Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05151972MINUTES city of palo alto May 15, 1y?2 The Council of the City of Pajo Alto i -. a=: 7.is date at 7:35 p.m. in regular meetii: ; wkch 4 :-4.•yr r `caeca p e. si_c f.ng , Present: A�,nt ;?..17;;i +-:i .'.4`ri?t; V117, :. . s .., ekk, He Berson, Norton, Minutes of MavADOMMISIOCONOWOOr t a Councilman Mender on referree to Page _ti!;t:telce, and stated that the : Ord_, "Plan A" -`.',;..;1d ce e•. Itcd and epiacc_-= Ath the words !`Exhibit B." Minh ;:j' .�: car:._:: :c--.tra; • ._ ri the word "stmt it1=;" si?i uld r t==, be1ng paid to an outside firm wher. City and no commission is involved. P fie r-(i. I.: cond paragraph, regarding the phrase beginning with ...`at lys he objected to a fee blue Cross works directly with the 11 Councilman Henderson requested that the following be added to Kent Dedrick's statement on Page 68, under West Bay Associate's suit: "He spoke of new developments and the resulting urgency for the City to obtain information." Vice Mayor Norton referred to Page 61 and noted the suggestion from Mrs. 5ll erling that in the second paragraph, after the aaotion, in the last line, that the word "utilizing" be changed to read "preserving". The minutes of May 1, 1972 were approved with additions and corrections. Reclassification of Pro ert Arastra ero Road Councilman Henderson referred to agenda item 13, the proposal of Ehrlich, Heft Rominger for a reclaasificatien of property at 574 Arastradero Road. He said it was his feeling that substantially all the Council should be present to vote on this important matter and it was his intent to move this matter forward at this time in order to continue it and thus let those citizens interested in the item know now that the matter will be continued rather than having to wait unt$l the end of the meeting for such continuance. MOTION: ' nmci)a n Henderson moved, seconded by Pearson, that item 13 be brought forward at this time for the purpose of continuance. The motion was passed unanimously on a voice vote with Councilman Semen abstaining. MOTION: Councilman' Henderson Loved, seconded by Pearson, that item 13, Reclassification of Property at 574 Arastradero Road, be moved backwards to follow Oral Communications on this evening's agenda. g 4 5/15/72 Vice Mayor Norton explained that the intent of the motion is to adjourn this evening's meeting after Oral Communications and item 13 will appear as the first item on the May 22 agenda as the end of the May 15 adjourned meeting. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote with Councilman Seman abstaining. Standby Emergency Council. Vice Mayor Norton aivised that at previous Executive meetings of the Council a number of names of previous Councilmen had been submitted with a view to updating the Emergency Standby Council which is designed to take over the City's business in the event of any civil disaster befalling the City. If one member of the Existing Council is unable to perform his duties, a standby Councilman will be appointed to fill that vacancy. Nine members have ben selected as alternates (in no particular order of preference). MOTION: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Seman, to approve the appoint- ment of a Standby Council in accordance with. the Civil Defense and Disaster Ordinance as follows: Edward V. Arbuckle Edward S. Arnold Robert J. Debs Philip S. Flint Frank (lied) Gallagher The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. A lication for Variance - C ajon �;ay Raymond F. Rohrs Byron D. Sher C. Grant Spaeth Jack R. Wheatley Mr. Louis J. Fourcroy-, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the appeal of Karl 3. and Jo Ann L. Schmidt fro , the decision of tht Zoning Administrator to deny an application for a variance at 903 El Cajon Way subject to the condition that the front setback -of this property be es- tablished at 23 feet rather than the 20 feet presently required under the existing Zoning Ordinance, subject to the condition that the appli- cant file a document satisfactory to the City Attorney to that effect. Vice Mayor Norton asked if the document referred to would limit the variance to the lifetime of the building rather than be perpetual. City Attorney Stone replied that if Council wishes that to be fact, it could be done. Otherwise the variance would not be for the life of the building, but would be attached to the property as such. See Page 143 AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Henderson, that among the provisions in the document to be recorded there .‘')e a condition or provision that the variance be granted only for the 'lifetime of the building in such language as the City Attorney feels Appropriate. Counci'. an Pearson stated she had to objection to the amendment, but noted that some time ago the Council had asked the staff and the Planning Commission to consider what they could do to help single family residents g5 5/15/72 to be allowed to do more with their property than they are now allowed to do, particularly in the older area of Palo Alto. She commented that nothing has happened so far and she wondered where that assignment now stands. Mr. Pourcroy replied that this has been a matter before the Planning Commission, but noted that it is basically a legal matter. Mr. Stone stated that if Ccuncil wishes to pursue that kind of matter with respect to inserting it into an ordinance so