Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES --- - PALOALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KCZSU - FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting January 19, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minute: of December 21, 1987 PAGE 59-167 59-167 1. Resolution 6661 Recognizing the Presence 59-167 of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto. Representatives of Oaxaca, Mexico 2. Resolution 6662 Congratulating Neighbors Abroad on. its Twenty -Fifth Anniversary 3. Ordinance 3789 Amending Chaptr 22.08 (Park Dedications) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Dedicate the Remaining Portion of Scott Street Minipark 4. Ordinance 3790 Amending Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change Noise Standards for Cleaning of Public Streets in Business Districts 5. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of a Clair with Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transporta- tion Development Act Funds for FY 1988-89 (Continued from 1/11/88) 59-168 59-168 59-168 59-169 6. Santa Clara County Regional Rail Projects 59-172 7. Planning Commission Recommendation re Approval of Extension of the (P) Pedes- trian Combining District to Additional Properties in the Downtown Area Now Zoned CD -C, CD -S and CD -N, and Proposed Minor Revisions to the (P) Pedestrian Shopping Combining District Regulations 59-174 59-1'65 1/19/88 ITEM 8. Ordinance Amending Title 17 re Hazardous Materials 9. Civic Center Power, Heating and Ventila- tion System Retrofit - Request to Proceed with Obtaining Bids 10. Council Member Fletcher and Mayor Sutorius re Applicants'/Appellants° Oral Presenta- tion Time Allowances 11. Council. Member Woolley and Mayor Sutorius re Ongoing Communications Interchange with Members s of the East Palo Alto City Council PACE 59-177 59-183 59-184 59-185 Adjournment at 9:38 p.m. 59-186 59-166 1/19/88 Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 19, 1988 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.rn. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:42 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Klein ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Dominick Bierman, 5022 Ranchito Avenue, Sherman Oaks, urged the Council to remove the home attic insulation and not use metal shields. He suggested samples be taken to the State Energy Commission for corrosion tests. 2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, suggested that the City's utility bills would provide a good format for determining public opinion on important issues, including the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor issue, APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 1987 MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded Woolley, approval of the Minutes of December 21, 1987, submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein, Patitucci absent, by as 1. RESOLUTION RE REPRESENTATIVES OF OAXACAJ OAXACA, MEXICO (701-04) MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the Resolution RESOLUTION 6 661 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP PALO ALTO RECOGNIZING THE PRESENCE OF AND WELCOMING TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPRESEN- TATIVES OF OAXACA, OAXACA, MEXICO° Mayor Sutorius welcomed Sra. Rebeca Perez de Arnaud, Ing. Abraham Lopez, Sra. Rosita de Molina, Sra. Martha de Perez, Sr. Oscar Vargas, and Sra. Lupita de .Vargas and expressed the Council's appreciation, on behalf of the people of Palo Alto, to the City of Oaxaca and its representatives for their significant contribution to the Sister City Program. 59-167 1/19/88 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. 2. RESOLUTION RE NEIGHBORS ABROAD (701-04) MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6662 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONGRATULATING NEIGHBORS ABROAD ON ITS TWENTY --FIFTH ANNIVERSARY" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. Mayor.. Sutorius commended Neighbors Abroad for its stewardship of Palo Alto's Sister City program and proclaimed the week of January 18-24, 1988 as "Sister City Week." The Council was proud and appreciative of the tremendous service the organization provided throughout the extended community. Arden Anderson, President of Neighbors Abroad, thanked the Council and said the arrival of guests from the other three Sister Cities would set the stage for the celebration of 25 years of international friendship. He invited everyone to participate in the week's activities. He thanked the City and staff for their support and cooperation. Sra. Rosita de Molina, Oaxaca Neighbors Abroad,- thanked the Council and said they were happy to visit Palo Alto. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar, Council Members Renzel and Patitucci asked to be recorded as voting "no" on item 4. 3. ORDINANCE 3789 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 22.08 (PARK DEDICA- TIONS) OF THE PALO : ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEDICATE THE REMAINING PORTION OF SCOTT STREET MINIPARK" (1st Reading 1/04/88, PASSED 9-0) (701-03) 4. ORDINANCE 3790 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE NOISE STANDARDS FOR CLEANING OF PUBLIC STREETS IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS" (1st Reading 1/04/88, PASSED 6-3, Renzel, Levy, Oatitucci voting "no.") (701-03) 59-168 1/19/88 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci, Renzel, voting "no" on Item 4, Klein absent. 