Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02101975CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Vebruary 10, 1975 ITEM PAGE Approval of Minutes of January 20, 1975 9 2 4 0.N.C. Freight Systems, 2850 West Bayshore Road, Application for a Change of District of Property from R-1 to L -M -S 9 2 4 447-473 Sheridan Avenue, Tentative Condominium Subdivision Map, Application of Sheridan Development Co. 9 3 3 Rezoning of Faber and Lau eiater Tracts in San Mateo County from Industrial Zoning to the Resource Management District of the San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance 9 3 5 Resolution of Intention co Ca11 Election - Barron Park Annexation 9 3 9 Resolution re General Municipal Election - May 13, 1975 Ordinance Regarding Public Employees' Retirement System Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Bikeway Agreement 9 3 9 939 9 4 0 Budget Request: South Bay Dischargers Authority 9 4 3 County Property Near North County Courthouse 9 4 4 Councilwoman Pearson's Reques► for a Report Regarding Legislation to Redice Requirements Concerning Motorcycle Noise 9 4 5 Request of Councilwoman Pearson Regarding the Need for Public Hearingn by the PUC 9 4 5 Councilwoman Pearson re MTC Public Meeting 9 4 5 Councilwoman Pearson's Request re Importation of Water through the San Felipe Canal 9 4 6 Oral Communications 9 4 7 Csecellation of Council Meeting of February 18 9 4 7 Executive Session 9 4 7 Adjournment 9 4 7 9 2 3 2/10/75 e 1 1 February 10, 1975 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met art this date et 7:40 p.m. in a regular meeting with Mayor Sher presiding. Prevent: beahrs, Borwald, Clay, Henderson, Pearson, Sher, Rosenbaum, Comstock (arrived 7:43 p.m.) , Norton (arrived 7:43 p.m.) AEproval of Minutes of .lanuar - 20 1975 Vice Mayor Henderson requested that the word "Department." be changed to "Committee" at the end of the first line of the last paragraph on page 833. Mayor Sher asked that the third paragraph from the bottom of page 841 read as follows: "Mayor Sher explained this part of the ordinance should read that the period should be limited to fifteen minutes, and that the part referring to three speakers or whichever occurs first should be deleted." MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the minutes be approved as corrected. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Freieht Systems. 2250 2 Bs shore Road lication for from R-1 to 1.=14-S ANIMONWOMM OIMEMMUSUOMMOM Prai cea Brenner, Chairwoman of the Planning Commission, stated that under discussion was a request to change a piece of land from R-- 1 to L -44-S. The greatest land use change in this area was made by the Council decision to purchase 16+ acrea to create a 21 acre district park. This decision had a great and positive impact on the residential character of the whole neighborhood, as well as on this one undeveloped parcel. Mrs. Brenner said that any consideration of rezoning o4 the parcel must be viewed in the context of what the neighborhood is to become and how to reinforce the impact of the park on the neighborhood, as well ss that of the neighborhood on the park. The two acres being dealt with were bordered on two sides by a district park, which is an &&oat to the whole city. Mrs. Brenner felt that anything that would occur on that land had to complement the park, since they park was a major public investment. Among other things, it was the Cosiusion's responsibility to be concerned about iiacre.ased run-off since that would further intensify design problems and the cost of dealing with them as they relate to the park. The Planning Commission did not think that it should assume that if there were problems with R-1 zoning, they could be 924 2/10/75 salved by upzoning to L -M -S. Mrs. Brenner pointed out that L -M -S zoning did not limit the site co the use suggested by the applicant, and no district park in the city had been planned to face the back side of an industrial building with acres of asphalt parking. Mrs. Brenner noted that clustering housing on the 2.3 acres of land would no longer present the density threat to the area that it did prior to the major purchase of land for a park. Garden apartments looking out over a park could be designated with a protective sound barrier on the highway side. The safety feature to the park itself of introducing homes, which look out over the park, is a plus. Traditional indicators warn that the Commission should pause before rezoning even a single parcel from residential use to anything else. Present zoning, the existing General Plan, and discussions on the Comprehensive Plan all .lead in the same direction. There is an over -abundance of commercial and industrial zoning and a no vacancy rate with respect to housing. Questionable features of building anything at all on that piece of land are well documented in the Environmental Impact Assessment. The Planning Commission thought that any new designation needs greater constraints than those provided by an L -M -S zone; therefore, the Commission recommends that the public interest does not require the rezoning of the parcel. Councilman Beahrs considered Mrs. Brenner's arguments tonight to be more persuasive than the ones that had been recorded in the Planning Commission, meeting minutes. Those discussions had been principally concerned with the flood h=azard, and Councilman Beahrs was not disposed to tell an industry how to protect itself. He thought the Planning Commission discussions and Mrs. Brenner's remarks were not very responsive to the arguments and questions raised by the residents in thin area. It was Councilman Beahrs' recollection that the neighbors wanted the protection of major structures to shield them from the noise and polluted air coming fro the Bayshore Freeway. In Councilr1An Beahrs' opinion, R -I was an inappropriate zoning for that particular piece of property. Mrs. Brenner indicated that over the years, there had been frequent arguments over Lid and residential zoning for this land; and each time, the Commission upheld residential zoning. The present General Plan designatea this area as multiple family, which would give a basis for considering a greater density. Before the land was purchased for the park, a higher density seemed to represent a t`area;: to the neighborhood; but Mrs. Brenner submitted that whatever was built there should be judged by somewhat the same criteria as the park, with respect to drainage and a number of other things. Councilman Beahrs feared that the P -C zoning was being used as a device to do spot zoning, Councilman Comstock asked Mrs. Brenner if she would be willing to speculate how the Commission would have responded to a request for a P -C zoning that would hive gone into explicit detail regarding the usage to which the property would be put. Mrs. Brenner responded that such a request and the residential use now on the land would balance more evenly. Councilman Rosenbaum shared the concerns that had been expressed about the possible impact on the park of any development on this property. He asked to what degree the Architectural Review Board considerations of any potential project could mitigate such concerns. 925 2/10/75 Mrs. Brenner asked Councilman Rosenbaum to suppose that between the time the zoning is granted and something is built, circumstances beyond the owner's control require that there be something on that parcel like the Beacons Storage Company, with huge trucks parked five feet from the edge of the property line. The question would be to what extent could requirements be made which do not exist in the zoning. For instance, the new flood regulations might require that the elevation of the lard be raised a certain number of feet above what had been proposed for the tennis courts. If so, this would leave the city -built tennis courts in more of a swamp, The Planning Commission felt that the constraints within the L -M -S zoning would not be adequate. Councilman: Rosenbaumhad observed in other situations that the Architec- tural Review Board had restricted developers to something quite a bit less than the zone would allow. If the park is the major concern, Councilman Rosenbaum wanted to know why such a procedure would not be applicable in this case. Councilman Berwald referred to the possible problem of having trucks parking within five feet of the fence, etc.; and he asked Mr. Knox if under the ARB regulations, controls could be exercised to prevent such parking and impose landscaping that would be compatible with the park. Naphtali Knox, Director of Planning, felt the answer was "yes". The ARB recommends modifications to plans and indicates where landscaping should be placed. They then send the plans to the Building Officials with a recommendation that the permit be granted. Once the permit is granted, the plans must be adhered to by the developer. Mr. Knox suggested that what the ARB would do in a zone such as this could be observed on the other side of the freeway in the LeM area where new buildings have been constructed. Those buildings indicate the spirit of the new design that is coming about in industrial buildings in the Elwell Court area Also, Mr. Knox feat that although there are eagles of industrial buildings such as the Beacons building in the L -M district along the Bayshore Freeway, he pointed out that with regard