Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-25 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTO CITYCOUNCiL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZ -U- FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting September 25, 1989 LIM PAM 1. Update from Will Kempton, Director, Santa Clara 62-161 County Transit Authority Regarding Changes in Draft Measure A Program Oral Communications Consent Calendar 62-164 62-164 2. Agreement with CH2M Hill for Water, Gas and 62-164 Storm Stations, Equipment, Instrumentation `ontrol, and Telemetry Study; Amendments Not to Exceed. $12v300 3. Contract with O'Grady Paving, Inc. for Golf 62-165 Course Cart Path Paving Work; Change Orders Not to Exceed $2,500 4. Contract with Raisch Construction Company for 62-165 Street Resurfacing Project; Change Orders Not to Exceed $59,000 6. Agreement with George Hills Company, Inc. 62-165 for ministration of General/Auto Liability Claims Program S. Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on Acceptance 62-165 of Applications for Increased Square Footage in R-1 and RE Zones 62-159 9/25/89 9. Ordinance unending the Budget for Fiscal Year 62-179 1989-90 to Provide for Receipt of Revenues as a Reimbursement of Project Expenses from the Santa Clara Valley Water District 10. Ordinance Amending Midget for the Fiscal Year 62-180 1989-90 to Provide for a Transfer from Electric Fund System Improvement Reserves for the Hansen Way I2KV Substation Addition Project Expenses 10A (Old 5) Agreement with EPICON Associates for 62-180 Assessment and Design of the Airport Tank Reediation and Municipal Service Center Fuel Storage Modification 10B (0ld 7) Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Ordinance Relating to Driveways Adjournment to a Closed Session re Litigation at 11:10 p.m. Final Adjournment at 11:18 p.m. 62-181 62-182 62-182 62-1.60 9/25/89 1 Regular Meeting September 25, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:34 p.m. Mayor Klein announced the need for a Closed Session to discuss Endswort4 v. City of Palo Alto, Turner v. City of Palo Alto and McDowell v. City of Palo Alto pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) _ to be held at some point during or after the meeting. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:39 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Klein introduced a delegation of visitors from Sweden and welcomed them to the City of Palo Alto. SPECIAL ORDERS 07 THE DM 1. Update from Will Kempton, Director, Santa Clara County Transit Authority Regarding Changes in Draft Measure A Program (1510-01) (NPG) Director of the Santa Clara County Transit Authority (SCCTA) Will Kempton said in 1987, when faced with a shortfall in revenues for the Measure A Program due to a decline in the electronics industry, the SCCTA decided to draft a program document to determine how to spend the revenues anticipated over the ten-year life of the Measure A sales tax. The program was divided into an initial plan of the projects to be funded from the one-half cent sales tax and a completion plin of projects to be funded from additional state, federal, and/or local revenues. The objective was to maintain a continued commitment to all projects promised to the voters in November of 1984, bit to clearly delineate that the SCCTA Measure A tax dollars would only go so far in terms of the initial plan. The 1988 document returned to Council last year with some changes in the program. With regard to the second update of the particular document for 1989, they had good news and bad news. The good news was they were able to hold all of the commitments of the 1988 strategic plan document in terms of the scope and schedule for the projects. They were having great bid experience, to date, with the Measure A rrograa. They just opened the most recent bid a'- Route 85 and 87, the third stage of the particular project was received at about 22 percent under the engineer's estimate. The CTA had developed a state and local partnership with the Department of Transportation to bring in the private sector and consulting firms in the Santa Clara Valley to assist in the project development work for the Measure A program. The partnership had allowed for drafting quicker and more efficient plans for advertising than if 62-161 9/25/89 the state or federal government performed the work on its own. The local partnership program with the state legislature was put in place in the form of legislation, and was a matching program that could provide up to about $60 million for the program. The revised revenue projections were on track which was good because as a result of the previous declines, revenues had been adjusted back from $1.1 billion to about $900 million. SCCTA was now forecasting about $975 million over the ten-year life of the program. Regarding the bad news, SCCTA was being plagued by 30 percent annual cost increases over the last two years primarily in the area of right-of-way. In 1987, SCCTA predicted the Route 85 right-of- way, would be about $128 million for the program. In the 1989 strategic planning document, the figure had increased to $200 million, which could not be absorbed without some impact. All of the funds were committed to projects, and they were now cranking down on contingencies. It was appropriate at the current level of the project development to lower contingencies. In terms of the project development process, SCCTA had what he would call conserva- tive sums of money set aside for the contingency, and they did not have any capability to take money and put it on new project work or on new demands from communities for additional mitigation or for other issues as well. The initial plan portion of the program was dependent upon the matching funds. With regard to the state/local partnership which successfully put into place the $60 million, they now needed the $60 million to offset increases in rights -of -way in order to crake the initial plan hold The June transportation initiative, therefore, played important. It involved an adjustment in the state Gann spending limit, and as a result of an increase in the Gann spending limit, a corresponding increase in the state gas tax. The state matching program was dependent on those new funde. Without the anticipated $60 million, SCCTA would look at additional cuts in the program, and project delays. They had been proud of the delivery success with the Measure A program. They stood on the threshold to be able to deliver all of the initial planned projects to construction in the next- two years. While it did not some dramatic to have brought a major billion dollar highway construction program to that point, the traditional way the State of California or any other state highway department did business, on could see that tremendous strides had been made to advance the projects to that point. He had expected to be starting work the Monday following the Tuesday election, but they had to work very hard to get the project moving and stood poised on the threshold to deliver it. The accelerated schedule put a strain on the anticipated cash flow. In the summer of 1986, $200 million worth of bonds were issued to allow the program to move quickly and to not have to