5. RESOLUTION RE FILING A CLAIM WITH METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS (Continued from 1/11/88) (CMR:124:8) (701-04/266) Council Member Bechtel realized the Bryant/Embarcadero traf- fic signal was not on the list until 1989-90; however, she was concerned it did not seem to be a necessary light because there was a light a block away at Waverley. Transportation Planner Gayle Likens said the Bryant Street bike boulevard was currently a two-mi)e route that extended up to Churchill Avenue. There was a feeling within the bike community and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) that it would be advantageous to extend Bryant Street through to the downtown. Although there were bike lanes on Waverley, they ended at Coleridge and did not extend south to Meadow, as did the Bryant Street route. Waverley Street also was a bus route and carried substan- tially more traffic. The concept of the bike boulevard was to place bicyclists on a direct route with little traffic and few stop signs. Council Member Bechtel asked if a proposal Lor an additional light on Embarcadero ever went before the City Council. Ms. Likens said the proposal was listed in the Capita). Improvement Program for 87-92 as a project that would be done in 88-89. Staff now recommended it be deferred a year until 89-90. Council Member Bechtel said she would vote for the package if it had already been filed but would not support a traffic signal at the intersection because she did not see why they wanted two lights, one block away from each other. Ms. Likens said the application was due on February 15 and had been filed. The particular project was listed two years hence and, therefore, was one staff would have to resubmit next year to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the County. Staff put the project in that year in order to place it on the list of projects that would give them a step up in terms of having it on the priority list earlier than other cities that might submit projects next year. The project would return to the Council the next year andwould not be. - reviewed or receive much consideration by the MTC at the present time. 59-169 1/19/88 Council Member Patitucci referred to making the temporary Park/Castilleja barrier system permanent, and clarified funds were being applied for now because when staff went over the budget, there had not been. sufficient Capital Improvement funds to complete them all. He further clarified the barrier was next to the park at the north end and was not related to the barrier at the California Avenue end of Park Boulevard. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said that was Council MeOber Woolley said when the project returned to the Council, she wanted to know more about the Embarcadero aspect of putting a light at Bryant. She was aware of discussions about the Town and Country/Palo Alto High School crossing and was also aware of the light already at Waverley. The Council would need convincing evidence to undertake the project. Council Member Fletcher said there was an inordinate propor- tion of accidents at the Bryant/Embarcadero crossing. The request to put in a traffic signal came from the PABAC. Additionally, there were frequent requests for extension of the bicycle boulevard and the one thing that presently pre- vented it was lack of a traffic signal at Embarcadero. Council Member Levy had no problem with the three projects before Council but asked what items were next on staff's list if Council disapproved one of the items. Ms. Likens sad Council identified the priority list of projects in 1984 when they it reviewed the list of projects in the Comprehensive Plan for 1980-1995. Staff updated those last in 1984 and had been working on funding those projects. The next project that was not funded at the present time was the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge at San Francisquito Creek, which would cost at least $200,000. The project had been on the priority list for a number of years and had been deferred until the resolution of the Sand Hill Road extension. All other projects on the list were funded, including lighting improvements on the bike piths, bike parking facilities, directional signing on the bike routes, and the Palo Alto High/Town and Country overpass or safety improvements, and staff was proposing a signal project and improvements along Embarcadero at Emerson --the median improvements that were funded by the Council and were moving forward at present. 59-170 1/19/88 1 Council Member Levy asked if it was time for Council to develop a new list of priorities. Ms. Likens said yes; the only other project on the list was the California Avenue Underpass Replacment Project which would cost a substantial amount of money. Council Member Levy asked if the Bryant/Embarcadero traffic signal implied an evaluation of the extension of Bryant as a bike boulevard up into the downtown area and changes that were needed of stop signs, etc., in order to facilitate that extension. Mr. Overway said yes, eventually. It was not a simple pro- cess. The operational effects of putting a stop light on Embarcadero were such that staff would ensure it was coordi- nated with the one at Waverley. Staff believed the impact of traffic flow on Embarcadero could be controlled and would not be reduced at all by the additional signal. Mayor Sutorius asked how the report before Council differed from the prior report. Ms. Likens said the prior staff report (CMR:124:8) included funding of $1,500 for the Bicycle Traffic School Program in the Police Department. It was later determined that funds foe the program were fully offset by revenues received from fees for the course. The 1987-88 grant was approved. However, the City would not apply for the funds unless it could so legally. MOTION: Council Member. Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the staff recommendation tot 1) Authorize the City Manager to write a letter to MTC requesting that the TDA grant for the Middlefield Sidewalk project be rescinded; and 2) Adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to file a claim for allocation of TDA Article 3 funds in FY 88-89 for pedestrian/bicycle projects in the following priority order: (a) Churchill Avenue Railroad Crossing Pedestrian/ Bicycle Improvements ($35,000) (b) Bryant/Embarcadero Traffic Signal ($75,000) (c) Park/Castilleja Street Closure ($40,000) 59-171 1/19/88 MOTION CONTINUED RESOLUTION 6663 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM WITH METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89° Council Member Patitucci asked about the impact on the City's ticket revenue from a light at Bryant Street to eliminate the trap that existed every second morning between the hours of about 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Mr. Zaner assumed people's driving habits would not change and the revenue would be approximately the same. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. 6. SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL PROJECTS (Continued from 1/11/88) (1163.02) (CMR:116:8) Council Member Woolley referred to the Transbay Terminal extension and the Peninsula Transit Alternatives Project (PiNTAP) Committee report, and said the intent was to have up to136 trains a day as opposed to the present 52, and to have the trains travel much faster She did not see any reference to upgrades at the four at -grade crossings in Palo Alto which would have to bear 136 trains per day. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said that was presently correct. Sac Mateo County was presently putting together a transportation package which included providing grade separations at many of their grade crossings. A simi- lar provision within Santa Clara County was not presently being pursued. While it was not too early nor late for Santa Clara County to begin considering grade separations, until the past tew months the future of Ca1Frain was in question. There now seemed to be a general consensus of communities and cities, particularly in San Mateo County through the tax proposal, to lend significant support to the future of CalTrain at the expense of other kinds of investments. If there was a future for CalTrain, the improvement in terms of 136 trains was long-range. Council Member Woolley queried an amendment to indicate that funding for grade separation in Palo Alto, if not all of Santa Clara County, should be a part of the study. She was concerned -about evaluating the increased use of the train tracks. 59-172 1/19/88 Mr. Overway said it was a valid suggestion, but there were significant environmental consequences with Palo Alto's four grade separations that should first be determined. Council Member Patitucci was also concerned about long-range impacts on Palo Alto. Mr. Zaner said if it appeared appropriate to include Council's concerns in the present transmittal, staff would do so. Otherwise, a separate transmittal would be addressed to ensure the concerns were on record. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel , to adopt the staff recommendation to support the four items noted below and communicate such action in writing to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 1. Retain the current County projects on the priority lists (i.e., Fremont/South Bay, 101 and Vasona Corridors); 2. Refrain from "phasing" the list but rather allow "phasing," if necessary, to occur at the local level; 3. Add the Transbay Terminal extension in San Francisco and facilities to support two trains per day from Gilroy to San Joseto the Rail Modernization priority list; and 4. Establish and emphasize study and grant approval proce- dures which encurage and reward the local implementing authorities which create local consensus and added sources of local matching funds. Council Member Fletcher said the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission evaluated they so-called "Interim Upgrade Study" and referred to a mandate from the State to study and determine an ultimate transportation mode in the 101 Corridor. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) believed the ultimate mode should be determined by a joint powers board comprised of the three counties in the right-of-way. So far the joint powers authority was not formed, but rather there was a Joint Powers Corridor Study Board which was hoping for some State funding. In the meantime, the Hoard seemed to be moving ahead with the one mode without any plan to determine what the ultimate mode should be. The argument she heard was that ultimately everyone wanted BART, but it was perhaps 30 years in the future and in the interim something had to be done. The sentiment was noble, but such a massive project would take years to get funded and constructed. The Executive Director of the MTC recently said he did not envision both the BART 59-173 1/19/88 Airport extension and the Downtown extension being built within the next 20 years. She believed he meant one might be but not both probably because funding could not be put together any faster for both projects. The determination seemed to be to go ahead with the extension and plan on continually upgrading the current type of service without evaluating whether it was the best thing to do in the corridor. She was not opposed to an extension or putting it. on the list. Mayor Sutorius was concerned the figures used in the current projections were difficult to realistically expect both in terms of numbers of runs and riders. However, he had been a commuter from Palo Alto to San Francisco and San Jose for many years and agreed that the ability to get from the CalTrain terminal into the immediate Downtown area needed to be improved if ridership were to approach prior levels and hopefully go beyond. He would support the motion. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Klein absent. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF THE (P) PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT TO ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA NOW ZONED CD -C, CD -S AND CD -N, AND PROPOSED MINOR REVISIONS TO THE (P) PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS (237-01/701-03) Assistant Planning Official George Zimmer:man said the Planning Commission's changes were intended to clarify the discretion given the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in determining a suitable application of "P" District design regulations. ARB Member Jon Schink said the ARB recommended in the summer of 1987 that the 'P' District be expanded because there was a distinct trend in development into more retail use, The ARI's experience was that a project could he initially designed to be compatible with a retail and a pedestrian environment. When the "Pedestrian" zone design guidelines were adopted five years ago, the ARB worked to ensure that when a buiding was designed, it encouraged retail use or the rebuilding was at least well -suited for adapation to retail. The ARB believed it was appropriate to make developers aware of what the ARB wanted to see as they reviewed the buildings. Council Member Cobb believed the City was losing service businesses and he asked about the impact of the change on those businesses. 59-174 1/19/88 Mr. Schink said the ARB only used the design guidelines on projects undergoing major rehabilitation and they would not be imposed on an owner of a tire shop if he wanted to add a new grease rack or change its . signs. He did not see that the change would have much of an effect on the service businesses. Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh said the Planning Commission was also concerned about future impacts and the ordinance was revised to describe the application of the pedestrian zone. The Commission wanted to ensure that within the con- text of the ordinance it was clear that applying any spe- cific design features on any particular project would be at the discretion of the ARB. Projects such as an expansion of an auto facility would not be required to have display_ windows. She did not believe the ordinance would limit any expansion of service businesses or the creation of new service businesses. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber did not believe the regulations would have any impact on the service commercial businesses. The loss of service busi- nesses was related to market and economic forces. Council Member Levy queried whether the ARB or Planning Commission considered alternatives to the "P" Combining district. Mr. Schink said no. Council Member Levy asked what would happen if a service business wanted to take over a retail location. Mr. Zimmerman said the ARB was sensitive to the City's con- cerns about retaining service commercial businesses. Council Member Levyasked whether different guidelines could specifically apply to retail -type uses. Mr. Zimmerman said it was possibility. The ARB only used two sets of guidelines --one was ancillary to the "P" district regulations and the other was for E1 Camino Real. Council Member Levy asked whether the El Camino Real guide- lines were approved by Council.. Mr. Schreiber believed the guidelines were authorized by Council and the primary work was done by the ARB. The guidelines might have returned to Council, but he was not sure whether they had been an agenda item. 59-175 1/19/88 Mayor Sutorius believed the guidelines were a follow-through on Council action with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and the identification of important areas of the City for which the guidelines would be appropriate. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open; Receiving no requests from the public tG speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to: 1. Extend the (P) Pedestrian Shopping Combining District in several locations in Downtown Palo Alto; and 2. Modify the text in Sections 18.47.040 of the (P) Combining District Zoning Regulations. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OP THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 18.47 OF TITLE 18 (THE ZONING MAP) TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE (P) DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND TO ENABLE THEIR COMBINATION WITH THE CD DISTRICT REGULATIONS' ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES BY EXTENDING THE (P) PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT AND APPLYING THE DISTRICT'S REGULATIONS IN COMBINATION WITH EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS TO THOSE PROPERTIES" Council Member Levy was concerned about the message. 9e agreed with the objectives but was concerned that if ._Me City put pedestrian areas on its zoning map, the effect would be to dampen the enthusiasm of service businesses from locating in Palo Alto because they would get the impression that they would have to take a hack seat to retail develop- ments. Service businesses were valuable and having the area evolve as a mixed area with different kinds of businesses than those located in the CD -C and CD -N areas was a benefit for the community. AMENDMENT: Council_ Member Levy moved that staff, in con- sultation with the ARB, develop design guidelines consis- tent with the objectives of the pedestrian combining zone to be used for retail -type usesin the CD -S zone shown on Exhibit "A" but not to include the CD -S zone in the "P" Combining district. 