certain transitory rights to the public ttreetsa in the areast He believed his business would be affected by 10 to 20 percent in: terms of gross sales. He employed „SO to 70 persons for the past _nine .years,- and the plan would affect his employment capabilities. The.action was not justified for a trial study, and was in direct conflict with the constraints -placed by the l:ounc:i l_. There was so much conc.i rn about Ca l i forn.i a Avenue that lid wa ack 131 e4 -lii . ii.0 jai barrier gh i:" heAt" 44i il lr\: property line. He pointed out that under the guise of traffic control , they were addreSsin.g a parking problem .that should be addressed separately and under due process. He was also concerned 3 9 1 7 10/24/83 that consideration WdS not given to what would happen to the traf- fic overflow off Leland back onto E1 Carnino where his customers would park. He projected that most would have to enter back on -E1 Camino; continue north, make a U-turn at Park Boulevard, come back duvrn El Camino and park on the far side of El Camino. No allow- ances were made for any kind of pedestrian safety in crossing El Camino near his location. He pointed out in terms of parking and traffic problems that he and his partner required as a condition of employment that employees not park on Leland or Ash. That could be grounds for termination and he tried to enforce the con- dition. He was never petitioned to enact the policies, and it was done because of a concern for the balance between the residential and cornrnercial traffic in the area. His employees were presently required to park on the far side of El Camino, which was danger- ous. He knew that his customers would not walk down to Stanford and walk back to Park where the traffic lights were established. The plan was not well thought out and was discriminatory against the commercial businesses along El Carnino which did not create the bulk of the traffic problem. Most traffic problems in the area were created by a natural urbanization, development and industri- alization of the Palo Alto area, over which he had no control. Fie did not oppose a traffic control plan for the area, but requested that consideration be given to moving the traffic barriers along Li Carnino next to his location back into the residential area to give him a more natural transition of traffic back down and around Ash Boulevard, up Stanford and back to the traffic light and onto L 1 Camino. Paul Bundy owned the house at 143 Park Avenue for ten years, and had previously lived in College Terrace. He congratulated staff on an excellent r=eport which accommodated the needs of the neigh- borhood and some issues brought up by the commercial district. Regarding traffic, Park Boulevard had one-way traffic; there was a conflict between the neighborhood and the commercial area on California Avenue. He spent $4,000 in one year in the California Avenue district, and his Co-op membership went back to 1938. He expected to see some social responsibility from the commercial district which it lacked in the past, and was surprised by the vitriolic comments of the .commercial people, who lived affluently in Los Altos Hills. He reminded staff that Evergreen Park resi- dents carne from a long line of folks who did not cross picket 1 i nes, and knew how to organize. Lalu riesling represented the Co -Op Board, and said it, was sympa- thetic to the problems of the Evergreen Park residents who were Co-op customers and members. In the past there were several other access restrictions to the Caldfornia Avenue area, and each time the Co-op suffered approximately a 2.0 percent drop in patronage. with the streets closing there would be additional congestion at the exit point of the parking 1-ot on Cambridge Avenue, causing a deterrent to shoppers caught up in the traffic flow on either California or Cambridge. People who could not find parking --and the Co-op would lose its parking behind the store-- did ndt re- turn. it _,.ioutd become more difficult fur Evergreen and Southgate residents to shop in the California Avenue shopping area, and the Co -Up believed that in view of the ongoing California Avenue area study, a decision on the change of access to the area should be postponed until ccupietion of the study. Sar<aia Smith, 2031 Park -Boulevard, favored the six month trial plan to.reduce traffic i n the Evergreen Park neighborhood. She was al- so_ a member -of the Co-op, and used to live in downtown Palo Alto. before Southgate was -closed, she cut through Southgate to 90 down. Park Boulevard to the. tCo op. Afterwards, she had to use El t.arfi no. She realized -people. needed their privacy, but wanted poo- p l e who wanted t_ o. use the California Avenue businesses, to drive >.