to what the Ake might do, Stanford Industrial Park is also 1. -M -S; and the difference between the kind of buildings seen on the Bayshore Freeway and those in Stanford Industrial Park was due to the fact that Stanford exercised architectural review in the Industrial Park before Palo Alto had its own Architectural Review Board. Joe Ficurelli, 260 Sheridan Street, General Counsel for.O.N.C. Freight Systems, stated that in approximately 1962, O.N.C. bought about eleven acres of land along West Bayshore. At the tine of the purchase there was some discussion with members of the Planning Department; and it was indicatsd that although the zoning was R--1, it would be relatively simple to have that changed to allow xn office building complex. Things did not materialize that way, and O.N.C. had to use a P -C zoning for the approximately 2.8 acres that the company developed. A 16,000 square foot building was placed on the parcel, and O.N‘C. was not quits certain what it wanted to duo with the balance of the land. In the late sixties, the company decided to sell the rest of the land because it looked as though the R -I zoning would not be changed. O.K.C. contacted a number of broker', but they were unable to find a single person who would buy the land with its R-1 zoning. In 1972, a potential sale was arranged; and the land would have been developed for multi -family usage, with approximately l7 units to an acre. This idea was presented to the Planning Commission 926 2/10/75 and Council, and it was turned down on the same factors that apply today. The decible r.:ting from the freeway was much too high for the parcel to be put to residential use, and another factor was the air pollution from the freeway. The buyer agreed to berm the property; but unfortunately, it could not be berzned sufficiently. Another consideration at that time was the earthquake problem as compared to flood control, which appears to be the current issue. Further, the neighbors objected to the multiple density factor of the development; and they desired that the land be used for a park. The plan was withdrawn rather than voted dorm, but it was obvious that it would not be approved either by the Planning Coini.saicn or the City Council. Since that time, Mr. Ficurelli had been discussing with the neighbors and the city staff just what would be good usage of the land. It was recognized that the city might want to purchase a portion cf the land for park use, and there might be something left over for O.N.C. There had been many discussions about the parcel, and 0.N.C. would like to have an L -M -S zoning, Mr. Ficurelli noted that the map indicated that a majority of the land along the freeway is L -H -S, and so the desire for that kind of zoning fit in very well. The traffic patterns along the freeway would provide entrances from Embarcadero Road or San Antonio Road, and no one would have to go through a residential district to get to an office funding, Mr. Ficurelli did not believe the company would be able to find anyone to buy the 2.3 acres for a single family development, namely because of the ecological factors. Further, he did not think anyone would buy the parcel for multiple family development, either. After the Planning Commission turned down O.N.C. `a request, Mr. Ficurelli contacted a number of brokers who had expressed _nterest in the entire parcel for multiple -family development; and they said ?.3 acres would be too small for such usage. Also, Mr. Ficurelli was fairly certain that the neighbors felt that a multiple -family development just did not fit in that area; and yet, Council wants a multiple -family development. This presents a real difficulty to C,N.C, in deciding what to do with the parcel of land. Personally, he felt an office structure would be an ideal use of the land. The most that could be built on the parcel would be s 30,000 square foot building; and probably, it would not be made that large. Sufficient landscaping and open space for parking would be provided, end the office building would act as a buffer between the freeway and the park. Mr. Ficurelli explained that O.N.C, did not request P -C zoning for a number of reasons. One of them was timing. The project with regard to the park had been going on for a year or so, and 0.N.C. was not quite certain how much land it would have. Therefore, there was nothing that O.N.C. could plan to do until it knew whether it would have no land, four acres, or 2.3 acres. Time and money could not be spent on plans or renditions since it was not known what amount of land would be left after the purchase for park usage. Mr. Ficurelli thought that to try for P -C at this point, when it appeared that the Planning Commission was interested only in reeidential development, would involve a waste of tie and money. Unless 0.N.C. had some assurance that P -C for an office building would work, Mr. Ficurelli felt it would be unfair for Council to ask the company to spend additional time and money developing a project that had a good chance of being turned down the next time around. Vice Mayor Henderson asked, assuming that Council gave sufficient ,assurance of supporting .an office building, if Q.N.C. would then 'oe receptive to coming back to the Planning Commission and Council with a specific PC plan. 9 2 7 2/10/75 Mr. Ficurelli responded that he could not give a positive answer because he was not quite bure what was involved in a PC zoning. He explained that the company's plans for the size of the building were somewhat in a state of flux at the present time; but that was something that could be discussed, if there were some assurance that an office building for O.N.C.'a use would be acceptable. Vice Mayor Henderson understood then that O.N.C. did not have specific plane for a building at this point. Mr. Ficurelli replied that this was correct, and this was because the company did not want to spend time going into detail if they ended up with no land left over. A vague idea was formulated that the company would put up another building for 0.N.C.'s own use. Present plans were to put an extension on the Bayshore property, sow people out of the Fabian Street location into the Bayshore property. ee11 the Fabian property, and build than additional office apace. Vice Mayor Henderson recalled that O.N.C. had a proposal coming through the Planning Commission to add to the present building along Bayshore Freeway. Mr. Ficurelli explained that was an additional 5,000 square feet for print shop material. That was presently housed in the Fabian Street property; and if it could be moved to Bayshore, then the Fabian Street property could be sold. Vice Mayor Henderson asked U he understood correctly that on this piece of property, 0.N.C. would be adding a building for its own use. He particularly wanted to know if there were any intention to rent out the space. Mx. Ficurelli responded that the company was not in the real estate business, and they would not put up a building for speculation. Councilman Comstock said he understood the applicant to be talking about integrated development on the existing parcel and the parcel proposed for rezoning; and he commented that the PC procedure allows for more explicit delineation of the kind of thing the applicant wanted to achieve - an integrated plan for the whole complex of buildings. The P -C procedure would allow for working that through with the Commisson and staff, spelling out what the objectives are, and having them dealt with. The concern of some Council and Commission members had was that the L -M -S zoning can produce fairly heal'', usage of the land. It seemed to Councilman Comstock that there would be a way to achieve what was vatted by Council directing the Planning Commission to bear the needs of O.N.C. under a P -C proceeding. Council could ask 0.N.C. and the Commission to develop an integrated plan as an amendment to the existing P -C and then apply P -C to the parcel under discussion. Mr. Ficurelli commented that one other factor in the PC that prevented theta from going ahead with it in the first place was the matter of tieing. Questions asked on the 5,000 square foot building were how soon construction would start and when would it end. At this point, 0.N.C. would not be able to give a timetable for construction of the new office building. A lot would depend upon how soon the two buildings could be integrated, and how soon the Fabian Street building could be sold. Mr. Ficurelli thought he would be in a very difficult situation if Council asked him to have a plan with renditions, etc., that would probably be needed for a P -C. This 9 2 8 2/10/75 would take quite Dome time to do, and what the company was trying to accomplish was to receive an indication from Council and the Planning Commission that constructing an office building was agreeable and that it made economic sense. Councilwoman Pearson askew.' if the city could require that any building on the L -M -S sits be coordinated with the one on P -C. In other words, was there a way of coordinating that without going through the P -C procedure? Mr. Knox thought the ARB in the process of review, recognizing that a building was being proposed on en adjacent site, and that both the existing and proposed buildings were owned by the same firm, would ask for an :.ntegration of the design. It is possible that if