59-175 1/19/88 AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Cobb referred to Council Member Levy's com- ment that the existence of the "P" zone on the map could tend to discourage the service businesses. He queried whether any evidence showed that could be the case. Mr. Zimmerman said no. Council Member Cobb asked whether staff tracked the effec- tiveness of the zone\ where it was already applied and whether any comparable types of tracking was contemplated with regard to the extension of the zone to the new areas. Mr. Zimmerman said what tracking was done downtown had more to do with the overall economic vitality. The results of that tracking were positive. Staff had not tracked per se the application of the "P" district guidelines. Mr. Schink believed the Decker Oaks building on the corner of Waverley and University was different because of the "P" district guidelines. The building features closely fol- lowed the same design guidelines as the building on the corner of Hamilton and Cowper. Both buildings might have looked quite a bit different without the "P" district guidelines. Council Member Cobb supported the motion. Council Member Renzel referred to the issue of the service businesses and believed the economic forces were much more significant than anything else. If the City wanted to be be effective in retaining service businesses, Council prob- ably needed to look seriously at zones which were well- defined so such businesses were not forced to compete with much more economic uses. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Levy voting no," Klein absent. 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 RE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (1440-01) (CMR:121:8) Fire Chief Bob Wall introduced Rosemary Manning, the Hazardous Materials Investigator. Mayor Sutorius referred to Alza's correpondence and the attached legal opinion (on file in the City Clerk's office), and asked the City Attorney's Office to comment on the City's findings. 59-177 1/19/88 Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan said Mr. Finney's letter opined the. City should have prepared environmental review on the adoption of the ordinance. The City Attorney's office disagreed and concluded the ordinance was not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA guidelines set forth a defini- tion of "project" in Section 15378(b)(3) which specified that "procedure making is not a project under CEQA." The ordinance clarified a procedure and basically set forth how the City would comply with a State law already in effect. If the City was not adopting the ordinance, it would still be bound to comply with State law. Council Member Cobb said. the Alza letter suggested the passage of the ordinance might discourage improvements to hazardous waste facilities. He queried whether Alza made any specific recommendations which staff believed could be incorporated into the ordinance and would give the City what it wanted and act as an inducement to such companies. Chief Wall said the proposal before the Council responded to concerns regarding the opportunity for community input into the hazardous materials permit process. The Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee reviewed and streamlined the permit process in an attempt to not discourage or provide disincentives to industry but to encourage hazardous materials upgrades and a safer environment by making a simpler permit process. Nancy Noe, Alza Corporation, 950 Page Mill Road, said Alza struggled with City government and the residents for a mutually acceptable alternative. Alza was concerned that the procedural requirements would create a burden for the business community and would kill potentially beneficial projects. Alza suggested a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be done on a Citywide basis to address the cumulative impacts of chemical storage and residents' concerns. It would give people input to the process early on and would provide a framework for companies to see how their projects tit within the programmatic EIR and what issues were left to be addressed. It would give companies an opportunity to plan their projects in advance instead of going through the environmental review process after the plans were created. It would streamline the City's process because the programmatic EIR would be in place and the City would only have to look at those pieces which varied from the EIR. The results of a programmatic EIR would show what the most appropriate changes to Title 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code would be. . She introduced Kenneth Finney, A1za'S attorney. 59-178 1/19/88 Council Member Woolley queried how a programmatic EIR would work, who would bear the costs, and how long it would take. Ken Finney, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, 525 University Avenue, said normally an EIR was funded by the applicant. A programmatic EIR would be similarly funded by the pool of applicants, i.e., people expected to apply for permits under Title 17. In a practical sense, Alza was prepared to make a,_sizeable commitment of funds toward the preparation of a programmatic EIR and to meet with others who would directly benefit from a streamlined permit pro- cess. One of the benefits of a programmatic. EIR was that it allowed a subsequent project and a permit application to use the material, findings and research that went into the programatic FIR The first instance would be a voluntary assessment by those people who sought permits under Title 17. How long it would take to complete such an EIR was subject to the scope, but it would probably be five to six months, The price was also subject to the scope but it would range approximately between $100,000 and $250,000. Council Member