that it can be done regularly, his office will respond to that assignment. Discussion followed with Vice Mayor Norton commenting that the assign- ment was the intent of an earlier Council and the Attorney's Office is now reminded of this assignment and perhaps in a reasonable time will have a response for Council. Councilman Clark asked why it is possible to put this in with a stipula- tion that the variance goes only for the life of the building and not: with the property when previously, Council had been under the impres- sion that they could not make it for the life of the building only. Mr. Stone explained that the ordinance, as it now exists, states that a variance and use perruit are transferable unless otherwise stated. He said that in his opinion, with the consent of the applicant, a variance can be granted for the life of a particular building. Discussion followed regarding previous requests with Mr. Stone responding that if the question presented is "Does the ordinance at this time allow the Council to limit to a period of time, other than the period of time of ownership, a particular.variance?", the answer is "No, unless the property owner would consent and present a recordable document." The amendment to the motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. ,The motion as amended passed u:.ianimouely on a voice vote. Miscellaneous Division of Land - an rats a venue Mr. Louis J. Pourcroy, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Planning Commission's ection and recommendation for approval of the application of Michael Arnold for a miscellaneous division of land on property located at 4303 and 4307 Miranda Avenue. Councilman Henderson noted that the proposed resolution did not list all conditions of the Planning Commission. MOTION: -Councilman Henderso . moved, seconded by Berwald, to add to the -'resolution the condition that there be an•8 foot sideyard created by, removal of 7 feet oh -the north side of the exlating house on parcel 2. Vice Mayor Norton staled the Council would hear from the applicant at this time. Nr. Michael Arnold, 4303 Miranda, explained to the Council that it was his intent to remodel the house in five years and not to tear it darn. He stated he would remove 7 feet from the house in order to keep the 8 foot setback, 8 6 5/15/72 After a brief discussion by Council and Planning Commission staff, it was determined the remodeling will effect an 8 foot setback and Lhat the parcel map will not be final until the 7 foot removal has been accomplished to meet the required setback, which wousi be done in the next five years. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. MOTION: Councilman Berwald introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Henderson, its adoption as amended: Resolution No. 4592 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City- cif Palo Alto Approving a Miscellaneous Division of Land for Property Known as 4303 and 4307 Miranda Avenue and Granting an Exception to Depth Requireoents for One Parcel, Subject to Conditions" The resolution, as amended, was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. Miscellaneous Division of Land - '1ort eastN omen o as dow Drive an J East Mea ow iircle� Mr. Fourcroy, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Planning Commission's action and recommendation for approval of Cali- fornia Pacific Commercial Corporation's application for a miscellaneous division of land of property located at the northeasterly corner of East Meadow Drive and East Meadow Circle, MOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the application of Richard B. Madigan foe California Pacific Commercial Corporation for a miscellaneous division of land of property located at the northeasterly corner of Fast Meadow Drive and East :Meadow Circle subject to the condi- tions recorded in the Planning Commission minutes of May 3, 1972. Councilman Berwald noted that the lots abut on Adobe Creek and partially on Barron Creek. He stated, for the record, that he thought the City had made a mistake in setting up subdivisions that intrude upon the Creeks, thus forcing the provision of easements to the Flood Control people to maintain the Creeks. He added it would be his hope that the staff and the Planning Commission, in their Comprehensive Plan, will make it clear that no additional intrusions will be made on waterways in Palo Alto. The motion passed on a majority voice vote. Open Space District Regulations Hr. Pourcroy, Director of Planning and Ccrmuni.ty4)evelopment, briefly reviewed the Planning Com iszion`s action and recommendations, noting that the ordinance and report before.Council were unanimously recommended by the Planning -Commission, plus an additiri►al recomMendation having to do with additional actions. Vice Mayor Norton stated he thought_it was appropriate to.point out to the audience that lengthy reports have been submitted to Council on this item. He said it,was also important for all to realize that the proposal before the Council is not to zone any pUrticular property, but to adopt a new chapter to the Zoning Ordinance which will give the City one wore zoning district, i.e.,.Open Space, 'With the view that at scmk future date the Open Space Zone will be applied to specific properties. 