there needed to be some contiguity of buildings, there would be a problem; but if there were no desire to have contiguity, then no problem would be presented because the L -M zone does have come setback requirements. If this were zoned P -C, there would not necesseaarily be any setback requirements except those that might be imposed by the Planning Comnission and approved by Council. Councilwoman Pearson understood Mr. Knox to be saying that the ARB has some power to regulate any new buildings that would go on the L -M -S site. ?r. Knox pointed out there were two ways in which the ARB would effectively regulate the design on the site. One of these would be through the obligations and duties that they acquire under Section 16.48, and the other is the recommendation that staff provides in the environmental assessment. Councilwoman Pearson asked if it were correct O.N.C.already had 2.7 acres of land presently zoned P -C. Kr. Yicvrelli commented that :e thought it was approximately 2.7 acres; but when the city buys some of the land, that would cut it down a bit. Councilwoman Pearson asked if she were correct in assuming that the discussion was about rezoning 2.3 acres from R -I to L -M S. Mr. Ficureili agreed that this was correct. Councilwoman Pearson asked for clarification as to whether this was the 2.3 acres that the Planning Commission was recommending for housing. Mrs. Bremer explained that the Planning Commission recommended that what it saw did not persuade it to change the zoning that exists. She added that persons who had spoken to the Planning Commission on this matter had mentioned that if the company were planning to put up a building for its awn use, they would be rather favorably inclined to go along with the idea. But it had been the Planning Commission's conclusion that an L--M-S zoning would in no way pin the applicant down to the buils+`ing has: described in his application. Ellen Fletcher, 3543 Greer Road, suggested that if an additional building were to be constructed, the usual number of required parking spaces be cut dawn in favor of having the owner provide bicycle lockers. This would encourage employees to ride bicycles, and lockers would cost much lass than parking spaces. 929 2/10/75 Vaughn Hopkins, 1040 Moffett Circle, Chairman of the West Bayshere Residents Association, urged Council to approve the rezoning of the 2.3 acres adjacent to the O.N.C. facility from R-i to L -M -S. The Association was in agreement with the reasons for rezoning given by Mr. Glanville in his January 24th letter to the Planning Commission. Contrary to the findings of the Planning Commission on January 28th, public interest, convenience, and general, welfare do require the rezoning. The public interest and convenience would be well served by the rezoning because it is highly unlikely that the expansion of Greer Park will proceed expeditiously without it. O.N.C. could hardly be blamed if they were reluctant to sellthe needed park expansion land to the city before the 2.3 acres they need for expansion is rezoned to allow that use. Mr. Hopkins pointed out that without the remaining portion of the C.N.C. land, extension or Greer Park as approved by Council could not go forward. He thought this would be especially unfortunate in view of the consistent cooperation that the West Bayshore area end the city have received from Q.N.C. over the past three years. In fact, ?fir. Hopkins said the only reason for the existence of a 2.3 acre parcel of land is the agreement among the West Bayshore Residents Association, the city staff, 0.N.C. - and very informally - the Council, that 0.N.C. should keep the portion of its land needed for the company's expansion and sell the rest to the city for a park. It did not seem fair at this time to deny them the zoning needed to use the land. The general welfare also requires a rezoning from R--1. An R-1 zoning would allow housing to be built in an area that is totally unsuited for it. Housing should not be allowed immediately adjacent to a freeway. The high intensity noise and the pollution caused by automotive exhaust make freeways the world's worst next-door neighbors. Mr. Hopkins said it was true that people could be found who would be willing to live next to a freeway, but that did not justify the city approving of it. As long as the land is zoned for housing, there is a risk that a developer, interested only in profit, will build housing there. Mr. Hopkins felt that everyone could agree that the parcel should be rezoned, but same wondered if she new zoning should be L -M --S. It had been suggested that P -C zoning would be more appropriete, out P -C zoning seemed to be intended primarily where there were problems wihin some more conventional zone. This lot certainly was not a problem one, and a conventional L -M -S zoning was completely appropriate for the area because of the ease of access from the freeway. Mr. Hopkins observed that L -M--S zoning allowed uses that were acceptable to the neighborhood and consistent with good planning. The park expansion plan adopted by the city requires a very high berm immediately adjacent to this land, and this berm would mere than adequately buffer the park from the uses permitted by L -M- S. Furthermore, an office building as propoaed by 0.N.C. is compatible to the park without a buffer. On behalf of the Associations Mx. Hopkins urged Council to approve the requested rezoning from R- 1 to L -M -S. ?Mayor Sher reminded members of Council that they had to ccnsider this matter separately and distinctly from any considerations with regard to the Greer Park land purchase; and Mr. Gianville's memorandum to the Planning Commission makes it clear that the rezoning roust be considered on its own merits, irrespective of concern for Greer Park. MOTION: Councilman Borwald moved, seconded by Beahrs, that Council approve the application of 0.N.C. Freight Systems for a change of district of property known as 2850 West Bayshore Road from R-1 to L -M -S -D . 9 3 0 2/10/75 Mayor Sher asked Mr. Booth if it were appropriate to add the "D" to the L -M -S. Robert Booth, City Attorney, responded that this was entirely proper. Councilman Berwald stated that it did not give him any pleasure at all to overturn any Planning Commiteion recommendation, nor did he wish to violate any commitments that Council not consider this utter in concert with the application on the park. The fact of the matter, however, is that they are related even though Council had to consider then, independently. Councilman Berwald mentioned that during the Finance and Public Works Committee meeting, there was discussion about uaee of property adjacent to the park,; and without making commitments, Council members made state mentei to the effect that this would be a good use of the property. Uses of the property were considered when the Finance and Public Works Committee was discussing the park; and as Mr. Hopkins stated, this particular use of L-M--S-D was appropriate in that it would provide a buffer between the freeway and the park. The comment had been made that the city was not assured of any particular type of development under an L -M -S -D zoning. Councilman Berwald thought that was so with any zoning; but with the 1D" designation and review by the ARB, there were rather good built-in quality controls on the development. Mayor Sher clarified that Mr. Glanville's comments related to tying the zoning with the land purchase aspect and not necessarily to adjacent usage. Councilman Comstock noted that some trouble had been gone to in order to eliminate "D" suffixes, and that was done because it was felt that ARB procedures would accomplish the same things. He asked if, considering the confidence Council had in the ARB, a double process was not being brought into play by re-establishing the procedures involved in a "D" suffix. Mr. Knox responded that the "D" process applied at this time means that the project would not come before the ARB but would come before the Planning Commission for site and design review; but as members of Council know, there is in process an amendment to Chapter 16.48 which would assume that projects having a "D" suffthe would come before both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. Such projects would go first to the Planning Commission, then to the ARB, back to the Planning Commission, and then to Council. 'therefore, it is true that there would be some additional work for the applicant. Hr. Knox, noted that at the time Chapter 16.48 was enacted, the objective was to give all of the area between the Bayshore Freeway and Foothill Expressway to the purview of the Architectural Review Board; but to retain under the "D" district site and design review, certain more environmentally sensitive areas. This area tends to border on the Bayshore Freeway in, perhaps, an environmentally sensitive area; and Mr. Knox thought a case could be made for having the "D" designation so that in the future, if the ordinance to modify 16.48 is enacted, this matter would go before bah the Planning Coaemiasion and the Architecurai Review Board. In fact, the result would not be much different from the P -C approval process. Mr. Knox explained that the difference would be that the applicant would have in hand a guarantee of air; L -M zoning on his land, but he would basically go through the same process that a P -C applicant has to go through. Councilman Comstock understood Mr. Knox to be saying that the change to an L -M -S -D may not be accompanied by an immediate application for a building permit with the result that the land may be rezoned; sit for a while, and then subsequently, if there is an application for a building permit, the explained procedure would be gone through. 