Renzel asked how a programmatic EIR would save time given the wide range of chemicals and the diversity of physical facilities and locations. Mr. Finney said the programmatic EIR would not serve as a complete surrogate for CEQA documentation that would accom- pany a permit application. To the extent the programmatic EIR covered the same identified policy concerns and environmental problems posed by such a project, it would be available as documentation and would save the permit appli- cant the job of preparing it. Each project would contain unique aspects which would have to be addressed in CEQA documents tailored to the specific project at the time the permit was considered. For all projects for the storage of hazardous materials, there were common elements and the nature of the potential environmental effects. For those areas where they shared environmental issues, the document would be directly useful to subsequent appplicants. Council Member Renzel understood Mr. Carpenter's letter to suggest the programmatic EIR would be in lieu of individual EIRs. If every specific project still had to have a sup- plementary EIR, the process would still be long. Mr. ' Finney said in every EIR there were three or four key issues associated with the project. Under the EIR process a wide range of issues were reviewed as required by the CEQA guidelines. There' was significant redundancy in the preparation of EIRs for projects that were as similar . as 59-179 1/19/88 the ones permitted under Title 17. While every application would require unique CEQA documentation, a programmatic EIR would provide the basis for much of the analysis that would have to be done by the applicant and the City. It would save the applicant considerable money and time at the point at which they sought a permit under Title 17. The use of programmatic EIRs were common and the CEQA guidelines encouraged their use and specifically pointd out the bene- fits. Palo Alto's situation of considerng cumulative impacts of the storage of hazardous materials seemed ideal for the preparation of a progammatic EIR. Council Member Renzel did not understand how a program EIR would help in the subject instance. Mr. Schreiber referred to the Citywide Land use and Trans- portation Study where a programmatic EIR was beino done in traffic and transportation areas. It was reasonably easy to get a handle on the methodology because assumptions could be made about numbers of vehicle trips by site. Later, if a development did not exceed the assumptions, the impacts of traffic at least on the general network were covered in the program EIR and further environmental analy- sis would not be needed if the background assumptions were still valid. The immediate problem in the area of hazardous materials was there were few, if any, precedents for doing the work. The methodology which allowed assump- tions, parcel by parcel, regarding the amount of chemical and risk would be difficult, which he believed separated the hazardous materials area from traffic. Mr. Zaner did not understand how people could be charged for an EIR which could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He assumed the City would be expected to stand the cost in the long run. He believed it would take a year or two to do such an EIR. He recommended Council consider the proposed ordinance based on the information received from the public discussions, If Alza had a proposal to make at some future date when it had a program put together, it could be considered. Council Member Levy understood Alza's concerns were the cost, time, and uncertainty connected with doing the EIR and the uncertainty with the entire process which allowed for many appeals and public input. He assumed the programmatic EIR addressed both issues and it seemed to him that the appeals and public input would be just as focused and that there would be no savings in time or process. 59-180 1/19/88 Mr. Finney said the goal was to see that the public p .rtici- pation called for under CEQA which applied to the permits was conducted with a solid understanding of the actual impacts from the storage of hazardous materials. The thrust of CEQA was to generate information about a project and allow for education, discussion, and decision -making. The proposed ordinance compounded the prodedural aspects of CEQA and did not address the substantive needs for information. A substantive response to the need for public participation with regard to the storage of hazardous materials was addressed by the preparation of a programmatic EIR which generated information uniquely as compared to individual EIRs which were submitted piecemeal to the City Fire Department or through the generation of negative declaration documents. The goal was the substantive generation of information not to truncate CEQA's procedural process. The difficulty Alza had with the current proposal was. that it co►pounded procedural aspects of public participation by failing to address the substantive need for participation. Alza participated in the process for a long time and sought to provide a constructive and responsible alternative. Council Member Patitucci supported strengthening the City's control over hazardous materials but voted against the pro- posal previously because it did not appear the City took advantage of its experience and knowledge to create a classification of use and quantities of materials which were exempt from the process in the same way that the City had a Building Code which specified a certain range of things which did not require variances, hearings, etc. He did not oppose the process outlined in the proposed ordi- nance but queried whether it was possible to pursue some sort of amendment to the ordinance in the