delay any work. They had now exhausted the $200 million in bond proceeds and were eating into their accumulated sales tax revenue. By 1991, they would be dependent upon their annual cash flow of sales tax revenues to pay the bills, which meant there could be schedule impacts because they would have to 52-162 9/25/89 O delay projects until they had sufficient sources on which to make those commitments. They could issue additional bonds; however, they did not believe it was prudent to do so until after the June election since the $60 million was so important to the success of the program, and the Leasure A Policy Advisory Board concurred in that advice. The state initiative on the program was critical. In terns of the schedule for the particular program document, they were making the rounds now to all of the city councils in the County, making a presentation in the near future to the County Transportation Commission, and would like and welcomed review and input. They believed the authority would be asked to adopt the document and to make the appropriate changes to the Measure A expenditure plan according to the results of the input at the Authority's November meeting which would be held the first Monday in November. Mayor Klein referred to the recent stories about the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff proposal that many of the highway projects in the Bay Area be shut down until such time as it could be determined whether they were going to add to congestion or help alleviate it, and he asked where the Traffic Authority's projects stood with respect to those proposals. Mr. Kempton said the Transit Authority was concerned about the lawsuit, not so much because of the need to adhere to the clean air standards, but because all of the remaining Measure A projects were currently included in the MTC proposed contingency plan for delay or deferral, thereby being viewed as detrimental to air quality. The Transit Authority did n.ot believe that to be the case. For example, the San Mateo portion of the 101 widening between the county line and Whipple Avenue was viewed as neutral in terms of its air quality impacts and yet the same widenini jobs in the middle part of San Jose were viewed as detrimental. There appeared to be some error in the staff calculation. Moreover, the SCCTA believed the 85 project and the 37 project fell into the category of congestion relief. Both projects incorporated high occupancy vehicles lanes to encourage ride -sharing. From there perspectives, they believed the projects would provide a positive impact on air quality. They were currently petitioning the MTC to revise its draft contingency plan and were consulting with attorneys about the possibility of future action should they fail administratively. Mayor Klein asked about the procedural status of everything before the MTC. Mr. !Campton said everything was now before the MTC, and there had been comments and a public hearing at which the SCCTA did testify. The SCCTA had also provided written comeenta protesting inclusion of its project in the contingency plan. The MTC . would hold two more stings in early October, prior to action by the full. 62-163 9/25/89 commission. He understood the MTC had until February 1990 to adopt the contingency plan. Hopefully, the SCCTA could convince the MTC that its projects had a neutral impact on air quality and should be removed from the contingency plan. Council Member Patitucci believed the Measure A program had accomplished what the voters asked for when they approved Measure A. The widening of Highway 101 with the inclusion of the wails was completed aesthetically and pleasingly. The project engineers worked closely with the Traffic Authority and accomplished what they were asked to do. While attending the Measure A Policy Advisory Committee meetings, he observed that other communities in the county were more affected by the Measure A program than Palo Alto. He commended Mr. Kea®pton and his staff for having done an excellent job in keeping the project on time, getting excellent bids, and managing the project in a way that the voters who approved this measure and who were paying the bill ought to be proud. 0EALMPESINICATION1fS Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Police Department complaint process. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Harbor. Fred Carter, 3343 Thomas Drive, spoke regarding Palo Alto Airport Day on Sunday, October 1. Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, spoke regarding the manner in which Council conducted business. Ptah, 524 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding Palo Alto Medical Foundation proposal. SENT CAT ,R Mayor Blain removed Item 5 from the Consent Calendar. Council Member removed Item 7 from the Consent Calendar. MOTIOM1 Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, to Approve Consent Calendar Items 2, 3, 4, and 6. 2. Agreement with CH2M Hill for Water, Gas and Stoma Stations, Equuipment, Instrumentation Control, and Telemetry St ',•` Amendments Not to Exceed S12,300 (1105) (CMR: 4 54:9 ) 62-164 9/25/89 3. Contract with O'Grady Paving, Inc. for Golf Course Cart Path Paving Work; Change Orders Not to Exceed $2,500 (1320) (CMR: 421: 9 ) 4. Contract with Raisch Construction Company for Street Resurfacing Project; Change Orders Not to Exceed $59,000 (1010) (CMR:450:9) 6. Agreement with George Hills Company, Inc. for Administration of General/Auto Liability Claims Program (130) (CMt:455:9) NOTION PASS= 9-0. I GEDA CHANGES, ADDITIOATS . AND DELETIONS City Manager William Zaner announced that Agenda Item 5 would become Item 10(a) and Item 7 would become Item 10(b). UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. Request of Mayor Klein and Council Members Renzel and Woolley to Present and Consider an Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on Acceptance of Applications for Increased Square Footage in R-1 and RE Zones continued from 9/16/89) (242) Mayor Klein was concerned about some of the overheated rhetoric which had occurred the previous week, particularly from some members of the legal profession. Any changes in zoning ordinances were difficult and involved weighing conflicting interests. One interest was the individual concerns that on one's own property, whether commercial, industrial, or residential, he or she relied on certain rules. Another interest was with the passage of time, the community believed changes were necessary in those zoning ordi- nances, which might have a negative impact on a landowner. The mere existence of zoning regulations implied any landowner's rights to develop a piece of property had limitations for the good of the entire community. When there was more vacant land, there were not the name concerns about whether a neighbor built a 100 -foot addition to his or her house next door or whether the person down the street put in a gasoline station right next to a residential neighborhooi. Zoning rules obviously took away some liberty and freedol ioa the individual property owner. The question was no longer °ohether it was appropriate for a city to impose zoning rules and to change them from time to time as conditions changed, but whether the particular change was wise