8 5/15/?2 Councilman Pearson referred as follows to the proposed ordinance: (1) Page 5, number 2, Tree Removal. She asked for an explanation of the references to Title 8, its contents and restrictions; (2) Page 5, num- ber 4, Access to Remote Areas. She read the second paragraph and re- quested clarification as to the removal of roads found to be nonconfcrm- ing and the method of determining such nonconformance, and the need for a permit; (3) Page 6, number 7, Subdivision. She read this section. She asked what this does to owners of very largo parcels of land and asked whether a cluster development could be put on 10 acres. In response to (1) Tree Removal and reference to Title 8, City Attorney Stone replied that Title 8 is the Title which includes two Chapters and has to do with street trees, shrubs and plants and with respect to weed abatement. The street trees, shrubs and plants have to do with matters respecting trees owned or maintained by the City; weed abatement speaks for itself. He stated that prior to the time that the ordinance before Council tonight comes into effect, and prior to the time that it is effec- tive with respect to any particular piece of property, a new Chapter will have been added to Title 8 if the Council so desires, and that would be the tree preservation ordinance. The provisions of that particular Chap- ter will be applicable to the ordinance before Council tonight. (2) Access_ to Remote Areas, Mr. Stone explained that the ordinance provides, in es- sence, that the owners of presently existing roads, tracts, etc., would have to terminate them unless they came in with site and design approval, which really is required for all of the ingress and egress under this ordi- nance. He stated it has been inserted into the ordinance because it is staff feeling that an old road is not necessarily a good road, nor is it necessarily an environmental advantage, and staff believes that all roads should meet with design requirements and criteria which are set up. He added if Councildoes not want to do this it can be deleted from the ordi- nance. Hr. Fourcroy commented that basically the idea involved in the thrust of the ordinance is to move in the direction of achieving substantial open space in the foothills that is not ail cluttered up with roads and the devises of roan. He said it seemed appropriate that a variety of roads running around the foothills not become an established and ongoing situ- ation. He commented there will have to be a positive program of evalu- ating all roads there, and noted that this section provides for a review of the situation and a means of bringing the road system that exists under control. In reply to question (31.Subdivisions, Mr. Fourcroy replied that a 10 acre parcel would have one house on it and the section regarding Subdivisions basically would apply to 40 acre or more parcels.' In response to question from Conncilman Pearson regarding Planning Com- mission's recommendation (B) on the Trails and Paths System, Mr. Fourcroy replied that people should be aware there are adopted policies that pro- vide for a trail system and it the City's policy to achieve those trails through the foothills. Vice Mayor Norton referred to a communication received from aproperty owner in the upper foothills, Mrs. Ina R. Dahl, which basically states that she does not oppose open space, but that she has an extreme hard- ship situation and urges the Council to purchase her land immediately. He asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on this eubject. Councilman Berwald raised the question of relief to property owners in the way of taxes or assessments. Discussion followed with Mr. Stone advising that his office has been following very closely the open space 8 8 5/15/72 legislation at the State level. He noted that Council has an item before them this evening regarding very important open space legislation wfit& will allow cit_iea to have the flexibility which is really monda- teiy If everyone is serious about the preservation of open space with- out doing damzgy to the property owner. He stated his office will be tacking to the County Assessor about his assessment practices and they want hip: to be aware of what this ordinance would do and erhat .its effect would be, so that his assessment practices would hopefully have some relationship to reality. He stated his office will be reporting,to Council next week on certain aapects of the Williamson Act, and noted there is new legislation now on the books which is just being imple-•. mented at this time concerning'subventlon - tax revenue lost as a reeti t of Williamson Act contracts. Vice Mayer Norton noted he hoc,. a request from a member of the audience who wished to speak to this item. Frank Crist, Jr., 1400 Byron Street, stated represented Mr. Harry Beyer who owns 22 acres in the foothills. He stated that the key question is whether the City Is going to pay the property owners for any .iintttution of property value that can occur to the property. He stated they were talking about some 2200 acres belonging to 17 property owners, and from 7.5 to 12.5 million dollars in terms of loss to property owners. He questioned if the City is asking 17 property owners to foot the bill as opposed to 50,000 residents, or do those residents, as citizens, want to pay for the privflege of open space. He referred to Governmen Code 465912 which states "The Legislature hereby advises and declares that this article (the open space article) is not intended and shall not be construed as autheri!ing