9 3 2/10/75 Mr. Knox clarified that if the L -M -S zone is applied without the "D", any time the owner of the property wished to develop it, he would go to the ARB with plans. Once the plant were approved, they would be forwarded to the Building Official; and he would grant the permit. That would be the end of the process. If the "D" is added, and if the applicant wanted to go forward with the development right now, he would go to the Planning Commission rather than the ARB. The Planning Commission would have to forward the plans to Council; therefore, the process would go through the Planning Commission and then the Council. A third example would be if the proposed revision of 16.48 is enacted, the applicant would go first to the Planning Commission, second to the ARE, third to the Planning Commission, and fourth to the City Council. Councilman Comstock mentioned that the first item on the agenda of the meeting of the Planning Commission on January 29th was the change in the PC development plan for the other property, which was approved by the Commission and referred to the ARS; and he asked if that would have to go back to the Commission. Mr. Knox responded that the item would have to go from the ARS to the Commission because in the case of a P -C zone, the plan is the zone; and the zone ie the plan. The Planning Commission has to have the last look at it so that they can make any desired modifications before forwarding -the recommendation to Council. Councilman Clay asked if, prior to the enaction of the provision to 16.48 and assuming the "D" designation were used, there would be Enything to preclude the ARB from being involved in the review process. Mr. Knox, explained that the process presently does preclude the ARB's involvement. The purpose was that there would be a separation of purviews so that the ARB and the Planning Commission would not duplicate efforts. The proposed revision would recognize there were certain areas where review by both bodies is probably in the best interest of the applicant, as well as the city. Those items referred to the "D'P design district, the P -C applications, and other than single family uses in the O -S district. Basically, those are the three areas that wosld be covered by a double review by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. CouncilmanoR Clay asked if the Planning Commission could involve the ARB. Mr. Knox said that technically, that is not correct. Under the present Chapter 16.48, Council can ask the ARS to review an item; but the Planning Commission is really an advisory group to Council and must look to Council for that kind of recommendation. Mrs. Brenner reported that the Planning Commission has been trying to work with the process that has been proposed but has not yet passed. Mayor Sher understood that if an applicant came in with a proposal under a "D" zone, and if it went to the Planning Commission, Council would be able to involve the ARB if it so desired. Vice Mayor Henderson as sussed that Councilman Berwald's interest in a "D°" designation was not to have the ARB excluded as would happen if the pi.an were coming in tomorrow, and that he was interested in having the matter reviewed by both bodies. 932 2/1O/7 Councilman Berwald stated that he thought this was a sensitive area, and the city had a proper interest in what developments occurred on the border of a park. He added that now that he had made the motion, he was somewhat concerned about the lengthy time that would be involved for the property owner; but he hoped staff would streamline the procedure as much as possible. Mayor Sher indicated his agreement with the motion. He considered R.-1 to be an inappropriate zoning for the property, and the applicant was entitled to have the zoning question settled. Mayor Sher was particularly encouraged by the statement that long range plans ware for the expansion of the O -N -C operation, and that the company was not in the rental business. The eotion passed on a unanimous vote. 447--473 Sheridan Avenue Tentative z �ndosinius Subdiv°isfon Map ��P.11P.1Y. 1.ication of Sheridan Develo meat Co. Mrs. Brenner noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application, and the plans had bean approved by the Architectural Review Board, with the conditions as listed by them, MOTION: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, that Council uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the application of Sheridan Development Company for a Tentative Condominium Subdivision Map (14 units) for property located at 447- 473 Sheridan Avenue, subject to conditions recorded in the Planning Commission minutes of January 29, 1975; and finds that no significant environmental impact will result from this action. Councilwoman Pearson noted that the applicant was asked to present a landscaping plan to the ARS, and they did not designate on the plan the trees that were already there. There was a lot of discussion about this by the ARE and in the Planning Commission minutes, but the trees were not mentioned in the landscaping plan or it the list of fourteen requirements. Councilwoman Pearson wanted to know how this had happened. Mrs. Brenner responded that there were a great many conditions, and she assumed this was an oversight.: Councilwoman Pearson stated that she wanted any trees to be saved that were not actually located where the buildings would be constructed. Mayor Sher asked Mr. Ltoz if it would be appropriate to add language to the effect that trees should be saved that do not interfere with a building. Mx. Knox thought the language would be appropriate as long as a clause would be included regarding not interfering with a building. The map had the ARB's std of approval, and he recalled there had been some discussion .s to which trees were to be preserved. AMENDMENT: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that a new condition be added that existing trees which to do not conflict with a building should be saved. Councilman Beahrs felt that it was important that the trees be proved to be healthy before application of the amendment. 933 2/10/75 Councilwoman Pearson reported that the Environmental Assessment indicated that the two trees, for which she had primary concern, were specimen trees and were healthy. The amendment passed on the following vote: 1 corrected see pg. 988 see pg. 988 1 AYES: 8erwald, Comstock Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs, C.ley Councilwoman Pearson pointed out that the Environmental Impact Report referred to the ambient noise around the project, and that construction should be such that the residents should not be inundated with noise from adjacent buildings. In particular, the equipment at Smith- Kline Instruments, Inc. created noise levels that were not acceptable. It seed to Councilwoman Pearson that Smith -Kline should be required to abate that noise to a reasonable level. Vice Mayor Henderson observed that the noise level was exceedingly high, and steps should be taken immediately under the ordinance to take cars of the problem. He commented that three of the seventeen conditions were taken out by the Planning Commission, and he asked why, in general, so many of the conditions had to be listed each time. It seeted to Vice Mayor Henderson, for instance, that conditions 5, G, and 7 ell would have to conform to standard City of Palo Alto specifications; and he asked if it were really necessary to include the long list of conditions each time an application was brought before Council. Mr. Knox referred to the Planning Commission minutes where Mr. Glanville indicates that there are three d+ffferent categories of conditions. One would be reminders to a subdivider of an ordinance with which he would have to apply, and that could be taken care of by letter. A second category would be those conditions which would not be in the purview of the A.RB or the Planning Commission. The third category would be those conditions which pertain strictly to the subdlvieion. It was Mr. Glaa.nville's plan in the future to bring up only those conditions that were required and the reasons for them. Mr. Knox thought that by the end of March, conditions would be restricted to those that were necessary and that were above and beyond itema already covered by state and local codes. Councils= Beehrs referred again to the trees that might be affected; and he pointed out that the Environmental Impact Report said nothing about the health of the trees, but only that they were well establiahed and could be easily mratained. Councilwoman Pearson noted that the EIR stated that there was a fine large pine tree. Councilman Berwald referred to the noise problem, and he had noticed that there had been a suggestion that perhaps the development could be moved toward the street in order to provide for some planting and screening in the back of the property. He asked if that had beam disclosed before the Planning Commission. lfrs. Brenner responded that the subject had been assessed by the Architectural Review Board, and the Planning Commission accepted that body's recommendations on this project. 