future that would begin to take the knowledge and experience acquired and create exempt categories and uses -if they met certain kinds of inspection criteria rather than have everything proce- duralized in the permit process. He -also asked about the relationship between the concept of classification of materials and use and language contained in the ordinance that the "Fire Chief shall determine whether the project for which the application is being submitted is exempt from CEQA." The ordinance called a *permit" a "project" which meant every permit application itself became a project yet the Fire Chief had the ability to regulate many things out of the ordinance because the same wording -appeared in each of the sections. He queried whether it was an attempt to classify those kinds of materials, quantities, and changes which would not be part of the process. 59-181 1/19/88 Ms. Sloan suggested the word "exempt" was confusing because all permits under Title 17 were being treated as subject to CEQA. CEQA itself said there were categorical exemptions from CEQA. "Exempt from CEQA" meant within the confines of CEQA there would be some exemptions. Council Member Patitucci clarified that would be different from creating a process in which certain types of permits were themselves exempt from the chapter. If it was possible to do that, what would it take to do so. Ms. Sloan said it would be possible to have some projects be ministerial acts and the way to do that was to take away all discretion from the Fire Chief and set out criteria an applicant had to meet, which if met and if the fee was paid, then the permit would be issued. MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, to adopt the ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 17, Hazardous Materials Storage, and that staff be requested to return within six months with an ordinance amendment identi- fying those nondiscretionary criteria that would allow cer- tain permit applications below the level of serious hazardous materials as exempt from the Chapter. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 17, Hazardous Materials Storage. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 17 (HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE) TO ADD CHAPTER 17.34 (ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW), AMEND CHAPTER 17.32 (APPLICATION FOR PERMIT) AND REPEAL CHAPTER 17.36 (DENIAL)" Council Member Renzel said when the P&P Committee approved a process for increased environmental review, the four divi- sons of the levels of seriousness provided for expedited review of less serious projects. Those were not the ones subject to the concern of Alza but rather the larger proj- ects which required significant environmental review. She believed Council Member Patitucci's concern was already addressed in the hierarchy of categories already estab- lished. 59► -182 1/19/88 Council Member Cobb asked whether there was any point in encouraging Alza to submit a program plan. Mr. Zaner recognized Alza's contribution to the effort. If Alza or others made a proposal staff believed made sense, it would be considered and brought. to Council with recom- mendations. Council Member Cobb said apropos of the City Manager's com- ments, ..n Alza or anynne else to make a the burden was .,.. ,._.._ _� spe- cific suggestion to the City as to how the process could be improved, how it could be funded, and how it could work. If there was interest, the suggestion could be incorporated into the City's processes and dealt with in the normal fashion. In the meantime, the ordinance would be in effect and the City would have what benefits it provided. If there was a way to improve it, the City should be told. Council Member Patitucci supported the ordinance mainly because his concern for the regulation of hazardous materials overrode his fear of the bureaucratic procedures being set in motion. He hoped staff would consider sugges- tions to streamline the process or exempt categories. Council Member Woolley said it was difficult for Council to digest a last minute proposal. Alza's proposal seemed to address the cumulative impacts to the entire research park, which the residents were concerned about, and it might also do something to address the problem of discouraging busi- nesses from upgrading or coming in with safer facilities. She encouraged Alza to proceed with any suggestions to imt rove the ordinance. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. 9. CIVIC CENTER POWER, HEATING AND VENTILATION SYSTEM RETROFIT - REQUEST TO PROCEED WITH OBTAINING BIDS (810-02-01) (CMR:111:8) MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff recommendation authorizing staff to proceed with obtaining bids for retrofitting the Civic Center power, heating, and ventilation systems. Council Member Patitucci said at the end of the year when Council considered the budget, the Capital Improvement Fund had a variety of projects which slipped because of an inability to get bids or collect information in order to go out to bid, etc.. He queried a slippage :number~ which might relate to the acceleration number. 59-183 1/19/88 Mr. Zaner said savings were made in other projects, but there were also projects Council authorized which were going slightly over their budget so they would probably come out about even. Staff was ksking to advance a project a few months and would reduce the request in the budget itself. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. 