-on -the business streets--Ei Camino and California Avenue. She read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Earl Bishop, 1805 Park .8oul eva rd, saying'.that at would help 'if a plan. stopped some of the traffic on ?ark Boulevard. They thanked Councilmembers _for their help-- in, the - 3 9 1 8 10/24/83 struggle for a quieter neighborhood. She assured the 'Cal ifornia Avenue ruerehants that people using their streets were not shoppers but used the area as a shortcut. Joe Koepnick, 2031 Park Boul-evard, supported implementation of d six month trial plan as a step towards reducing through traffic on Evergreen Park streets and thanked the Council for its time and consideration. Tetteh Kofi, 2030 Park Boulevard, favored the plan. Police stood in front of his house to give speeding tickets, and he wanted a reduction in the traffic in front of his house. The number of tickets issued showed how heavy the traffic was, and several tick- ets could be issued in 1U minutes. He urged that the six month trial plan go into operation. Howard Burnside, 2211 Park Boulevard, said the one-way section on Park between College and Cambridge might be hazardous because it would be the only one-way street in Evergreen Park. It was dan- yerous because southbound traffic on Park had to go on the oppo- site side of the street, pass his driveway, which was the exit from d rear parking area, go south and then back into a two-way street. Southbound traffic approached the "T" intersection --the one-way was the bar of the "T" and not the pole —came in and crossed the traffic that came down College and turned onto Park to go north. At Cambridge and Park, where the one-way southbound traffic, on the wrong side of the street, came back to its south- bound lane to oppose traffic entering or leaving Cambridge, it was dangerous when traffic came from the right when you were ex- pecting it from the left, and he anticipated many accidents in front of his house. Fifteen people lived in the building, and his driveway was continually used. He cautioned about the potential liability of establishing a plan that setup accidents, but did not want the City of Palo Alto to be part of litigation about bad design. He requested reconsideration of_that section of one-way street. Up to ten parking spaces could be lost, with another six on Cambridge and possibly another three on El Camino, and it did not make sense, when people fought for parking spaces, to throw away any spaces. There was no correlation between parking re- quirements of the California Avenue area and the impact of the program on the area. There would be 1700 cars instead of 2900 cars on Park --many going to Oregon Expressway, but some to shop, When plans were correlated, it might be found that less parking spaces on California Avenue were required. He did not believe the people in Evergreen Park cons i dered ' how the one- wav portion would affect them when they came from the south, but everyone would have t': go to El Canino and down College or Stanford, otherwise they would be unable to get into Evergreen Park. - Traffic: could be slowed down without making it one-way southbound. Stanley. Scott, 243 Oxford Avenue, said he had lived at his resi- dence with his family of four for 10 years, and he supported the plan. Elwyn Loh, 39U Oxford Avenue," spoke for his wife and three children. There was too much traffic at the Ash Oxford inter-- secti©n, and if nothing was done, traffic. would increase. He en- joyed,the businesses on El Camino and the California Avenue areas and shopped there frequently. Although the Council should make minor modifications to accommodate the businesses, if the plan failed because of merchants' opposition, he would shop .elsewhere. Jack Stanley, 2b3 Oxford Avenue, said he --lived at his present residence for four years, with his family -of four. He and other residents were frustrated with the California Avenue- merchants. - The present solution could meet a major criterion by satisfying more people than- it dissatisfied. He entered and exited the_ Ever- yreen Park area daily, and the plan would cause him some degree :ot. inconvenience. As in the Southgate closure, residents would adapt 3 9 1 9 10/24/83 Lo i t,--Suuthyate was a better neighborhood now because of the closure, and he did not believe the traffic on other streets had greatly increased. Susan Cole, 420 Stanford Avenue, was concerned about_the level of non -neighborhood traffic through Evergreen Park and expected in- creases due to new housing and businesses in California Avenue. She thanked the City Council for considering options to make short cuts through Evergreen Park less attractive, but as a Stanford Avenue resident, she was concerned about blocking off streets on either side and placiny barriers to slow_ traffic on Park Boule- vard. Stanford Avenue would be left as the most attractive through route and might become noisy, dangerous and unattractive, and should not be sacrificed for the =.est of thee neighborhood. She supported the current proposal if traffic on every street in Evergreen Nark we reduced by 30 percent, but it was unacceptable to reduce the overall number of trips through the neighborhood if one street bore the increase. A traffic reduction plan must be studied for its effects, and further corrective action if any other street suffered. Many cars were attracted to the short cut through Evergreen Park to Page Mi 1 l , Alma and the freeway, and it would soon be attractive to residents and workers in the new California Street buildings. Neighborhood streets should be left as open as possible to local traffic, and high speed through traf- fic that belonged on El Camino Real should be reduced. Since it was quicker