the City or County to exercise its power to adopt, amend or repeel an open apace zoning ordinance in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use wiehout the payment of just compensation." In response to Councilman Henderson as to the definition of loss of value to property owners, Mr. Grist referred to Mr. Beyers' situation and stated it is a question of fair value which can be appraised out. NOTION: Councilman Pearson introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Henderson, its approval for first reading: "Ordinance of the Council of the Cit•' of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 18.71 (0-S Open Space District Regulations,/to the Palo Alto Municipal Code" In response to a request from Cauncilman Clark for clarification of pas- sage of this ordinance, Mr. Stone explained that passing of the ordinance would merely create a zoning district category which would be imposed on any piece of property deemed appropriate by''Coencil under rezoning criteria. Mr. Stone stated he would like to respond briefly to some of the comments made by Mr. Crist. He said that in citing Government Code 65912 Mr. Crist neglected to read the last sentence which states that the section is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California or the United States. In other words, he said this is a zoning ordinance as any other zoning ordinance. The Council is free to upzone of downzone whatever is in the best interests of public health, safety and welfare. He commented that downzoning is hardly anything new in concept or practice. He said that his office has re.vearched all utters concerning this ordinance meticu- lously and very carefully, and they see no problem with it in the abstract. Of coursa, he stated, when it comes to a .particular piece of _property appro- priate comments will he 'made at that time respecting each particular piece 89 5/15/72----- of property. He noted that in their research, his office had looked at perhaps 40 to 50 other open space type zoning ordinances, at least half of which have lot sizes at least 10 acres, and some more, many of which are comparable to the Palo Alto situation. The ordinance was approved for first reading on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Berwald, Clark, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sewan Noes: None MOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson; that: a) the City Council recommends that all private lands zoned for open space ("F" and "0-S" flood plain and open space, respectively) be eligible to receive the benefits of the Williamson Act at the discretion of the property owner; b) the City Council direct the staff to reorder its priorities and to begin acquisition of the land for, and ioprove the trails ard paths system in the foothills, in conjunction with policies adopted in 1969; c) the City Council direct the staff to initiate a reassessment of the water, gas and sewer assessments that have been levied on the foothills properties; d) the City Council direct the staff to make a complete aerial photo survey of the entire foothills as close as possible to the effec- tive date of the application of the open space ordinance, and that subsequent periodic resurveys be scheduled to update the informa- tion contained therein; e) the City Council direct the staff to include in its next budget a geologic consultant to advise the staff with regard to imple- mentation of the open space ordinance and applications whi,'h may arise under it. AMENDMENT: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Clark, to add another item to the above, that City staff be asked to report to the Council its assessment of the financial impact on the rezoning of representative properties and to advise the Council of eossible ways in which the City may ameliorate any possible financial impact on the property owners as a result of this action. In response to question from Councilman Rosenbaum, City Manager Sipel said he had no way to judge the financial impact on each property. Councilman Clark asked when the moratorium comes to a conclusion and also hose the staff and/or Planning Commission plan to proceed and on what kind of timetable on an individual basis. Councilman Clark was informed that the moratorium ends approximately on August 26. Regarding the plans for proceeding, Mr. Sipel stated that the first thing that would have to be done would be to initiate rezoning of specific properties. He added that 1.a fairness to everyone concerned, that ought to happen as soon as possible and should be initiated prior to the "expi- 90 5/15/72 ration of the moratorium. He commented that in the interim period, staff will develop materials relating .to reassessments and will have a procedure and specific data on individual parcels prepared indicating the impact on these parcels. With respect to the Williamson Act, as the City Attorney has indicated, Council will have mateilals next week for consideration with respect to the item presently before them. Discussion continued regarding the proposed amendment with Mr. Stone com- menting that the conversation assumes something that isn't really in evidence, and that is that there is going to be some kind of growth im- pact. He said it is impoasible to state with any certainty whether there would be any financial impact at all. He commented there seeas to be some kind of assumption that no one can do