one and being implemented properly. Some people who spoke the previous week seemed to think changing the zoning rules was lust invented. Palo klto had changed the zoning regulations many times and probably would again. The December 18, 1989, data as contained in the present interim ordinance was actually a semi -moratorium with respect to remodels 62-165 9/25/89 and new houses. The expiration date was required because a moratorium law could only be in effect for a certain period of time. It was not a time --period guarantee that rules would not change, as some residents believed. Any new ordinance would become effective 45 days after the first reading. Council was trying to act in what they perceived to be the community's interest, balancing the interests of individuals and the community interest. Vice Mayor Bechtel was concerned that members of the public may not be aware of the revised motion and would be speaking to the old motion, not the new motion which she believed was a great improve- ment. Council Member Patitucci said Council suspended the previous meeting in the middle of the public comments. He believed it would be inappropriate to change the motion prior to the completion of the citizen input. Mayor Klein believed Council Member Patitucci's point was well taken. The item before the Council did not require a public hearing; however, P,Ilo Alto had a strong democratic tradition whereby Council heard from members of the public who wanted to speak on any item. Council would hear from the nine members of the public, and if Council wished to ask for more public testimony, he would entertain such a motion from the floor. Council Member Woolley said ,she placed the memo which contained a substitute motion in the packet because the issue was controversial and had tremendous interest from the community. Council Member Levy appreciated the comments about prr cedures and that technically Council was continuing the discussion from last Monday night; however, he believed the discussion had evolved in quite a different way and it appeared the very individuals who put the moratorium proposal before the Council last Monday night were about to sake a proposal which focused on the question of a cutoff date for processing R-1 applications under the current regulations, rather than imposing a moratorium. The proposal was different enough that the public should be- made aware of it right away. It eight be a good idea to put the substitute motion on the floor immediately so the public knew Council was not going to be talking about a retroaozive cutoff ,..)f regulations, but rather something that would take effect October 16, 1989. Council Member Butorius associated himself in large part with the gents of Council Meter Levy. The telephone calla and people stopping by his hose or stopping him on the street even after the current packet was released convinced him a great many people remained confused about what was transpiring. 62-166 9/25/89 O MOTION NADU DT COUNCIL MEMBERS RENEEL AND TLE?CIR ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 NIT=DRAWN. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to dire' -t staff to provide language for inclusion in the ordinance revising single-family regulations which would cutoff processing of applications filed after 5:00 p.m. on October 16, 1989. Council Member Woolley asked the City Attorney to clarify the motion. City Attorney Diane Northway said applications received after 5:00 p.m. on October 16, 1989, would be processed, until the new regulations became effective which should be approximately December 7, 1989. If the City turned around the applications more quickly, some could get through. The pew proposal was a way of telling people that if their applications were not received by the City by October 16, 1989, they ran the risk of having the new regulations apply. The proposal was an attempt to provide advance notice of the real cutoff date. Council Member Woolley referred to the current proposed revised regulations which were before the Planning Commission and scheduled to be before the Council on October 16, 1989. The ordinance contained the provision that it would go into effect 45 days after the first reading, which was the first part of December. The City currently had 317 applications in the pipeline, and with the amount of time it was taking to rrocess the applications, any new application not yet submitted would probably not get through the pipeline by the time the new ordinance took effect. The motion would, in effect, provide for the processing and grandfathering of any application filed up until 5:00 p.m. on October 16, 1989, under the old regulations. Council Member Cobb was concerned that those individuals who had not spoken the week prior would have an opportunity to speak to the new motion whereas those who spoke last week spoke to a different motion. 1 T: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to open the public cent period to members of the public who requested to speak on September 25, 1989. Council Member Patitucci wee concerned about process. Usually Council put an item on the agenda as clearly as possible. Council first asked questions about an item, heard from the public, and the item returned to Council for action. Often there were motions and revisions. The problem was that Council Members Renzel and Woolley, in their desire to try and not make a motion the public knew nothing about, put something in the packet. He and any other 62-167 9/25/89 Council Member could have put something in the packet and there could have been three or four potential alternative motions. He believed the public had been heard from, Council knew their sentiment, and was prepared to act on the issue after hearing from those speakers who were held over from the September 18, 1989, meeting. He could not support the amendment. Council Member Sutorius philosophically associated himself with Mayor Klein and Council Member Cobb. While there was a new motion before the Council, there would potentially be modifications. He recommended the maker and seconder of the motion incorporate the understanding that a time limit of two minutes would apply to any speaker not a part of the carryover group. He was confident anyone who had already spoken could effectively express themselves in less than two minutes. TWO MINUTE LIMITATION FOR SPEAKERS INCORPORATED INTO AMENDMENT BY MAKER AND SECONDER Council Member Fletcher did not see the purpose of reopening the public comment to those who already spoke. Council Member Cobb urged support of the amendment because of the feeling some bad about a lack of trust in the process. Since the issue affected people's homes, trust in the process was important enough to listen to people add to what they already had to say. He supported the two -minute limit in the subject instance. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-3, Levy, Patitucci, Woolley "no." James Early, 740 Center, appreciated the difficulty of the task before the Councils but terms such as "end -run," were first used in official documents generated by members of the Council with respect to the debate. The moratorium was a way of shutting things off. He urged Council wait until the new regulations were in place and reject the idea of a moratorium. Council could reexamine the goals and problems and work with architects in the community and construct new rules which allowed for maximum interior consistent with uncrowded, pleasing and varied exteriors which was a legiti- mate concern of the community. He submitted a petition signed by 162 persons (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which urged Council to oppose any ordinance which would cut off the people's rights to have applications for residential, building or remodeling permits accepted and processed and to have permits issued under the current rules. Robert Marriott 2066 Byron Street, was currently constructing a second story addition, but remembered the stress and anxiety he went through a year and one-half ago when he tried to prepare his plans before the April moratorium went into effect. He remembered 62-168 9/25/89 1 wishing Council Members Renzel and Woolley would experience what he and others had. It was extremely difficult to go through many months of planning not knowing whether the plans would be dashed because of a sudden change in the rules. It was extremely important for people to have notice in order to plan ahead for the new rules. The old and new proposals assumed Council would agree on something by early December, and the matter could go back to the drawing board. It seemed reasonable to include a cutoff date in the ordinance but the issue should be tabled until Council considered the matter. Sally O'Dowd, 611 Tennyson Avenue, had already built a home under the former regulations, and was somewhat comforted by those Council Members who felt the public should understand what was before them, and by Council Member Cobb who was concerned about the lack of public trust expressed last week. She was shocked that the Mayor would lecture the public as to how badly and secretly Council could pass such an ordinance if it wanted to and that the public should be grateful for any information it received. The facts remained the R-1 zoning issue was of extreme importance to every resident in Palo Alto and it was handled in secrecy and confusion which was not commendable regardless of whether it was legal. The right thing to do was to allow the issue of R--1 zoning to go before the public in the upcoming election process. If there was a big house crisis in Palo Alto, there was nothing so terrible it could not wait until a new Council with a mandate from the public could not deal. with. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, had no financial interest in the matter. He realized Council listened to those who had been involved in the process all along and he hoped Council would respect the general community's needs. The frequent heckling of both City personnel and members of the public speaking in favor of the moratorium and the current ordinance was almost unheard of in the Council Chambers. He believed most of the worst houses had been built under the current moratorium, and it was clear many people were trying to make a "last-ditch effort" to get in under the moratorium. Most young families could not afford a $300,000 to $1,000,000 mortgage and the arguments were that young families had to expand• at the same time, overbuilding was destroying the City's ability to accommodate any new young families, and the stock of small housing was disappearing. Young families and the speculator in Palo Alto were both looking for small, two -bedroom "fixer -uppers." Many neighborhoods in Palo Alto were largely untouched and some neighborhoods had taken a serious beating. He. urged Council to restrict new applications to those who could demonstrate that before a particular date they had made substantial efforts in their planning process. He did not believe any more last minute products should be allowed through the door. The current moratorium had devastating impacts in some neighborhoods 62-169 9/25/89 and serious invasions of many neighborhoods and particularly in terms of 7_Lss of neighborhood diversity. He urged the restriction of oversized building in the community. Rogan Kohler, 4291 Wilke Way, understood the purpose of the R-1 interim regulations was to give everyone time to examine the impact of the new regulations on new and remodeled construction. As he and his staff and several homeowner clients worked through the regulations. he relayed his concern to the subcommittee, and was disappointed ir, responses to the effect that everyone had to be prepared to make sacrifices to save the neighborhoods. In the spring he noted an attitude of City staff that the recommendations of the subcommittee were all but in place. He heard staff members explain to homeowners the regulations of the moratorium and in the same breath tell them about the new regulations which were going in place at the end of the year, and that building additions should be designed to meet those regulations. He queried whether staff really believed the proposed regulations would go into effect since the City Council still had to look at the regulations and respond to the homeowners needs. At a recent Zoning Administrator's hearing, the Zoning Administrator repeatedly said she would have a hard time ruling on the variance request because of new regula- tions which would become effective time following month. She had explained that if Council granted any of the variances, the building permit application would still have to conform to the new regulations. It was implied that because of the new directions dictated to staff from the City Council, she would not grant an application which strayed too far from the proposed regulations. He was concerned the Council would make a hasty decision which would have a major impact on everyone who owned a house in Palo Alto. He urged the Council to go back to the original premise, of the moratorium regulations, e.g., to do a definitive study to determine the impact of the regulations on home building. He urged defeat of the proposed moratorium. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper, found it disconcerting to have heard such fear and distrust of the City Council by Palo Alto citizens. While Council was concerned about the issue of R-1 zoning regulations, the citizen had lived for four years with the hardships created by uncertainty. While the study scheduled in June was of no legal value, it went through December 18 and did serve to reduce some of the uncertainty in the community. It was unfair to renege on the schedule people relied on. The subcommittee issued its first report in March, 1989, the substance of which was not dude different from the elements seen in the proposed R--1 ordinance. It was easy to see there would be a rush for permits, and the cutoff date being discussed that evening could have been discussed at that time. Many citizens would be hurt by Council's proposed action. The assumption was that that houses designed under the moratorium ordinance would be inappropriate. While there were 62-170 9/25/89 1 undoubtedly some bad designs, there would also be bad designs under the proposed ordinance. He urged Council to let things run according to the original schedule. Ole Christensen, 788 Clara Drive, had