to go through Evergreen Park than on El Camino, it should be made slower. She asked that a traffic choker be placed on Stanford Avenue at Ash as well as on Park Boulevard, and that signs on Stanford, Park and El Camino state "traffic barrier ahead --reduce speed" to cut or slow down traffic. They did not aim for .an independent kingdom of Evergreen Park, but wanted to avoid being treated as the Palo Alto shortcut to the world. Resi- dents deserved a quiet and safe neighborhood like everyone else. Andrea Lenox, 396 Stanford Avenue, lived at the intersection of Stanford and Ash, and thanked staff for their plan. to control traffic in Evergreen Park, which she supported provided the ordi- nance contained additional measures and a guarantee. She recom- mended a four-way stop on the Stanford/Ash intersection, with crosswalks. The intersection was haaiil y traveled and danger- ous --a school bus stppped there and many pedestrians crossed. Current measures did not offer sufficient protection, and she asked for a reduction in maximum truck towage from seven to three. Stanford was a- residential street and should not be used for commercial tonnage. Residents needed a guarantee that their street would not be sacrificed to carry --the increased traffic through reductions on other streets. Heavy traffic on Stanford would cut the neighborhood in half and cause -a waste of money and time. The mandate to reduce traffic by 30 percent was also valid for Stanford Avenue, and an ordinance to that effect was required to protect Stanford Avenue during and after the trial period. Karen Olsen, 121 Park Avenue, lived near a proposed barrier.. A barrier would be inconvenient, but she supported the plan. Lynn Davis, 134 Park Avenue, supported the plan, Al Young, 332 Oxford Avenue, lived in Evergreen Park for 10 years and witnessed the urbanization and industrialization of Palo Alto, which residents wereexpected to subsidize and support. .New de- velopments --root residents --created traffic prob,kens An the neigh- borhood, and a i though not everyone could support the plan, i t Was a good esixementh experiment and compromise.' He feared the plan would -not be examined at the time of fruition, and 'encouraged that the plan be tested. Geoff Thompson, 416 Oxford, supported the plan. 3 9 2 U 10/24/83 Paul Wood, Z14 College, was employed by a photo store in Evergreen Park, and opposed closing any streets that would alter business in thee -shopping district. It would only cause jams on streets carry- iny the detour. Stephen Avis, 366 California avenue, said the last motion by the Council permitted construction of several new sites on Cambridge and California Avenues, causing extra traffic congestion in the area. A trial period during that time would find extra problems in traffic flow to the detriment of cars going out of California and Cambridge. Several businesses could ,suffer a loss by having to pay for the extra parking, while traffic restraints could deter shoppers. Those shops would suffer a decrease in business and an increase in taxes. The small shops gave the ambiance that was appreciated by the people who worked and lived in the area, and he asked Councilmembers to drive through the area to look at the new construction sites and the traffic on California and Cambridge. Linda Morales, 385 Leland, supported the plan. She was a Co-op member, and would not be greatly affected. She was tired of being a parking lot for the restaurant at the corner, even if it had been there for 41 years. She rode her bike to the station, and believed there would be a decrease in traffic near the station. Michael Reinert, 3/5 Leland Avenue, supported the plan and would continue to shop in the California Avenue district. Daniel Bartsch, 302 College Avenue, said he, Miriam, and David Everson supported the plan. Mayor Bechtel wanted the Council to reach a decision that evening, but about LU cards still remained. She requested that when she read a name from a card, that person stand and say whether he or she supported or opposed the plan. Councilmernber Levy said although -it was late for both -the Council and audience, the later individuals :night bring new ideas and per- spectives. Mayor Bechtel said if there were new ideas, she would concur, .but .if speakers r€; + terated views heard several times already, they would-be cut off. Mr. Gleason confirmed the trouble gas trucks had getting round the corner. It was also a bus stop for children, and he saw trucks take the corner at 20 m.p.h. It had taken a child being hit by a car to close Park Boulevard south of California Avenue, and he urged that the Council not wait until a child was hit by a gas truck to bring traffic, control to Evergreen Park. Tommy Derrick thanked Carl Stoffel for his work and supported the plan. U. W. Schneider, 2005 Park Boulevard, had lived at the corner of Stan-f,ord Since 1940. She opposed the plan, and said that two years ago the residents of Evergreen Park were balloted, and at least 50 percent were opposed to traffic barriers. Sne asked for a new ballot, and believed Council should not depend entirely on the opinion of the Neighborhood Association. Loss Johnson, 230 Sequoia Avenue, opposed the plan. She lived in