anything with their p iperty under the ©-S zoning. lie stated this is entirely incorrect, and drew attention to the uses permitted, both as a matter of right and requiring use permits under the new proposed ordinance. He said it would be staff hope that the impact as a whole would inure to the public healt', safety and welfare, as provided in the law. He advised that as these particular properties come up for rezoning, the Council may more closely ascertain from testimony of the property owner and testimony of the staff, as to whether Jr not that parcel should be put into the zoning at that time. The amendment failed on a meejority voice vote. The main motion on items a) through e) passed un a unanimous voice vote. (The Council recessed from 9:40 to 9:55 p.m.) Santa Clara County Regional Park Plan en MOTION: Vice Mayor Norton introduced the following resolutior and moved, seconded by Seman, its adoption: Resolution No. 4593 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City. of Palo Alto Urging Passage of Proposition C on the June 6, 1972 Ballot to Provide Funds for the Santa Clara County Regional Park Plan" Vice Mayor Norton noted that the proposed Santa Clara County Charter amendment will appropriate the equivalent of ten cents on the tax rate for a period of ten years toward acquisition of park lands and improve- ments. He recommended approval of the Ballot Proposition. The resolution passed unanimously on a voice vote. \ Camble Property Contra (CM"R:273:2) MOTION: , Councilman Berial4 moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the contract on the Gamble prop- erty, and authorized the City Manager to execute any other needed docu- ment with respect thereto. The motion passed on a.unanimous voice vote. Css Utility Rates and Charges (CIR:270:2) HDTION : Councilman Clark introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Seman, its adoption: 9 1 5/15/72 Resolution No. 4594 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Schedule G-1 (Gas Rates) of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges" The motion passed on a majority voice vote, with Councilman Pearson voting "no." Dixon House Dispositr.on (CMR:274:2) City Manager Sipel reviewedthestaff report dated May 11, 1972. MOTION: Councilman Pearson.moved, seconded by Berwald, to direct the City Manager to have the Dixon #i+p=:.se demolished and that the Council con- sider an appropriation of $10,000 in Ole 1972-73 Budget for the purpose of demolition aoc 'oreiirrinary plan development. In response to questions . from Council members, it was noted that this matter is in the Finance and Public _:forks Committee and will be dis- cussed under the Capital Improvement Budget, also that it is in the intent of staff to involve the citizens of the area in the development of the park. John P. Potter, 547 Hilbar Lane, speaking on behalf of the University Park Association, stated that.theirgroup had sponsored a very active meeting with a large audience at which they discussed all the plans. He stated the Association board is strongly in favor of the staff recommen- dation but it would like to assist and be advised of preliminary plan development. 1e said he would like to commend staff for the work they have done on this project. The motion passed on a majority voice vote, with Councilman Seman voting "NO". TOPICS Funds (CMR:269:2) MOTION: Councilman Berwald introduc*d the following resolution and moved, seconded by Henderson, its adoption: Resolution No. 4595 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Concerning Accumulation, Expenditures and Assignment of TOPICS Funds by the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Years 1971-72; 1972-73" In response to question from Councilman Henderson, City Manager Sipel stated that TOPICS funds could be used for Willow Road development. The resolution was adopted, on a majority voice vote, with Councilman -Pearson voting "N&". Stanford University Proposal,. - City Attorney Stone briefly reviewed his reports dated May_11 and May 15, 1972 regarding Stanford University proposal for amendments to the "Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act)." He stated the important thing to understand is that the Council would not, under any circumstances, 9 2 -- .5/15/72 lose the control it now has of the development of the property under the zoning, subdivision, planning and building laws, and this is with- out regard to what the proposed use of the land might be. He stated the Council has those controls now, would continue to have those con- trols over the existing Williamson Act, and would continue to have those controls if AB 658 passes. He pointed out that the proposed amendment: relates only to the consent and penalties required to with- draw from the Williamson Act contract. In response to question from Councilman Pearson, Mr. Stone Advised that the Council must still consent formally to a withdrawal from a Williamson Act contract. What the Council would not be able to do is to find that the proposed use is incompatible with the law if, in fact, it is an edu- cational use. The Council would be informed because the Council would be required to take action. MOTION: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Berwald, that the City of Palo Alto recommend to the appropriate legislative body that this amend- ment (AB 658) to the Williamson Act be passed.. - Vice Mayor Norton pointed out that