been working on plans for a home addition since June, 1989. The effective date of new regulations would be the same as when the ordinance became effective. Odette Mock, 954 Forest, said there was so much uncertainty in the community, and the proposed ordinance was an injustice. Martin Garfinkel, 260 Churchill, said based on the assumption that codes and ordinances were reasonably constant and changed with due process, the moratorium appeared subjective, arbitrary, and oppressive. There were no guarantees in terms of how the ordinance would change. He urged the Council to wait and see what happened. Art Fong, 1328 Parkinson, was frustrated with the amount of changes he had gone through trying to get plans through the City. It had been one cf the worst experiences of his life second only to the discrimieation he experienced when he tried to buy his home in Palo Alto 42 . years ago. Dana Gauthier, 730 Seale Avenue, was fundamentally opposed to the moratorium. People's most major investment was their houses and property. Uncertainties in the community created problems for everyone and jeopardized its future. Appreciation in housing created revenue for a healthy community. Proposition 13 was enacted to create an opportunity to stabilize the increase in taxation in housing. He suggested the issue be put on the ballot. Ptah, 524 Middlefield Road, opposed "changing the rules in the middle of the game." Sob Moss, 4010 Orme, supported an immediate moratorium in order to take the pressure off the Council to pass an ordinance which might not be as good as it should be. A moratorium was appropriate for overdevelopment being seen all over the City. He suggested a single-family home design review process. Jonathan Rattner, 1482 Rings Lane, believed the cutoff should be the night new regulations were adopted by Council„ The rick that Council would not adopt new regulations in October was great. Ronald Howard, 646 Tennyson, previously sent in a written com- munication (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He urged that approvedvariances be included without the need for a building permit. 62-171 9/25/89 RECESS: Tricia Ward, 412 Everett, referred to a situation which occurred next door to her a couple of years ago. Someone bought a quaint victorian home in need of care. Plans were submitted for a large two -unit structure. The facade was going to be a three -car garage across the front with a flat roof and a large two -unit flat structure beh.nd. The neighborhood consisted of a lot of California bungalows and victorians. As it happened, new zoning had been in process for her neighborhood, and it was going to be effective a month after the person received the permit. It took a neighborhood petition to stop the project and to force the basis of negotiation which resulted in a structure consistent with the neighborhood. If the intent of the new regulations was more appropriate housing which fit with neighborhoods, she could support a short and definite moratorium. Phoebe Bressack, 21 Osage, Los Altos, was an architect, and suggested an additional plan check fee to hire another person to take the pressure off the Building Department. She believed there were two problems, one was the big houses and the other was whether the houses were appropriate for the neighborhood aesthetics or the architectural character. Until Council dealt with both problems, the citizens would not have confidence that any new regulations would improve the quality of housing. Steve Jeske, Palo Alto, supported the moratorium, and was aghast at the adverse publicity given to the orderly process and the corresponding public relations campaign. Stephen Branz, 402 El Verano, lived in a 1000 square foot house on a 7200 square foot lot. His addition was planned to be about 1800 square feet. He understood that all plans which were submitted and complete by October 16, 1989 would be accepted. He urged Council to stick with the previously published schedule. Linea Wickstroa, 450 Monroe Drive, principally opposed any cutoff date which would deny permits under the old regulations before the new regulations were debated. It should be clarified that permits aeeept.ed before October 16 would be processed for a per*!it in the normal fashion regardless of the time involved. Richard Gruen, Box 2351, said the emergency ordinance was republished along with the ncnemergency ordinance and the emergency ordinance did not include the exceptions introduced. He urged Council to be fair and not implement any more moratoria until the new regulations were voted on. 62-172 9/25/89 Martin Bernstein, 617 High Street, believed the cutoff period, when the interim regulations were invoked, included approved variances. He urged Council to include approved variances. Manuel C. Sotomayer, 12 Riviera Circle, Redwood City, supported appropriate controls but urged Council to consider the regressive nature of the floor area regulations. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Cobb asked whether the effectiveness of the interim ordinance had been measured. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the interim ordinance had reduced the permissible size from an effective .7 floor area ratio (FAR) to a .45 FAR on a 10,000 square foot lot. It went up from there because of the 1,000 square foot entitlement. Nothing else was changed in the single family regulations under the interims moratorium. Council Member Cobb queried the City's historic definition of "in the pipeline." Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the decision of which applications should be allowed to go forward through the plan check process when new regulations were adopted varied given a number of different studies all of which related to commercial or office -type development. In the Downtown Study, submission of an application for Architectural Review Board (ARB) was deemed sufficient to allow a project to go forward. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PANIC) set a minimum that applications which received ARB approval were deemed acceptable for further processing in the event of a moratorium. While there was no hard and fast rule, the City tried to set a cutoff where people who demonstrated a good faith effort to meet the regulations and submit plans were allowed to go forward. There was almost never any design review for single family so in terms of establishing cutoffs for applica- tions to process, the situation had never been encountered. Council Member Cobb asked whether it was fair to say that what was before Council that evening absent whatever specific dates applied still remained more liberal than previous kinds of rules followed given there was some interim process after submission. Mr. Schreiber said the conclusion was appropriate in the sense that applications submitted for discretionary approval were allowed to proceed not only through the discretionary approval phase but also through the subsequent plan check and building permit phase. 