the last blockaded -neighborhood, and asked when it would stop. First` Col lege. Terrace, then Southgate, now Evergreen Parka -which neighborhood would be next. Srhe asked how the Council could re- fuse to keep Park Boulevard, a collector street, operl:.both ways. Be'rnard: Gucker, 1150 Union Street, San Francisco, was the owner of- a- piece of property on Birch Street, Carnbridg. , and California 3 9 2 _A 10/24/83 that carried five retail stores, His hardware store tenant was afraid his business might fold if a blockade between College and Cambridge were unposed. Eleanore Kingsley, 350 Loma Verde Avenue, frequently visited Ever- green Park because she belonged to the spa. during rush hours on weekdays, there was some traffic, and most of the grid streets carried little. She lived on Loma Verde, which was similar to Park, and as a property owner and taxpayer, she wanted the public streets to remain public, and not have barriers. Although a quiet neighborhood was nice, people who wanted a restricted area should ,cove behind a wall, and pay for the streets. She did not want to pay for private streets. Peter Butterfield favored the discouragement of through traffic, but was opposed to barriers. The trial should be limited to stop signs and various chokers. If barriers were tried first, they would never know if a less restrictive method would work. Audrey Poulter, 1731 Park Boulevard, supported the plan. She knew how hard Carl Stoffel worked, and wanted Park Boulevard to be com- pletely closed off. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said the first principle of the tranSporta- t i on element of the Comprehensive Plan was to protect neighbor- hoods from through and excessive traffic, and the Council should bear that in mind when making a decision. Although the plan 'was realistic, it was not -perfect. He could see problems --it was a trial and could be revised afterwards, but he urged that the plan be enacted since it appeared to be the consensus of the community. Marilyn Mayo, lived at 404 Oxford, "the --cut-through speedway." She supported the plan. It was fair and equitable, and should be given a trial. Anne Ercolani, "i040 Ash street, presented a petition from 26 people who favored the plan, which she also favored. doe Ercolani, 2040 Ash •Street, commented on Joe Culpepper•'s letter suggesting Park Boulevard be left open, which would make it -diffi- cult to reduce traffic by 30 percent. He supported the plan. Michael Gi lf x, 333 Leland Avenue, supported the plan. • Ross Thompson, 555 Forest, believed the Council spent too much time on the previous item, and that its discussions should be kept brief. He was a tong -time resident, and spoke from experience. He knew the area well, and there was..no real problem, Streets could be blocked off for reasons of safety, but not to please residentialists. in the automobile age, the responsibilities of :automobiles had to be accepted. Many residents owned three cars. Streets belonged to all people. He was opposed to the plan, saw no necessity for it, and believed others felt the same. Propo-- nents packed in speakers to overwhelm the Council by numbers, and he asked that the Council not be misled. Louise Ritxmann, 2091 Park Boulevard, favored the plan._ Bill Fitch, 178 Park Avenue, supported the plan. George McDonald, 2179 Park Boulevard, owned the buildings at the corner of College and Park. Every traffic plan submitted by staff made it impossible for hire to enter.his building, put a neignbor out of business, or could cause someone to be killed coring out of another building. He asked the Council for help, and offered his and his neighbor's assistance to work out a plan acceptable to all, -Erica Prince, 302a College Avenue, supported the plan, and sub- mitted letters from -two others. 3 9 2'2 10/24/83 Jiro Stapleton}, 214 Oxford Street, supported the plan, and brought d letter from a neighbor on Pa-rk Boulevard who also supported the plan but believed a better approach would be to completely block off Park Boulevard. He agreed. Linda Jo Bartholomew, 1863 Park Boulevard, said she and her hus- band supported the plan. James Beckett, 1883 Park Boulevard, supported the plan and said Park Boulevard was designated a collector street long before it was blocked off. What was left should be reduced to a residential street. Elizabeth Beckett, 1883 Park Boulevard, supported the plan. Mayor Bechtel thanked the speakers for being brief. Fifty people spoke --a record. MOTION_: Ccuncilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the staff recommendations: 1. Adopt. the resolution implementing the Evergreen Park traffic strategy fora trial period of six months and -amend the city-- wide stop intersection system; Z. Find that the strategy would not have significant environ- mental impacts; and 3. Adopt the $62,100 budget amendment ordinance, of which $29,100 is for the trial of the traffic control strategy, and $33,400 for the previously approved traffic circle and bicycle lanes. RESOLUTION 619.2 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Trrr-rm—irrirho ALTO IMPLEMENTING THE EVERGREEN PARK TRAFFIC CONTROL STRATEGY AND AMENDING THE CITY-WIDE STOP INTERSECTION NAP FOR A TRIAL PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS" ORDINANCE 3482 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO KLTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 83-23 °EVERGREEN PARK TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS" AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF FUNDS FROM CALIFORN A PLAZA, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP° Counciluenoer Cobb said the ultimate development of the California Avenue area Was controlled by the main thoroughfare --El Camino Real. The capacity of tl Camino should be ascertained as soon as possible by requiring traffic entering or exiting the area to be on 11 Camino where it belonged. Its capacity might. have been overreached already.