this Bill goes to the A?sembly Ways and Means Committee some time this week. AMENDMENT: Councilman Clark moved, duly seconded, tliat the Vice Mayor be directed, if the .main notion passes, to pass Council action on to th c Committee by Wednesday morning. Discussion followed with Councilman Henderson stating that Stanford can not be expected to keep all their lands undeveloped when faced with seri- ous financial pressures, plus the burden of taxation. He expressed re- luctance at having Palo Alto take a specific position in favor of AB 658 since the Bill does not now directly affect the City. He commented there is various concern about some loss of control by the City if Stanford would be allowed to withdraw from its contract without permission of the City Council, as long as an educational purpose is shown. Further, that Stanford had not asked the City to take a position on this amend- ment. Councilman Clark replied that Stanford had requested the Plan- ning Commission to support their proposed amendment. Vice Mayor Norton called upon Mr. -Cassius Kirk, Stanford Attorney, to speak to the matter. . Mr. Cassius Kirk, 220 Palo Alto Avenue, Attorney for Stanford TJ iversity, stated that Stanford had approached Mayor.Comstock, and upon his advice did request the City's support through the Planning Commission, but the Planning Commission has taken no act;.on to date.. Discussion continued with Councilman Clark speaking of Stanford's right to plan their long-range goals on an educational basis; with Councilman Pearson speaking of the impact of Stanford development on surrounding jurisdictions and with Vice Mayor Norton reviewing the Willia:lson Act and stating the purpose is to encourage the preservation of open space. In response to question from Councilman Pearson, Mr. Kirk replied that a reason for eliminating local consent is -that there could be disagreement between the Board of Trustees, for what they.feel is an educational pure pose, and what a political body might consider to be a reasonable educa- tional purpose. He stated that while Stanford might have perfect con- fidence in the current Council of the City-af'Palo Alto, 20 years from now it might be different. 9 3 5/15/72 MOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, to table the previous motion. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Henderson, Pearson Noes: Berwald, Clark, Norton, Rosenbaum, Semen The motion, as amended, passed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Berwald, Clark, Norton, Rosenbaum, Semen Foes: Henderson, Pearson Hillview--Miranda Intersection ro ec - :2) Vice Mayor Norton noted that this item was continued from Hay I, 1972. He asked the City Manager to report. City Manager Sipel noted that chi: matter had been before the Council on a nur.:ber of occasions and has been reviewed thoroughly within the last 30 days by the staff of the City, the County, the property owner involved, and there have been discussions with Watkins -Johnson traffic engineer, the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Ted Noguchi, and Mr. Shields of the County staff. He noted that the report of May 11 indicates the pros and cons to plans. He concluded that the Council has two basic options before it: 1) approve the project tonight, which will allow the project to pro- ceed on schedule along with the portion approved last week; and 2) dis- approve the project, which will cause the TOPICS funds for 1969-70 of about $6$,000 to be lost. He stated that at this point the Council could then proceed with the Embarcadero intersection improvements as part of a new TOPICS project, or funded exclusively by the City. A third op- tion possible, but not one he would recommend, is,to refer the plans to a co t!' . He stated that any continuance at this point by the City would mean loss of 1969-70 TOPICS funds and the Embarcadero'Road improve- ments would be ,delayed. Vice Mayor Norton stated he had requests from two people to speak to this item, and Council would hear from the at this time. Stuart Whittelsey, 1736 Oak Creek Drive, representing Watkins -Johnson Company, presented slides in describing the situation to Council. He stated it is their feeling the plan proposed by the City to put in a jug - handle intersection has four basic bad things about it: 1) it is damag- ing to the environment. He presented photographs for the Council showing the existing trees, the areas to be cut away by the City's plan, and an indication of the present density of the shrubbery; 2) it is damaging, to Watkins -Johnson Company and its employees. There will be parking Brea loss and more danger to the cars in the area. now. Also, truck access well be eliminated; 3) the new route will cost Watkins --Johnson Company about $100.000 more than estimated; 4) it will be unsafe. He stated his com- pany would not oppose the plan if they thought it was in the interest of public --safety, but it is their belief that this will decrease public safety,. He said he would like to t»rn it over to Dr. Faustman, their consulting traffic engineer, at t.is point. 