62-173 9/25/89 AMMOM*T: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to add exemptions for variances approved by October 16 and applications to the Historic Resources Board made by October 16. Council Member Sutorius said the fact that the language referred to a variance which had been granted caused him concern because he believed it was reasonable to incorporate the variance process as well as the Historic Resources Board (HRB) process. A variance had oversight aspects well beyond anything occurring with respect to a regular building application, e.g., noticing, neighbors, a public hearing process, and an appeal process. He believed if a variance was applied for and there were all the control steps along the way, it was entirely reasonable to say the variance was accepted as an application. AMBIONBANT TO BBB?: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to amend the language "variances approved" to "variances made" by October 16 "and subsequently approved." Council Member Renzel said she used the words "variance approved" and intended that the processing could continue for the construc- tion approved in the variance because the issues contained in a variance notice and which were discussed at the hearings were things which went beyond the ordinance in effect. While someone might have plans which showed other things, they were not required to stick with the rest of the plan and could modify the plan, as long as they conformed to what was approved by the variance process. Council needed to clarify what would be accepted. She queried whether the intent of Council Member Sutorius, amendment was to include only those variance applications which were subsequently approved versus anyone who applied for one. Otherwise everyone would apply for variances. Council Member Sutorius cited the review process, noticing, public hearing, and appeal processes associated with the variance es surveillance steps to see to it the resulting product would be acceptable to the affected neighborhood. The assumption was that the variance would have to have been approved by the zoning Administrator and would have to survive an appeal if challenged. Council Member Renzel queried whether the intent was that the ability to proceed with the plans was for the part for which the variance was granted as opposed to other parts of the plan. She was concerned someone could completely change the other parts of the plans and use the interim regulations. A loophole could be created if the intent was to only include that part of the variance which was granted and it was not specified. Me. Jansen said approxsateely six variances to a number of provisions of the zoning regulations had been approved for which 62-174 9/25/89 building permits had not yet been issued. Several of the variances were on substandard lots, and provisions for second story or setbacks or coverage on such lots were common and would be relatively unaffected by new R-1 regulations. There were also variances for daylight plane encroachments which would probably be permissible under regulations which allowed for such encroachments for architectural features if something along the lines of the Planning Commission recommendation was ultimately adopted. If the variance was simply to the sideyard setback and the interim regulations were in effect for floor area ratio, then that would be what would be permissible for the floor area ratio. She clarified the intent of the Council was the entire plan mould go forward as per the variance application. Council Member Renzel queried what would happen if someone subsequently decided to change the plan except for the portion in the variance application, and whether staff interpreted that any change would have to meet the new ordinance or could be processed under the old ordinance. V-. Jansen said staff permitted little change to the plans from wnat was approved with a variance and what was ultimately permitted under the building permit process. She did not believe there was a real danger in seeing substantial changes. Council Member Fletcher seconded the amendment because if the home was already too large to fit into the new regulations but might not be too large under what night later be restrictions, and then to have a variance on top of it, extra caution would be required because of the large size of what would be approved, ANMEDNINT TO zmagnuourr PASSED 6-3, Bechtel, Pletcher, Renzel "no." AUNT AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. Council Member Levy referred to the history of changes in R-1 ordinances and the timing for the effective dates. Mr. Schreiber said there had never been a situation of the magnitude currently being experienced. Prior to the April 1988, moratorium ordinance and the ordinance proposing interim regula- tions, the last oiistantial revision of the R-1 regulations occurred in 1978. He did not have a sense of how the applications in process were handled at that time, but assumed those applica- tions in process were allowed to go forward. In 1998, the applications received by the particular date were allowed to go forward. Council Member Levy clarified the intent was to set the cutoff date as of the date of first reading. 62-175 9/25/89 Mr. Schreiber said the problem for staff in the past month was there were already more applications filed than could be processed before the likely effective date of the ordinance. Absent any Council action, by the time applications cleared the plan check process, staff would be not have the legal authority to grant permits to applications filed last week or the week before. It had been difficult to give advice to the public in that situation. Council Member Woolley believed with the exception of Sand Hill Road to El Casino Real, there was no issue on which the City Council had moved more slowly. She suspected most people just wanted a decision to be made. She heard several people refer to the cruelty of the October 16 effective date. Council was only voting on direction for staff to provide language for inclusion in the ordinance. She believed it would be a good idea to vote that evening because with a clear vote from the Council, people would have a clear and substantial notice to get plans in by October 16. Ms. Northway said if Counc i l did not address the issue of cutoff date, the ordinance would be effective December 7. Under the normal rules of California law, a person needed a vested right to proceed under the old regulations and in order to geali. fy for that right, one needed to have obtained a building permit and completed substantial construction, e.g., foundations and perhaps some framing. She believed Council wanted a prospective date and for people to have notice of that date. The October 16 date would essentially be a grandfather clause which was always considered to be a more generous way to apply a law. Vice Mayor Bechtel supported the motion. She believed the proposal was far more fair to any applicant than doing nothing. Council Member Sutorius was among those on the Council who would not have voted for any of the three proposals before it a week ago. His position on the issue was not driven by how he would look upon the pending R-1 zoning regulations versus the interia ones but by his send of understandable public perceptions and confusion about City processes. His position was also not driven by statistical summaries of pipeline applications, references to staf f ' s pro - ceasing workload or examples of retched excesses that might be products of former regulations or the interim regulations. His position was driven by a concern for equity and fair play in order that individual families were not penalized by reactions to the avarice that a fiw display with their excesses under any set of regulations. The raconw.nded action as ascended was an ip provenent. Equity and fair play could never mean that every individual could get exactly what he or she wished. It should mean that all rationale voices were heard and an honorable conclusion was achieved. 