-tne step was worthwhile, people fought long and hare' for it, and deserved a chance. Councilmember Renzel believed the cost was modest to protect a neighborhood of 2UU homes with young families. More than half the cost would yo to the permanent improvements --traffic and planning circles and bicycle lanes --the neighborhood deserved. The lesser cost of the project -would be the trial plan. It was reasonable, tre i-nformation eta:..- food, it was not likely to have a major effect on the California Avenue businesses, and would cause a significant `i n proverrrent in the Evergreen Park neighborhood. Cauntilmember Levy said he saw Evergreen Park as a neighborhood with fairly low traffic levels on the internal streets, bordered by Park Boulevard, which had become a danger'o.us, noisy speedway. His ooject_ive from the -beginning of the process was to make Park Boulevard a pleasant, safe street without intruding on, the quiet of the internal streets.-- He favored the use of traffic devices such as center circles, .one-way streets, stop signs and chokers.but because -of the animosity surrounding them, -he believed bar- riers should only tie used as a last resort.. He referred to` staff 3 9 2 3, 10/24/83 plan F-2 on page h -I4 and the traffic flow data, and said that by a combination of devices, scenario F-2 reduced traffic by 35 per- cent, cutting Park Boulevard traffic in half --more than plan F which was referred to. Scenario F-2 did it al l without introduc- ing barriers. The changes in traffic flow on the lesser -traveled streets were modest. He also supported plan F--2 because many believed a staff plan could not fail. Failure was possible, but it was only a test. His political experience told him that if ,the barriers were tested and failed, a second try would be unlikely. Those who went through tests of barriers and other traffic devices knew that once a barrier went up, many unexpected things happened. If a barrier -free plan were tested and did not work, a second test, utilizing barriers or other devices, would probably, be sup- ported. It made sense to him to first test a barrier -free plan if such a plan stood a chance of suc..ess. There was further concern that the three El Camino barriers recommended by staff would be unfelt' to residents of Stanford Avenue and College, which should be considered, Scenario F-2 was a thoughtful plat, and co; ld ac- complish the Council's objectives and generate the lowest level of internal disruption. SUBSTITUTE NOTION: Councilarember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, adoption of scenario F-2 as proposed by staff. Councilmernber Fletcher asked for clarification because comparing pages A -I3 and A -I4, she found the projected traffic counts with- out barriers on Stanford and College were larger than with the barriers, and that it should be the other way around. Assistant Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said the increases came from residents returning from the business districts or else- where. They had to go in on College, Oxford or Stanford, making traffic increase. if there were barriers on Park, Leland and Oxford, a lot of circulating traffic coming from the businesses would be cut down, and the decrease from the businesses would be enough to make the volumes on Stanford and College a little lower. C,ounci lmember Fletcher asked Counci imember; Levy about the benefits of not having barriers if there was a lower traffic count on Stanford and College with the barriers. Counts lrnember Levy expressed surprise over staff's traffic counts. Staff most have assumed that if barriers Were put _.in, the resi- dents of Evergreen Park would not go to California Avenue, because the traffic returning represented traffic coming back from California Avenue. He did not agree, and said that psycho- logi- cally, a problem arose when a neighboring street had a barrier. The irrevocable assumption was that the street without the barrier would carry a'.. 