934 2/10/75 Councilman Berwald felt it would be appropriate to make as a condition of approval that the noise level be ameliorated. Mr. Knox said that in reference to the State Code that requires noise insulation, both he and Mr. Booth felt that such a requirement need not be added to the conditions since that would juat add to the list of conditions which several people wanted to see shortened. In his opinion, the noise level really was covered; and the problem did not need special attention. As a matter of fact, the situation was already listed as condition 11. Councilman Berwald realized that it was, but he thouhht that might not ameliorate noise that was auteide the development. Councilwoman Pearson expressed concern over the elimination of all the conditions. They developed in the first place because Council wanted to be sure of aspects such as sidewalks, driveways, trees, undergrounding, etc. The list had become quite long because Council wanted to be sure that such things received proper attention, and she did not want to see the list disappear. It gave Councilwoman Pearson some comfort to know that the sidewali.a would be repaired after the developer has built his development, that the undergtounding would be in place, that the lighting would conform with the neighborhood, that certain trees would be protected, and so on. Therefore, she would like to see the entire list of conditions each time a development came before Council. Mr. Knox elucidated that staff's intention was to provide the list in the future in the form of a letter to the developer rather than es conditions for subdivision approval. The motion as amended passed on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Berwald, that Council direct staff to take steps to require that Smith -Kline Instruments, Inc. reduce the noise level emanating from its equipment to levels that would at least conform to the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Rezonin of Paber and iaumeister Tracts n an i teo County €zom Industrial Ztar:in o e source eat District of the as tee auato Ordinance .e IMMOMMEMISIIiia Mrs. Brenner reported that this matter was in response to a letter from the San Mateo County Planning Department suggesting e proposal to rezone the Faber Tract so that it would more nearly reflect its present designation by the City of Palo Alto. MOTION: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Norton, that Council uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission to endorse the rezoning of Palo Alto lands (Faber and Lsuseieter Tracts) in San Mateo County from industrial zoning to the Resource Management District of the San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance on the basis that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Open Space Brent of Palo Alto's General Plan, and so notify the County of San Mateo, Councilman Clay stated that without regard to the desirability of endorsing the mooning, he had some reservations about the action as proposed at this time. This matter has not been referred to 935 2/10/75 the East Palo Alto/Palo Alto Liaison Committee for discussion, and a comment was shade by staff at the Planning Commission meeting that there was a likelihood that this action might meet with some opposition. Councilman Clay realized that the land was not within the jurisdiction of East Palo Alto, but it was contiguous to East Palo Alto; and the purpose of the Liaison Committee was to discuss matters of such substance. It was Councilman Clay's opinion that endorsement should be deferred pending some discussion of the matter by the Liaison Committee. - SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Clay moved, seconded by Berwald, that endorsement of the rezoning of the Faber Tract be deferred pending discussion by the East Palo Alto/Palo Alta Liaison Committee. Councilman Berwald said he would vote for the substitute motion; and if it haled, he would abstain from voting on the main motion. At the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Carpenter asked if it were appropriate to take up a matter like this under Neu Business, without having it agendized. Commissioner Carpenter had noted that there was not a single member of the public present to &peak on the issue, and that made him wonder what else could be pushed through under New Business. Councilman Berwald did not argue with Attorney DeCuir's comment that this was the kind of an item that was within the Commission's discretion to do; however, he considered this to be an example of one-upmanship, and he did not like to see Palo Alto indulge in that kind of thing. Considering co on decency and neighborliness, Councilman Berwald asked if the people in East Palo Alto had been notified that this item was on the agenda. He planned to abstain from the wain motion on this account, because the city should do everything it could to be good neighbors with those in San Mateo. George Sipel, City Manager, responded that this matter was initiated by the County of San Mateo; and he assumed the county had been in touch with East Palo Alto about the subject. Mr. Sipel said he had not had any discussions with his counterpart in East Palo Alto, but he would be pleased to do so if Council desired it. In reference to the motion, Mr. Sipel noted that several days ago, the Mayor received a letter from Henry Anthony, the Mayor of East Palo alto, suggesting an informal joint meeting of the two Councils to discuss how Palo Alto could assist East Palo Alto with some of its economic problems. Council members would be receiving a letter from the Mayor asking each of them to suggest items for the agenda, and perhaps this item is an appropriate one for such an agenda. Mr. Sipel's feeling was that if the motion passes, he was not sure that staff would be very effective in any kind of discussions. The city's position is clear, and staff would be able to do nothing more than to communicate that position to the East Palo Alto staff. Perhaps it would be more effective if this matter were discussed by the legislative bodies of both jurisdictions. Mr. Knox reported that this matter cam to the city from San Mateo County asking for a response. The staff wrote a letter to the County stating that the rezoning would be in accordance with Palo Alto's plans, but that the city wanted to know more about the Resource Management District. On January Zth, Mrs. Crowder of the Planning Staff talked to Donald Craig of the Santa Clara County Planning Department, and he indicated that the County Planning Commission had set a Public Hearing regarding; the rezoning for April 9th. Mr. Craig added that it would be most helpful if Palo Alto could write in support of the zoning proposal, because some opposition was expected - especially in areas in the foothills. Further, Mr. Craig requested that the letter reach the County before the end 9 3 6 2/10/75 of January so that it could be included in the County Staff Report. Mr. Knox thought this was an item that staff should probably have gotten on the agenda. The matter was noticed by Mrs. Brenner and brought up under New Business at the Planning Commission meeting. There was no attempt to avoid having a public review of the rezoning or to avoid having it on the agenda. Mr. Knox pointed out Mr. Carpenter's count that in this instance, Palo Alto was not really acting as a city, but as an owner of property in another jurisdiction; and other owners -of property are also being contacted by San Mateo County with respect to their views. At the hearing on April 9th, Palo Alto - as an owner of property -Menlo Park, and the Municipal Council of East Palo Alto will all. -be able to make statements to the county regarding the appropriateness of Resource Management for the two parcels. Vice Mayor Henderson observed that he was very much in agreement with communication with East Palo Alto as often as possible on as many subjects as possible, but he did not urderstend what would be accomplished by the motion on the floor. Palo Alto has made a decision already that the property is to remain open, and he thought it would be a pretsnee to indicate there could be a debate as to whether Palo Alto wanted to leave the area M-1 or go along with the open space zoning. Councilman I3eahrs felt more comfortable as a result of Mr. Kn'igx's explanation of what had transpired. He thought Councilman Clay's motion was very ouch in order as a court:2sy; but on the other hand, he did not think that anything would ever occur to change Council's position on this matter. Councilman Beahrs asked what the city's tax coats were on the property. Mr, Sipel responded that the city wan taxed in accordance with the zoning. His guess was that the cost was fairly high; if the area was rezoned, there would be a reduction in the tax costs. Councilman Comstock thought a continuance would be of some value if there were some possibility for doing something other than what Palo Alto planned to do with the land. Representatives of the East Palo Alto community had been reminded on numerous occasions that the land in question is dedicated park land, and it could have its status changed only by a vote of the community. Also, the land