62.176 9/35/89 1 1 AMSMOMMT: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Patitucci, to change the cutoff date from October 16 to October 30. Council Member Sutorius believed it was reasonable to put notice on record that evening that the cutoff date would be October 30. Further, October 30 was the last regular Monday meeting by which Council could act with respect to the interim regulations and have then become effective before the interim regulations expired on December 18. If no new regulations were ready to go into effect by the December 18 date, the regulations reverted back to the prior regulations. Council should keep the heat on itself to process the issue carefully, deliberately and promptly. With a deadline or cutoff date already established, it could be easy to relax on October 16 and take a little more time en the subject. Council Member Renzel believed October 16 was a reasonable cutoff date, and did not believe the date would in any way affect the Council's feeling that the heat was on. Council needed to pay some attention to the amount of applications allowed to go through the pipeline if it wanted the new ordinances to have any appreciable impact on preserving neighborhood character and scale in the community. Council. Member Fletcher was concerned about the vast numbers of applications already in process and the total impacts throughout the City. She was opposed to the extension period and was considering the main motion because there was a problem in the City. To let more than 300 homes continue with the process; of denigrating the neighborhoods was unacceptable and would undermine the ordinance. AMINDMICMT TO MDR s Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to change the date from October 30 to October 23. Council Member Woolley believed Council could complete discussion on a variety of days. She believed it would be better to keep the date as Ctober 16 since that was when deliberations would begin. Mayor Klein supported the October 23 date over the October 30 date but preferred the October 16 date over both. Enough notice had been given and to extend the date added to a problem which needed to be acknowledged. He generally agreed with much of what Council Mier Sutorius said. Although he participated in the original memorandum, he would have opposed a moratorium as of last week because of the reliance people placed on the publication of the schedule last June. Everyone had to bend over backwards when dealing with owners of single-family homes who were not used to government bureaucracy. In the future, Council's wording on things like the schedule had to be more clear as to what people could expect or not expect. Council did not decide based on head counts. 62-177 9/25/89 It was a difficult process to weigh the concerns of individuals versus the needs of the community. His communications indicated those in support and opposition to the changes were roughly equal. Ha had no position on the proposed regulations and expected to spend a lot of tine on the matter during the next three weeks including tours of the community. Council Member Patitucci believed October 30 was reasonable, and disagreed if the ordinance proceeded under its normal processes, it would be worse for those who had applications in the process than it would be if Council passed the October 16 date. Council had never been that severe on anyone who had a commercial or residential application in process if people made substantial progress toward their applications. The best date for Council to be clear on exactly how it would implement the new ordinance was when it passed the ordinance. He suspected the ordinance would probably be passed before October 30, and Council would deal with the issue before that date when it dealt with all other relative issues and it would be in a position to approve a method for implementing the ordinance. He opposed the October 23 date. Council Member Renzel associated her comments with those of Mayor Klein. Council Member Cobb supported the C.tober 23 date. He believed the scenario would be that on October 2, Council would have its study session; on October 16, Council would hear from the public; and R-1 would be the first thing on the October 23 agenda, and Council would probably act on that date. He agreed with the idea that the effective date should be the date Council. acted. If the October 23 date failed, he would support the October 16 date mainly to get a date certain for the people even though he believed the time frame was on the short side. He noted he would have opposed the moratorium in its various forms on the basis of fairness and having nothing to do with how he viewed the R-1 regulations. It was important to make a decision. It had been a hard process on the public and should be brought to an end. AdZILOKINT TO iHIMDAMINIT TO NAVE T*I CUTOFF DATE BE OCTOBER 23 RATSHR THAN OCTOSER 30 FMB= 7.2, Patitucci, Sutorius "no." A10311DIMIT To alurnaurr TO NATI TU CUTOVP DRIB 11/3 OCTOBER 23 RATHER T at OCTOS311 14 PASSED 5-4, Fletcher, Klein, Renzel, Woolley "no." Council Member Levy said the original proposal which was a retroactive moratorium was a bad idea because it was unfair to a lot of individuals who were wt. —king on projects and because it was unclear to him that the moratorium was needed. He had not seen data based on the revised regulations which represented a agora-- torium. Although there were a lot of .homes being built and 62-178 9/25/89 1 1 remodeling taking place, it was not clear that they were so egregious that they called for the strong and unusual action being considered last week. The language in the memorandum before Council last week was ill-advised talking about end --run on the part of the public when he believed a moratorium was an end -run on the part of the public's government. The new proposal before the Council that evening was not a moratorium and it was too bad it came out of one. The new proposal actually set a cutoff date which should have been done a long tine ago because it made things much clearer to the public. In terms of what the cutoff date should be, he was not sure any of the dates were that much different from the others because any one of them told members of the public who had been working on the process to hurry up and get their applications in. Once the application was in, it made no difference how slow the City was in processing it. He did not hear the public complaining in terms of the process being slow, it just wanted to be part of the process. He was sorry Council spent endless hours debating such fine points but supported the proposal before the Council. Council Member Renzel believed the process had been very visible, and that every architect and realtor in the community was aware of the proposed zoning ordinance changes. Establishing a cutoff date in advance made good sense in terms of giving people notice so at the time the ordinance was considered those people who were close to getting their applications would do so and would be able to get on with the process without the emotionalism experienced lately. MOTION AS QED PASSED 7-2, Fletcher, Patitucci, "no." +C= 10:53 7L - JJ) p.m. =mum 9. Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1989-90 to Provide an Appropriation for the Operating Budget of the Electric Utility and to Provide for Receipt of Revenues as a Reimbursement of Project Expenses from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (1520-01) ( .453:9) MOTIOM: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance appropriating $138,000 to the Electric Operations expenditures and increasing Electric Turd revenues for project cost reimbursements in order to finance the labor and material required for relocating electric facilities as required by Santa Clara Valley Water District bridge work. Q L IMAM E 31 4 ;,,,titled "ORDINANCE OP THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL . YEAR 1989-90 TO 62-179 9/25/89 PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE OPERATING BUDGET OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT OF REVENUE AS A REIMBURSEMENT OF PROJECT EXPENSES FROM THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT" MC'TIOM PASSED 9-0. 10. Ordinance Amending Budget for Fiscal Year 1989-90 to Provide for a Transfer from the Electric Fund System Improvement Reserve for Hansen Way 12KV Substation Addition Project Expenses (1101) (CMR: 4 52:9 ) Vice Mayor Bechtel would not participate on the item since her husband was an employee of Varian Associates. Council Member Renzel queried Varian's kilowatt load request. Director of Utilities Rich Young said his understanding was it would be a variable load from one megawatt to nine megawatts total The load would be sporadically used and would need to be on a separate circuit so as to not impact the surrounding neighborhood. Council Member Renzel clarified there would be intermittent, extra heavy loads, but in terns of the City a s overall power usage, the load would be inconsequential. She would be concerned about significant impacts in view of what the City went through to get additional power supplies. Mr. Young said the manner in which Varian intended t.o use the power should have minimal impact. MOTION* Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance appropriating $725,000 to the Electric Capital Fund Budget and decreasing the Electric Fund System Improvement Reserve by the same amount in order to fund the purchase and installation of facilities for the fiscal Year 1989/90 CIP project entitled "Hansen Way 12kV substation Addition." muumwz 3900 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 TO PROVIDE FOR A TRANSFER FROM THE ELECTRIC FUND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT REST FOR P.ANSEN WAY 12KV SUBSTATION ADDITION PROmEC EXPENSES" (CMR: 4 52:9 ) MOTION PAMM*D 8-0, Bechtel "snot participating." 10A (014 5) Agreement with EMCON Associates ` for Assessment and Design of the Airport Tank Remediation and Municipal Service Center" Fuel Storage Modification (1161--01) (a1R:451:9) 62-180 9/25/89 1 City Manager Bill Zaner referred to the tank problem at the airport which was discovered some time ago. While there was some question regarding whether the City or County should pay for the tank removal problems, the City removed the tank to alleviate the mediate public hazard. The City's costs to date totaled approximately $70,000. The City continued to work with the County to determine how to divide the costs. Since a negotiated settle- ment did not seem to be forthcoming, one optionwould be to go to court and the other option would be to see if the County would agree to mediation proceedings and to be bound by whatever the mediator determined. The project before the Council continued the work on the project to determine the cost of full remediation. The tank was removed and the next step was to deal with the underlying soil. Mayor Klein. clarified the current request was for $210,000, and presumably when the project was completed, the City would have a clear idea of the total expenses. Council Member Renzel believed it would be helpful for Council to have a breakdown of expenses between the airport project and the Municipal Services Center (fit.;il project especially if the City would have to pursue remuneration for the airport portion. She was concerned about confusing the issue by combining the expenses for the MSC. Mr. Zaner said a note would be included in the packet. MOTIONI Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve staff recommendation to: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the coryultant agreement with =COM Associates in the amount of $210,000 for the assessment and design of the airport tank remediation and Municipal Service Center fuel storage modification; and 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee tea negotiate and execute amendments for services related to or incidental to the scope of work or services, the value of all of which amendments shall not exceed $30,000 MOTION PASSIM 9-0. 108 (old 7). Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Ordinance Relating to Driveways (268) Council Member Patitucci asked about the definition of the curb cut in front of one's house where one drove in and out of a garage. 62-181 9/25/89 Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said it was commonly called a "driveway." It was not defined in the single-family regulations nor in the offstreet parking ordinance nor the definitions in the 'zoning regulations. The word "driveway" only occurred in the subdivision ordinance. Council Meter Patitucci said the fact that the City was defining "driveway" as having access to 10 or fewer houses did not conflict with the fact that f.t was different from what people commonly called a "driveway." - Ms. Jansen said that vas correct. Council Member Patitucci was confused cm . the issue and hoped to have the issue of "driveway" versus private street clarified at some point. Council Member Sutorius continued to oppose the motion. MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the ordinance. ORDINMCE 3901 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCXL OF 'ICE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SUBSECTION 21.04.043 (16.1) OF TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DRIVEWAYS" (1st Reading 9/11/89, PASSED 7-2, Patitucci, Sutorius "no") MOTION PASSED 7-2, Patitucci, Sutorius "no." TOGR $: Adjourned to a Closed Session re Litigation at 11:10 p.m. FINIAL ADJ0TZBHMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:18 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meting tapes are retained in the City Clerk i s Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Worts Committee and Policy and Prey+;dunes Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Viers of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 52--182 9/25/89 III