1 the traffic, which he saw happening. Gouncilrnember Fletcher preferred to try the plan,without the bar- riers for a arias period. to see traffic counts. The barriers could be put in later on, 'and she saw little detriment without the barriers. it was worth a trial, and expense would be saved if barriers were not needed. She supported the substitute motion. Vice Mayor Witherspoon agreed with Councilmernber Levy. She .con- sidered plan F which included one barrier, but believed it was a fall -back posi,t_i.on. According to staff estimates, it reduced traffic by 45 -percent percent instead of 3a, percent. She asked Council member levy if. he included the double crosswalk at rPark and Stanford to allow pedestrians to cross, and whether the three .or four-way stop was_ ir:cluded to provide safe access to the park, .She believed the traffic circle would choke down -the speeding on Park, and asked if -Counciimember= Levy agreed to include those matters in the substitute motion. Councilmember Levy said yes. 3 9 2 4 10/24/83 Mr. Schreiber confirmed that all - stOp sign changes, and adds and drups on Stanford Avenue/Park Boulevard were included. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said she favored the F-2 rather than the F plan. Mr. Stoffel asked the Council to remember ttrat the numbers were only projections. The figures could vary, and were all part of the rounding process and only educated guesses. All plans were close, but if there were one -ways on one plan and a barrier on 'the other, there" would be differences. The numbers in the tables indicated differences in the percentage of traffic taken out of the neighborhood. Mayor Bechtel asked .for assurances that the one-way on Park between College and Cambridge could be designed so as not to impact the buildings across the street. Mr. Schreiber said it could be done, but would impact the on street parking, some of which would be lost. It would be safe from both the motorists' and pedestrians' standpoints. Councilmember Renzel said no details were shown in scenario F-2 about how the One-way direction would be controlled in order to stop it from being two-way. The recommended plan showed a con- strictor on the right-hand side and a small jog, but F-2 showed only two arrows. Mr. Schreiber said the plans were schematic. He reiterated that staff would work with owners, _tenants, neighborhood associations, etc. to work out the details of one-way design-. If both streets were authorized for one-way, the same would be done in both loca- tions. Counciimember Renzel asked if it would be designed to stop people slithering through in the other direction because the plan would fail if the One-way direction did not work properly. Mr. Schreiber believed it would be designed to work properly. Couic i lmember Fazzino said with regard to plan F and the El Camino barriers, he was not clear about traffic to the Shell station on Leland and E': Camino. He asked about traffic going down Leland and circumventing the barrier, then going through the Shell sta- tion to get to El Camino, and how that. situation .would be handled. Mr. Schreiber said that would_ not, happen because there would be no through routes around":. the barrier: using driveways and parking lots. Mayor Bechtel asked if a safe way could be worked out with the gas trucks making a U-turn without going into a residential neighbor- hood Mr. Stoffel said there were ways, but they would probably be long- er. Councilmember Renzel opposed the substitute motion. The thought: of all the gasoline trucks looping through Ash, Leland and -Stanford convinced her that barriers at El Camino were long over- due. She wanted to see the staff plan enacted. -Councilmember Fl.etcher_asked if the request for a four-way stop at Stanford and Ash could be evaluated by staff and brought -back with d recommendation. Mr. Schreiber requested time to think about the matter because he wanted to avoid having to return to Council with another resolu- tion to add or delete a stop sign. 3 9 2 5 1O/24/l33 Gourtci lrne:mber Fletcher said stop signs were updated periodically. Mayor Bechtel said according to the plan, there were presently stop signs on both sides of Ash. The other plan showed the signs switched --removed from Ash and added at Stanford. Those would do much to discouraye speed and through traffic on Stanford Avenue as well as on Oxford. She _favored the stop sign situation, and believed a four-way stop was unnecessary, Mr. Schreiber said Director of Transportation Ted Noguchi indicat- ed that if no barriers were erected, staff recommended that there be four-way stop signs at Stanford and Ash rather than two-way. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Fletcher, Levy and Witherspoon voting "aye," Eyerly absent. Counctlmember Cobb asked if it was possible to minimize the amount of parking 10et near El Camino. Mr. Stoffel said staff would not delete any more parking than ab- .solutely necessary. Counci lrnember Klein supported the main motion. Although he was not a fan of barriers, the previous discussions persuaded him that the only way to accomplish their goals for Evergreen Park was to use barriers. He believed the staff plan was excellent, and was williny to see what happened during the next six months. He hoped the plan would succeed. Counci lrnernber Fazzino thanked staff for taking on the project, and believed an excellent job was done to produce a workable plan that met Council and neighborhood concerns. He was pleased to support the motion. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. ITEM #15, RYXBEE PARK CONVERSION - STATUS REPORT AND FUTURE POLICY .:athdrawn by staff--wi l l . be rescheduled. ITEM #1b RE UEST OF VICE MAYOR ANNE WITHERSPOON RE RESOLUTION OF LC "'N S N Dt N. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said she participated the morning the architectural students from San Luis Obispo presented their Down- town Charette. WN H MOTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the City Clerk be directed to prepare a Resolution of Appreciation for Professor Paul Neel and the twelve graduate architectural students from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo. MUTIUtI PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. I TLM #I i. kE UES f OF V i C.E. MAYOR ANNE -WI.THERSPOON RE V I RG I L CARTER Vice Mayor Witherspoon -commented that Virgil Utter —or` the Architectural Review Board was instrurnentei in Starting the program, and she was proud ' that he was elected president of the Amer)cad Institrate of Architects .MOTION: -Vice Mayor Witherspoon aroved, seconded by- Cobb, that the Mayor write a letter .of -congratulations to -Virgil —Carter, who will be President. AIA for . the arrext two. years Council*ember Cobb said he -was repressed by some of he creativity seen. at the Downtown Charette.e There was discussion Of —turning a similar group of .students loose on Callforn"ia --Avenue,, and that area right benefit from their imagination. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.. 3 9 2 6 11)/24/83 IILM #18, CANCELLATION uF NOVEMBER 7. 1983 CITY COUNCIL MFFTING Councilmember Renzel said the next week was the fifth Monday in the month, and normally the Council would not meet. November 7 was the'niyht before the election, and she believed the meeting should be cancelled. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded oy Fazzino, cancel the November 7, 1983 City Council meeting. Mr. Zang said there was nothing that could not be held over. Mayor Bechtel asked if they would be impacted too much later on. There would be a meeting on the 14th. Sometimes the meeting fol- lowing the Thanksgiving weekend was - cancelled' because''of the National League of Cities' meeting which this year was in New Orleans. Mr. Zaner said if the November 7 meeting was cancelled, there would be two crowded meetings on November 14 and 21. The meeting on November 28 would be cancelled because several members of the Council would be in New Orleans. Mayor Bechtel said she would rather spread the load. Mr. Laner said that not many items were set for November' 7, and so far it should not be a lengthy meeting. Councilmember Fletcher did not believe it was worth meeting for an hour and a half. She asked staff how long the meeting might take. Mr. Zaner believed it was a good length. The items scheduled for the November 7, plus tile-Byxbee "Par=k itef if carried overr would probably take long enough. _Not many items were calendared. Councilmember Klein did not favor cancelling the November -7 meet- ing. If extra time were available at the first part of that eve- ning's agenda, for example, the Evergreen Park discussions would have gone more smoothly. Important issues should not be dealt with after 11:00 p.m. because the quality of liscussion deterior- ated. 4e asked that Byxbee Park riot be added to that agenda be- cause it would be educational and suit..able for new Councilmembers to hear it. Counci,lrrenber Fazzin.o believed a meeting was only necessary`: if substantive matters Mere to be discussed. Meetings were never held election eve. He had not had to face it, and believed it was unfair for him to vote it for, ,others. Councilmembers would be caeipaigning that weekend and would nono'e have time to 90 through the Council packetsr ca reful.iy . Unless the City Manager reported a number of major items, he did not support holding the meeting. Mayor Bechtel suggested voting against the motion to cancel the meeting. Staff had the prerogative of determining if there were truly substantive issues -worthy of the Council's time, .and if there were not, the City Clerk should cancel the meeting. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 44. Fyer•ly Absent. (Actual vote not stated on tape.) MOTION: Councilmember 8er+ze1.:. oove1, , seconded by Fazzino, to allow staff to capitol tie.ilovember 7,_1983 meeting if there was insufficient basjoess towarr'ant it. (.Dunn ioemb r i;lein 'believed stiff - should.�.be directed to tape. into consideration the agendas of November Wand a-1. Couriti lmember Renzel _referred to the Byxbee Park item. As the representative to the Solid Waste Mana-gement Authority, she wanted. to have Council -feedback before making final decisions, ---and the item shouidl not be delayed too long. riiyor Bechtel reconsidered her vote. Remembering the stress she was under as a candidate, she believed it was reasonable to cancel the Meeting. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY CUUNCILMEMBER RE!IZEL AND SECOND. MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Fazzino, to reconsider the vote to cancel the November 7, 1983 City. Council meeting. R CUNSIUEKATION MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION TO CANCEL NOVEMBER 7, 1983 MEETING PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Klein voting 'no'. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:46 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVER: 3 9 2 8 10/24/83