10. COUNCIL MEMBER FLETCHER AND MAYOR SUTORIUS RE APPLICANTS'/APPELLANTS' ORAL PRESENTATION TIME ALLOWANCES (701) MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Patitucci, that the Council Meeting procedures allow appli- cants and/or appellants for hearings required by law, up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion and up to three minutes for the concluding remarks after other public appearances. Council Member Renzel said Council received a lot of writ- ten documentation on the basis for appeals. It seemed to her that any statement on the part of the appellant would amplify what was presented in writing. She could see having three minutes at the conclusion because many new points might have been raised. Particularly since Palo Alto tended to have lengthy public hearings, she queried whether time needed to be added at the outset. She generally supported allowing the public a lot of latitude to express their views but five minutes generally allowed ample time. Council Member Fletcher said applicants/appellants generally had a lot of material to present. Even if Council had the written material, they also had the minutes showing the pub- lic's comments which were often repeated. She sometimes felt the applicant or appellant did not have the opportunity to present full cases and it was not equitable since some- times only one individual represented the one point of view and numerous other people had equal time. She believed it was unbalanced to the degree that the applicant/appellant deserved more time. When she was first elected to the Council, the applicant/appellant was given considerably more time than the other people who spoke to the issue. Mayor Sutorius emphasized that up to ten minutes was being made available, but it was not suggested that each party should take that long. There were instances where the pre- sentations, because of the time limitations, created situa- tions where Council asked a series of questions. If the presentation were allowed up to ten minutes, it could be organized to anticipate areas of question or key interest. 59-184 1/19/88 Ms. Sloan clarified the motion applied to hearings required by law. The Administrative Code chapter of the Palo Alto Municipal Code restricted speakers to five minutes but may be given additional time if it was a hearing required by law. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. 11. COUNCIL MEMBER WOOLLEY AND MAYOR SUTORIUS RE ONGOING COMMUNICATIONS INTERCHANGE WITH MEMBERS OF THE EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL (1501) Mayor Sutorius said the East Palo Alto Council suggested a continuing opportunity for informal discussion. The City of East Palo Alto suggested its Mayor or any one of the Council colleagues as a representative, and he looked forward to continued communication and being acquainted on a face-to- face basis. The actions initiated by past Mayor Woolley were fruitful and he expected they could continue. He was struck by the City of Menlo Park's interest and the poten- tial for evolving situations to establish ongoing communica- tion linkage of neighboring cities, which was in line with the interest expressed by the City of East Palo Alto. MOTION: Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, to direct the Mayor to continue to meet informally with the East Palo Alto City Council representatives and to designate another City Council representative. Council Member Levy was concerned that the procedures for open government be followed even though the process was informal. He assumed there would be adequate public notice given and that the meetings would be open to the public even though there would be a minority of Council members from each side in attendance. Mayor Sutorius said' any situation which required notice would have notice. At that point and with the concurrence of the Cicy Attorney's office, the present informal type of contact anticipated by the Cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto did not fall within the requirement. Ms. Sloan said the proposal did not fall within the nciice requirements. Council Member Levy would not authorize any private meetings. If any Council Member wanted to meet with anyone else, they were entitled to do so. If Council authorized such a meeting, it should be publicly noticed and open tc the public. 59-185 1/19/88 Mayor Sutorius saw the motion as an elaboration of a com- munication effort being mutually recognized by two cities but being done on an informal basis. Council Member Levy could not authorize such a meeting. Council Member Renzel understood a formal or informal col- laboration between Councils or groups representing the Council did not require public notice if they were held on an intermittent basis. The only way anyone could be noticed of that type of .meeting under the Brown Act was to request notice in writing. Council Member Bechtel understood Mayor Sutorius brought the item before Council as an information item. She did not believe a motion was necessary. Mayor Sutorius believed the subject was sufficiently sig- nificant as a follow-up to the communication exchanged between the two full Councils. If Council Members did not wish to extend such authority individually, he would be so guided and would do it as a prerogative of the office. Council Member Patitucci believed the motion suggested that the informal meetings with East Palo Alto be a priority item for the Mayor. He encouraged the activity. Council Member Renzel agreed with Council Member Patitucci. She took at face value the word "informal" which meant an exchange of information. She hoped there would be feedback to Council and input from Council as the meetings took place. Council Member Levy clarified his opposition was because of his feelings about open government. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Levy voting 'no," Klein absent. AOJOURHMENT Council adjourned at 9:38 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 59-186 1/19/88