9 4 5/15/72 Dr. D. Jackson Faustman, 1000 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, stated that he appreciated the fact that staff had recognized and recommended some of the points which he had raised. He advised against putting a traffic sig- nal within 250 feet t:f an existing traffic signal. In summary, he stated that the plan he submitted is cheaper, technically sound, and does not introduce the problems which now arise in the staff report. Mr. Ron Shields, Santa Clara County Traffic Engineer, stated the County has serious reservations about the safety involved, and their first rec- ommendation would be to go along with the TOPICS project. Their second recommendation would be to do nothing -- and live with the existing con- ditions. He stated that from a technical aspect, it is the County's feeling that the signals on Hillview-Miranda, that close to an express- way, would be very detrimental to the overall traffic characteristics. In response to question from Vice Mayor Norton as to whether the City staff is making substantial improvements over the situation, Mr. Shield presented some color slides that show the conditions that are experienced every evening at this point. He stated the County is concerned with the fact that this whole expressway must operate to support this industrial area, and just transferring problems from one intersection to the other doesn't solve the problem. In response to question from Councilman Pearson regarding traffic fron the Veterans' Hospital and Fairchild, Mr. Shields replied that if traffic can be diverted away from the intersection and lined up on the cross street, it can be handled through the phasing on the existing signal. In response to a further question, he stated that there are other possible solutions that should be explored on an area basis. Mr. Nogichi, City Traffic Engineer, responded to questions from Council. Regarding other solutions, he stated any other solution would be as ex- pensive as the jughandle, since the solution they would more than likely be talking about would be traffic coning off Foothill Expressway at a triangular intersection with a right turn off and a right turn on the Expressway. He noted that this would not accommodate left tarn movements required or desired toward Los Altos. This would be an intersection simi- lar to that in the Syntex area. Regarding installation of a signal at the base of the jughandle at Hillview, he. stated that at the present time staff saw no reason to install a signal at this location. In re- ,, sponse to question from Councilman Henderson, Mr. Noguchi explained that one of the heaviest movements experienced at the tiillview-Miranda inter- section is the left turn going vest toward the Foothill Expressway, and those people desiring to make a left turn onto Miranda. He stated that the jughandle Will remove that conjestion problem and would make the ecceas to Miranda by Hillview traffic much easier, In response to ques- tion from Councilman Clark, Mr. Noguchi stated that the,jughandle will not help the problem at the Arastradero-Miranda intersection. Regarding signalization at the Hospital entrance, he stated it was his belief that that particular solution between the two intersections would.cjot solve the problem existing on Arastradero Road. Mr. Shields agreed, stating it would be bad expressway policy and the County would not make a recommendation for a signal at the entrance to the Hospital. in response co question regarding the cost, Mr. Sipel replied it is a matter of conjecture as to whether $100,000 additional will be needed or not. He said it is staff belief that the entrance off Miranda can work as access for vehicles, and that would eliminate the need for the sup - 9 5 5/15/72 posed $100,000 increase in cost. He said it would be his recommenda- tion that the $105,000 figure stated earlier is still reflective of the cost. In response to question from Councilmen Rosenbaum and Berwald, Mr. No.3uchi replied that the problem with the trucks at Watkins -Johnson is the basic turning radius for semi -trucks making turns into Miranda itself. He said that staff feels they can satisfactorily accommodate these kinds of pro- visions by proper design. Discussion followed on the loss of the 1969-70 TOPICS funds amounting to $68,000 and the need to continue with the Embarcadero project, Mr. Sipel replied that the solution would be to vote against the Hillview-Miranda intersection portion and request staff to initiate the Embarcadero Road improvements as a separate project, funded by Street Improvement funds or to initiate a new, or amended, TOPICS project. In response to question as to how long a delay there would be if the City had to reapply for TOPICS money, Mr. Sipel replied that it would be 120 to 180 days. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Clark, that Council direct the staff to proceed with the proposed TOPICS project, including the re- located Hillview--Miranda intersection, as originally proposed, and recom- mend chat Council authorize payment of up to $8,000 for the design con- sultant's extra engineering services related to right -of --way acquisition. The motion famed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Clark, Pearson Noes: Berwald, Henderson, Norton, Rosenbaum, Seman MOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Berwald, to direct the staff to proceed with the Embarcadero barriers to be funded by the City Streets Improvements money. In response to questions -from Vice Mayor Norton, Mr. Sipel replied that there would be a 30 -day delay at the most if the Embarcadero project is funded by City money, and 4 to 6 months delay if reapplication is made for a new TOPICS project. He stated the City will lose $68,000 