in its present state is in no way suitable for any urban type development without extensive modification to the characteristics of the land itself. Further, there bas been pressure to restore the land to a status of bay marshes; and it is now, indeed, in that condition. Councilman Comstock felt certain that in a discussion, East Palo Alto would ask the same questions that it had in the past with regard to this area; and the answers from Palo Alto would be the same as they always had been. Councilman Cc tock's own assessment of the situation was that there were no prospects in the foreseeable future of that area being used as M-1 land, L -M, or for any kind of urban - development, Personally, he felt that it was to the better cause of mutual understanding, if not mutual happiness in some cases, to be forthright about that stand. Councilwoman Pearson suggested that sending this matter to the East Palo Alto/Palo. Alto Liaison Committee would result only in raising hopes on the part of East Palo Alto. She commented that she had no intention of voting Faber Tract over to East Palo Alto. Councilwoman Pearson remarked that she had read in the paper recently that Mayor Anthony had said that he and his community now recognized the value 9 3 7 2/10/75 of Faber Tract as a marsh, he no longer considered Faber Tract to be an issue, and he was not pushing for the Tract to be zoned for industry. Councilwoman Pearson thought Council should be very honest in this matter, and she would not support the substitute motion. Councilman Berwald wanted it to be understood that his earlier comments should be separated from the substitute motion. He was in favor of the kind of communication that involved mutual trust, understanding, and the willingness of communities to advise each other in advance of actions that would be taken. Councilman Clay stated that any time a staff member anticipated opposition from another community on a subject, that matter should be discussed among those who were interested. He had made his substitute motion without regard to the desirability of the zoning, but he aimply thought it provided for a better working environment when meetings could be gone into with open-mindedness and objectivity. If representatives of Palo Alto came out of such a meeting with the same conclusion they had when they went into the meeting, they would do so with the feeling that they had used good decision making processes. Councilman Clay did not agree that because some members of Council were certain there could be no modification in the zoning, that that was the feeling of everybody on both sides of the fence. Therefore, he strongly recommended a meeting, He said he would be willing to change his motion to include the possibility of having the matter discussed at a joint meeting of the two legislative bodies, if such a meeting were to take place. SUBSTITUTE MOTION RESTATED: Councilman Clay moved, seconded by Berwald, that endorsement of the rezoning of the Faber Tract be deferred pending discussion by the Seat Palo Alto/Palo Alto Liaison Committee and/or the legislative bodies of the two communities. corrected see pg. 988 Mayor Sher did not agree with anything Councilmen Berwald and Clay had said about the desirability of this kind of communication; on the other hand, he agreed with what Councilmen Henderson, Comstock, and Councilwoman Pearson had said about holding out false hopes that this matter was an open question. Mayor Sher thought it was important for the city to get its communication on record in connection with this rezoning in San Mateo County, particularly in view of the fact that it may have some impact on the taxation of the parcel. Council policy has long been established on this subject, and the Park Ordinance indicates what use is appropriate for the Faber Tract. Mayor Sher recalled that within the last month, Council voted to amend the Yacht Harbor Lease to state specifically that the Faber Tract could not be used for dredgings from the Yacht Harbor. He indicated his willingness to have the matter listed on the agenda as an information item in connection. with the joint meeting between the two Councils. The substitute motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Beshrs, Berwald, Clay, Norton NOES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahra, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Clay ABSTAIN: Berwald 938 2/10/75 Resolution of Intention to Call e ms- Bari777771777177777fon Mayor Sher said that a memorandum from staff suggested that the certification of sufficiency of petition is not yet completed, and staff recommended that this matter he continued. MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Pearson, that the resolution in regard to Barron Park annexation be continued. Councilman Beahrs asked how much the special election would cost and who would pay for its Mr. Sipel responded that it was his recollection that the city would pay for it. Councilman Beahrs asked why the county would not pay for the election. Mr. Sipel replied that he would get that information for Councilman Beahrs. The motion to continue passed on a unanimous vote. Lt lutiot;, a General :is..ic I� or� sv_ 13. 1975 MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Comstock, its adoption: I' T ON NO. 51366 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL 0 : CITY OF PALO ALTO REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TO PERMIT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO ASSIST THE CITY CLERK IN THE CONDUCT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND ANY SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MAY 13, 1975" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. ce Re ardin Public �} s� MOTION: Councilman Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Berwald, its adoption: ORDIN NCA R60 An itled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM" The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous vote. Councilman Berwald left the meeting at 9:47 p.m. and did not return. 9 3 9 2/10/75 Ted Noguchi, Traffic Engineer, reported that staff had been working with the county staff and Los Altos to get the expressway opened up to bicycle travel; and the staff report before Council was a culmination of that effort. The results of the meetings with the various staffs and the input from the advisory committees were used to formulate the .final compromise agreement for modified bike lane standards. Mr. Noguchi showed a slide to depict the project link as described in the staff report. The link extends from El Camino Tteal all the way to Old Page Mill Road in the east/weet direction, and from Page Mill Expressway to Magdalena Avenue in the north/south direction. The county's proposal is to extend the link to Edith Avenue in Los Altos; however, there is some disagreement at the present time as to exactly where the southerly terminus of the expressway opening should be. Apparently, the City of Los Altos staff supports limiting the link to Edith Avenue; and that is what has been presented to Council. The Palo Alto section would extend from the city Iiaait line northward to the Page Mill Expressway. Staff's position is that the city should support the county's efforts in the opening of Foothill Expressway, which is presently without provision for bicycles; and county staff is insistent on providing bike lanes on Page Mill Expressway, although the Bikeways Committee and staff do not tend to agree with that conclusion. In view of going ahead with the project; however:, staff recommends that Council approve both the agreement and the ordinance. Vice Mayor Henderson commented that although it was always satisfying to find one's New Buf;itpeea item come to fruition, he was a little disappointed that county staff could not agree with city staff and with Palo Alto's Technical Advisory Board. As Mr. Noguchi pointed out, staff and the Board both feel that the striping and reflectors on Foothill Expressway are exceasive; and they recommended against the Page Mill road bike lane. Some modification was trade in that one set of markers 4as replaced on the auto traffic side of the lane strips. In studying Exhibit (2), Vice Mayor Henderaon came to the conclusion that there were thirty -;six inches of stripes and markers; and those thirty-six inches were made up of a four -inch marker, a two -Inch space, a six-inch white stripe, a two-inch space, another four -inch marker, a twelve -inch apace, a two-inch white stripe, a two-inch space, and another two-inch white stripe. All but about six inches of that takes place within what is show as en eight -foot wide bicycle lane, which would leave about -five and one-half to six feet of bicycle lane free of any markers or stripes. Vice Mayor Henderaon asked if his conclusions were correct. Mr. Noguchi responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Henderson stated that he liked the bike lanes that had been put in recently on Juniper° Serra Boulevard, and he thought they should be extended on Foothill Expressway; however, he was very grateful that the county was willing to create bicycle lasses on Foothill Expressway and had i.nc:icated its desire to do so very soon. The county had promised to review the situation, and it Was with thanks to the county personnel involved for wanting to proceed with creating the lank