as a result of the action taken. The total cost of the Embarcadero phase of the project is about $65,000. some of which has already been spent. At a request from Council for an explanation as to TOPICS funds, Mr. Sipel explained that the City has allocations for 1969-70 in the amount of $68,000. For 1970-71 in the amount of $82,000 - those monies to be used for this particular project, at a total of $150,000. In addition to that money there is money available from 1971-72 and 1972-73 Which totals about $64,000. $68,000 from 1969-7 is lost as a result of Council action. The 1970-71 allocation will be lost unless the Council revises the project in some manner. In other words, if the.Embarcadero intersection project is kept alive the project can be amended and the $82,000 utilized for only that project. The $65,000 for ►971-72 and 1972-73 has not been allocated !o any project and is still available. The motion to proceed with the E arcadero project utilizing City funds failed on a majority voice vote. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Seoan, that Council direct staff to revise the TOPICS program co delete Hillview-Miranda improvements and proceed with the balance of the project. The motion passed on aunanimous voice vote. 9 6 5/15/72 Southern Crossin Ballot Measure MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Clark, to direct the staff to prepare a resolution opposing the Southern Crossing which is a ballot measure to be on the June Primary Election=. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. Commendation to Cubberley High School Students MOTION Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Seman, to direct staff to prepare "a resolution commending Cubberley High School students regarding their contribution toward the medical care and rehabs h 'onion of child victims of the Viet Nam War in Southeast Asia. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. Lice of Insecticides and Pesticides MOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that the City' staff request Stanford's report regarding the use of eoxic pestieiveL, etc. and provide Council with copies, and that Council receive a r, -,f,. - from staff to determine whether this is a direction in which the City should be moving, the report to include the insecticides and pesticides used by the City including both chemical and trade names. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. Noise Pollution Amor Councilman Pearson referred to her memo dated May 11, 1972 regarding noise pollution and expressed dismay at the noisy leaf blowers being used by City firemen. MOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that the Council record its dismay regarding this noise pollution and that the City Mana- ger take steps to prevent future recurrences. City Manager Sipel stated that' some of the noise is a result_ of effi-' -ciency and suggested that staff study the situation before taking defi- nite steps to eliminate the blowers now being used. MOT/ON: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded -by Clark? to table the motion. The motion_ to table failed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Berwald, Clark, Norton Noes: Henderson, " Pearson, Rosenbaum, Seman ADDITIOiU TO MOTION: Councilman Peaarson, with the consent of her second, added the words "by muffling" to the end of the sentence in her motion. The main motion failed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum Noes: Berwald, Clark, Norton, Seman 9 7 5/15/72 men Space Preservation Legislation CouncilmanSeman referred to her memo dated May 11, 1972 regarding a series of Bills which have been introduced into the Legislature regard- ing open space preservation. MOTION: Councilman Semen moved, seconded by Pearson, that Council ask the City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of the series of As- sembly Bills 2135, 2136-, 2137, 2138, 2139 and 2140 in order that the City of Palo Alto be unequivocally on record in support of the State policy. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. Oral Communications 1. Richard A. Morris, 2044 Yale, Palo Alto, speaking as a member of the Peace Center of the Stanford Graduate School of Education which is working to mobilize public demand that the Nixon adrrin- istr.tion cease its present escalation of the Viet Nam War and withdraw from all military involve+ent in indo-China, read a resolution covering the subject and asked that the shatter he considered as an emergen:y measure in view of the importance of the issue. Council members responded to Mr. Morrio, with Vice Mayor Norton calling to his attention the fact that the Council had adopted a similar resolution, and with Councilman Berwald offering to send him a copy of a resolution he had prepared for Council to send individually if they so desired. 2.. Councilman Berwald made a brief announcement commending the Fire Department for ther prompt response and professional manner in preventing serious damage to a house which was near a burning garage in the Greenmeadow subdivision. Executive Session The' Council adjourned to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel natters at 12:15 a.m. and reconvened at 1:40. Adournment MOTION: Councilman Henderson moved, seconded by Berwald, that the Council adjourn at 1:43 a.m. to May 22, 1972 at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. APPROVED: ATTEST: 9 8 5/13/72