that Vice Mayor Henderson made his motion. MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that Council authorize Mayor Sher to execute the Bikeway Agreement with the County of Santa Clara; approve the following ordinance for first reading and declare a negative environmental impact: 9 4 0 2/10/75 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING SECTION 10.32.050 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT PEDESTRIAN AND OTHER USES OF THE FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY; Councilman Beahra expressed concern about the safety elements and the apparent differences between the city's identification of bike lanes and those eropo.ed by the county. He asked if there were any hope for eventual uniformity of all bike lane systems. Mr. Noguchi responded that the state is in the process of developing uniform standards for bike lanes, but this had not yet come to pass on an official basis. Some standards had beet produced which may be adopted soon. ?gar. Noguchi said that the standards shown on Exhibit (2) are somewhat consistent with Pelo Alto's system where the markers are on the outside of the bike lane stripe, although the line is six inches wide and white in color. The six-inch white stripe will probably be adopted on a state wide basis. Councilmen Beahra said it appeared to hiss that a state-wide standard was being approached, and Palo Alto would be the only city in violation of it. Alan Forkosh, 314 College Avenue, supported the ides:; of allowing bicycles on Foothill Expressway. With regard to the county plan, Mr. Forkosh noticed there was a change in the pavement markers. The original plan called for markers that would be something like the ones on Juni`er° Serra Boulevard, which were very rough on a bicycle; and he asked for some clarification. Mr. Noguchi explaine.a that the county had proposed two types of markers. One of these was the type now installed on Junipero Serra Boulevard. The other one was circular in shape and similar to those used in Palo Alto, except there was a small reflective window built into the circular pattern. Mr. Noguchi recalled that the committees supported the circular marker rather than the tjpe used on Junipero Serra Boulevard. Mr. Forkoai: referred to the various proposals for bicycle movement at Intersections, and he had heard that bicyclists would be expected to be on the far aide of an intersection rather tan on the near side. Hr. Noguchi responded that the proposal shown on the report would have bicyclists use the near side and veer away from right -bend traffic. Hr. Forkosh said this meant that a bicyclist would have to veer right into traffic at a ninety -degree angle without being able to gee the automobiles in advance. Mr. Noguchi commented that the Citizens Technical Advisory Committee in Palo Alto and the Los Altos Bikeways Committee favored the approach that brought the bike lane directly across to the islands rather than following the right turn lane and coming back out at some angle. Mr. Forkosh considered the arrangement to be a dangerous one. He added that his own preference would be fcr striping and no reflectors. Also, with regard to Page Mill Road, Mr. Forkosh supported Palo Alto's position because he saw no need at at all for reflectors. He said he would appreciate it very much if Palo Alto would pursue whether or not a leas obnoxious form of bike lanes could be adopted for Page Mill Road. 1 9 •. ' 2/10/75 George Oetzel, 4090 0rme Avenue, Secretary of the Citizens Technical Advisory Committee, stated that the Committee favored opening Foothill Expressway to bicycles. In view of the fact that the county had indicated willingness to be experimental about the striping, perhaps it would be just as well to go ahead; but Mr. Oetzel thought that a statement to the effect that Palo Alto thought it was excessive would be appropriate. Referring to Mr. Forkosh's concern, Mr. Oetzel explained that wherever there was a right -turn lane a bicyclist must cross, the bicyclist had the best chance of avoiding conflict with traffic if the lanes were marked in such a way to make it clear that the bicyclist has the option to either go into the right -turn lane for a little way or to merge across it a long way ahead. The bicyclist is,not forced to cross traffic at the last passible minute. This means he can be in the crossing area for a relatively long time with a velocity much different from the automobiles, Mr. Oetzel thought the lane markings contemplated for the far side of an intersec- tion where there would be cars merging on to the ;xpressway were the kind that would indicate that the bicyclist is expected to cross the acceleration lane early. Mr. Oetzel. urged Council to pass the m:.,tion and make some comments to the county to the effect that the striping was excessive. John Forester, 782 Allen Court, stated that recently good research studies had been made by inc,epsndent scientists, funded by the State Office of Traffic Safety. The studies indicated that the main reasons for collisions between bicycles and automobiles occurred whither or not there were bike lanes; and in same cases, bike lanes increased the number of accidents. It was Mr. Forester's belief that a system of bike lanes would improve .5% of one kind of collision but would aggravate 57% of other kinds of collisions. Mr. Forester said it was known at this time that there is no engineering possibility that bike: lanes would reduce car/bicycle collisions; on the other hand, there was the distinct possibility that bike lanes increase car/bicycle collisions. This is particularly true where bicyclists would be riding at a fast speed, and Council was talking about roads where the bicyclists would be able to go quite fast. Mr. Forester's opinion was that if Council valued the safety of the citizens of Palo Alto, it would reject the County's efforts to put bike lanes on Page Mill Road. With regard to Foothill Expressway, Mr. Forester reiterated his opinio': that bike lanes do not produce safety but create danger. Councilman Beahrs stated his agreement with Mr. Forester, and he asked tf any progress had been made toward a national standard of simply requiring a bicyclist to obey the rules of the road just as any other vehicle would. Mr. Forester said the Bicycle Subcommittee of the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances recommends that bicycles be defined as vehicles, and much of their effort was being put into taking care of the insurance problems arising from that kind of definition The Committee states that the best thing for a cyclist to do is to behave as much like a motorist as possible. Councilman Beahrs hoped that some day Council would see the wisdom of the views presented by Mr. Forester. Ellen Fletcher, 3543 Greer Road, representing the Citizens Technical Advisory Committee on Bikeways, reported that the Committee unanimously and enthusiastically supported opening up the Foothill Expressway to bicyclists. The majority of those on the Committee were in favor of bike lane markings on Foothill Expressway in the modified version. He. Fletcher urged Council approval of the motion. 942 2/10/75 Councilman Beahrs stated that he would always vote against anything which he considered to be a death trap. The motion passed and the ordinance was approved for first reading on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs Absent: Berwald, Clay, Norton Councilwoman Pearson thought that the county should be notified that Council did not feel very comfortable with the lanes on Page Mill Road, was not happy with the reflectors that were causing bicycle accidents, and that Council did not lake having the reflectors so close together. Emphasis should be placed on the idea that the markings were considered to be subject to change. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Comstock, that the comments of the ,Bike Committee and comments in the minutes of this meeting with regard to the bike lanes be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors through the Mayor. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs ABSENT: Berwald, Clay, Norton Zud et lie nest: So �Bar� DT cF.argers ut ority TCNR:153:5) Vice Mayor Henderson explained that this was an administrative budget which supports the Authority itself, including the governing board and staff personnel, who are employees of the City of San Jose, in devoting part time to this project. The Governing Board consists of five Council members: two from San Jose, one from Sunnyvale, one from Santa Clara, and one from Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Henderson stated that the group was conservative on fiscal matters, and he thought the budget reflected that attitude since itwas down nearly twenty percent fro last year. There had been a number of times over the past year when Vice Mayor Henderson wondered if the entire project might not collapse, and he sometimes thought that might have been a good thing, The reed tape, the changing of requirements, and the indecision by state and federal agencies had been unbelievable. The Authority was told it must do something, yet every attempt was met with frustrating delays. Finally, last week, the original study that had resulted in the South Bay Dischargers Authority and the Phase I work on the pipeline received approval for federal funding; and approximately $560,000 has been granted. This cash will provide working capital for the next stage without having to ask the cities for more funding, and the appropriate state bodies had agreed that the next stage should proceed. Vice Mayor Henderson reported that there was soma feeling on the part of the Authority, expressed principally by Santa Clara, that the whole concept of having the pipeline running from San Jose to Palo Alto to a discharge point north of the Dumbarton 4 4 3 2/10/75 corrected see pg. 988 Bridge should be -reconsidered. The question was being asked as to whether there were other ways to meet the discharge standards and also make reclamation possible. Staff engineers from the various cities have responded negatively to this question since any other solution would cost far in excess of the pipeline, not in terms of capital costs, but in terms of very high operating costs. Vice Mayor Henderson explained that it was not a problem of the pipeline, per se; but it is one of establishment by the state of extremely high standards for affluence coming into the south bay water; and the pipeline is the best method, financially, of meeting the standards. Further abatement studies are in progress, and it may yet turn out that the standards will be changed to ;make a solution other than the pipeline more attractive. This is being watched very closely by the Authority, especially the technical personnel, including Edward Aghjayan and Ray Remmel of Palo Alto. MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Beahrs, that Council approve the budget submitted by the South Bay Dischargers Authority and direct the city staff to include an expenditure of $1,500 from the sewer fund in the 1975-75 Annual Budget for Palo Alto's share of the administrative budget. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. (Berwald, Clay, Norton - absent) thouse Councilman Comstock referred to his letter to Council members with regard to the county property near the North County Courthouse and its potential for the Housing Land Bank. He re.,alled that Council had referred this subject to the Housing Corporation and other bodies for comment and review, and the Housing Corporation felt the county should be approached as to the availability of the property. MOTION: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, that the Mayor be authorized to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking if the county might consider making the parcel of land that was discussed at the Council meeting of February 3, 1975 available to the city. Mayor Sher asked Councilman Comstock to clarify what he meant by having the land made available to the city, since this seemed to incorporate an assumption that the city was ready to take some definite action; and Mayor Sher did not think this was what Councilman Comstock intended. Councilman Comstock explained that a contact needed to be renewed at a level that might attract the interest of the Supervisors, but he did not intend that Palo Alto ask the county to sell the land to the city at some specific date. The blousing Corporation felt this additional parcel created a more desirable overall possibility; therefore, they would give it a higher priority level in the work that they were doing. Mayor Sher indicated his willingness to support the motion if the letter were written to state that the city was simply looking for information, end no decision had been weds on this end. Councilman Comstock agreed that this we* the intent of they motion ao that it could be determined if there would be en opportunity to analyze this possibility ev well as the way the parcels are presently available. 9 4 (4 2/10/75 The motion passed on a unanimous vote. (Berwald, Clay, Norton - abeert) Councilwoman Pearson' & Re•uest for a report oncern .r.�t torcyc a Noise Councilwoman Pearson had noted that someone in the Assembly was proposing legislation which would enable motorcyclists to modify motorcycles so that they would make quite a lot of noise. She pointed out that this was contrary to Palo Alto's noise ordinance, and Councilwoman Pearson wanted Council to go on record as being opposed to the assembly bill. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Comstock, that staff be directed to look into this matter and report back to Council as soon es possible regarding the proposed legislation on motorcycle noise. The notion passed on a unanimous vote. (Berwald, Clay, Norton - absent) Councilwoman Pearson reported there was another piece of legislation being introduced with regard to the fact that the Public Utilities Commission does not hold public hearings, and she would like Palo Alto to support that. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson .;,oyes], seconded by Comstock, that staff look into this matter and report back on how Council can support the legislation regarding the P.U.C. holding public hearings. Councilman Beahrs thought that all, of the other Commissions should hold public meetings, if the Public Utilities Commission would be required to do so. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Comstock, Henderson, Pearsos, Rosenbaum, Sher ABSTAIN: Norton ABSENT: Berwald, Clay 'am In Pearson re MTC Public Meetin 1•411 Councilwoman Pearson announced that the Metropolitan Transportation Commdttee was going to mold a public meting at Palo Alto High School on February 20 at ':30 p.m., regarding revision of the. Regional Transportation Plan. This would be a good opportunity for comments about Dumbarton Bridge and any other suggestions that might be discussed. 945 2/10/75 1 1 Councilwoman Pearson's Re uest re Ina ortat on o ater roli t e an a p8 ana ar Councilwoman Pearson reported that there are three dates set for public hearings on the proposed improvements and costs of importation of water into the Santa! Clara Valley. The plans included the San Felipe project, which this Council want on record as opposing. Datea when meetings are scheduled are February 26th, March 5th, and March 25th. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson taoveld, seconded by Comstock, that staff be directed to prepare an analysis and critique of the importation of water into the Santa Clara Valley through the San Felipe Canal. Mr. Sipel stated that Council should be aware that this kind of study is very time consuming, and he estimated that it would require one hundred to one hundred and fifty person hours of work. In his opinion, that was a large assignment to give to a staff that was presently burdened with a number of projects. Mr. Sipel recognized the importance of the project, but added it was not possible to take on new assignments when a different constituency was afeking that the number of people on staff be reduced. Mayor Sher asked if there were other analyses that had been done which could be forwarded to Council. Mr. Sipel re:.ponded that he would look into that possibility. Councilman Beahrs asked the term of Palo Alto's contract with the City of San Francisco. Mr. Sipel said the agreement was a very long term one, and he would get the exact period for Councilman Beahrs. Councilwoman Pearson pointed out that the Santa Clara County Rater Conservation District is busily working with Hetch-Het:chy an the San Francisco Water Company in an effort to get complete control of the purchase of water. if they waged this* Palo Alto and any other city that purchased water from Hatch -Tetchy would not have to go through the San Francisco District but would go directly to the Santa Clara Water District. Palo Alto city staff opposes that maneuver, and Councilwoman Pearson hoped that Council would also oppose that kind of an effort on the part of the Santa Clara Water District. She informed Council members that presently Santa Clara County had to go to the State legislatere when it wanted to raise its rates, but Santa Clara was trying to have that control removed. The whole project being developed for the importation of water would cost Sant* Clara Valley people fifty-five million dollars. This project vas growth inducing, and it would have a treaaendoua impact en Palo Alto and all of the Santa Clara Valley. With regard to staff having the tine to analyze the entire FIR, Councilwoman Pearson noted that there was a resume that had been put out; and the Sierra Cleb had dote an extensive study on the San Felipe project. It was expected that each city in Santa Clara County would look at this proposal and the importation of water and state some position to the Water Commission. faryor Sher stated he would vote against the motion. He would have been in favor of having documents on the subject collected and referred to Council, 9 4 6 2/10/75 The motion, passed on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Rosenbaum, Pearson NOES: Beahrs, Clay, Sher urai Go1aunicstiona None. Cancellation of Council Meet+ns of February 18 MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Comstock, that the City Council meeting of February 18 be oance.11ei. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. SA9cutive Session Council net in Executive Session from 10:10 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. to discuss litigation and personnel matters. er e:!t The meeting Of February 1.0, 1975, adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: Ci 9 4, 7 2/10/75 APPROVE: 1