Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-14 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL M EETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREQUENCY 90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minutes of February 8, 1988 PAGE 59-293 59-294 2. Resolution 6675 Approving and Authorizing 59-295 Execution of Amendment No. 1 to "Agreement for Maintenance of State Highways." 3. Resolution 6676 Authorizing the Filing of 59-295 a Claim with the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission for Allocation of Trans- portation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1988-89 4. Resolution 6677 Adopting a Policy for Reimbursement Expenses Incurred in the Performance of a Council , Member's Duties and Repealing Previous Resolutions on this Subject, Namely Resolutions Nos. 5656, 5751, and 5760. Ordinance 3797 Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Establish and Pro- vide an Additional Appropriation for the Library Funds from the Public Library Foundation and the State Library 59-295 59-295 Agenda Changes',► Additions, and Deletions 59-295 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of Michael Fleming for a Preliminary Parcel Map to Subdivide Four Parcels into Two for Prop- erty Located at 1159 Lincoln Court (Con- tinued from 2/16/88) Recess 59-296 59-303 59.291 3/14/88 ITEM PAGE Items to Consider After 10:30 p.m. 59-315 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 59-315 mendation re Modification of the Multiple - Family Zoning Ordinances and Citywide Zone Map, Introduction of Multiple Residential Guidelines, Application of New Multiple Family Development Standards to Commercial and Industrial Districts, and Possible Application of (D) Site and Design Review Combining District Regulations to Certain Properties (Continued to 4/18/88) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 59-315 mendation re Appeal of Harry, Ruth, and Eugene Wood Against the Decision of the Zoning Administrator to Grant a Variance for Property Located at 4216 Manueia Avenue 8A. (Old 1) Contract with C & J Contracting 59.319 Inc., for Alterations to the Fifth Floor of Civic Center 9. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Opposition to SB 1809 Use of Transit District Funds tor Multiple -Occupancy Vehicle Lanes 10. Mayor Jack Sutorius re Cancellation of City Council Meeting Scheduled for March 21, 1988 59.320 59-321 Adjournment at 11:37 p.m. 59-322 59-292 3/14/88 Regular Meeting Monday, March 14, 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.m. PRESENT Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci.(arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Sutorius announced that a Special Meeting to interview Human Relations Commission candidates was held in the Council Conference Room .prior to the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding his request for the number of complaints and disciplinary actions against police officers in 1987. City Manager Bill Zaner said the City Attorney requested an opinion from the Attorney General to confirm her own opinion, and in the near future the City was also sched- uling a session on the agenda to bring the item fully to the Council's attention and give it an opportunity to review both the City's police and the stator of the law. 2. James Johnson, 1006. Ramona, showed pictures of El Palo Alto and said the tree was in danger. There was a sub- sidence of soil at the base, and he believed a coordi- nated effort could, be made to save the tree. 3. Walt McCullough, 1637 Emerson, was concerned about the oversized houses being built in Palo Alto. He urged the Council reconsider limitations on square footage, per lot size and setbacks. 4. Tom Cunningham, 340 Churchill Avenue, spoke to over- building of sites. 5. Jim Dinkey1 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke to .cable pedestals. He suggested neighborhood group meetings, a sampler of installations, _ notification bymail, that the property owner be able to chose whether to have underground ped- estals, that the matter be agendi zed , and that Frank Riddle be replaced. 59-293 3/14/88 6. Kenneth Scholz, 4150 Willmar Drive, spoke about his sur- vey of his neighborhood in regard to cable pedestals, and he suggested people be shown models of the boxes and that the City ensure people understood the choices and impacts. Mr. Zaner said a number of members of the public and some Council Members had asked for an opportunity to place the item back on the agenda for review. Staff had secured an agreement from Pacific Bell , to stop the undergroundinq in the R--1 area for a brief period and were presently anticipating returning the item to the Council on March 28, 1988. 7. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke to the launching ramp and dredging at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor and his questions on why the harbor was destroyed and what was meant by "greater public access." 8. William Conlon, 2330 Bryant Street, said the matter of oversized houses on R-1 lots was a matter of concern to many people. 9. Judith Schwartz, 2330 Bryant Street, echoed what Mr. Conlon said. She hoped the Council would maintain the quality of life in Palo Alto. 10. Emile Houle, 244 Tennyson, was concerned about large houses being built on R-1 lots. He urged the Council to develop an interim position on the issue. 11. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, presented a petition (on file in the City Clerk's office) in regard to the assessment districts and underground vaults for cable television. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 1988 Council Member Renzel had corrections to Pages 59-242, 59-243, and 59-248. Council Member Patitucci had a correction to Page 59--233. NOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the Minutes of February 8, 1988, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Cobb "abstaining.. 59-294 3/14/88 CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Patitucci removed Item 1, Contract with C & J Contracting, Inc., for Alterations to the Fifth Floor of the Civic Center. [LOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the Consent Calendar. 2. RESOLUTION 6675 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECU- TION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 'AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS' BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPART- MENT OF TRANSPORTATION" (CMR: 189 :8) (701-04/1164) 3. RESOLUTION 6676 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89" (701-04/1165-01) 4. RESOLUTION 6677 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A POLICY FOR REIMBURSE- MENT EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A COUNCIL MEMBER'S DUTIES AND REPEALING PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, NAMELY RESOLUTIONS NOS. 5656, 5751, AND 5760" (701-04/701) 5. ORDINANCE 3797 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE LIBRARY FUNDS FROM THE PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION AND THE STATE LIBRARY" (701-03) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci voting *no," on Item 4. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mr. Zaner said Item 1 would become Item 8A. 59-295 3/14/88 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF MICHAEL FLEMING FOR A PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE FOUR PARCELS INTO TWO, WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR ACCESS OVER AN EASEMENT WHERE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET IS REQUIRED, AND A WIDTH OF 50 FEET WHERE 60 FEET IS REQUIRED, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1159 LINCOLN COURT (Continued from 2/16/88) (CMR:187:8) (300) Council Member Renzel referenced the portion of the lot that was to be kept in open space and asked if there was any way to require it stay as one parcel. City Attorney Diane Northway replied the only way she could think of ,was some kind of covenant running with the land. If it was given to the City, the City could waive it; and if it was given to other property owners, they could waive it as well. The Council could require it be kept that way in perpetuity, but a subsequent Council could change that, and different property owners could agree to change that if it were to run to them as part of a covenantrunning with the land. If the Council wanted the covenant to last a longer tire, she suggested it run to the neighboring properties. Council Member Levy asked if there was any obligation on the part of the City to access a land lot. Ms. Northway said not if the City did not create it. Council Member Levy asked if that was the case with the lots in question. Ms. Northway said yes. Council Member Renzel asked if the Council could require future division of land from the parcel to go to the City Council and Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Northway said the procedural requirements in the code would be the ones that would be followed. She believed there would be an argument for equal protection and some kind of violation of due process if the City had a special type of procedure for one particular parcel. Mayor Sutor i us declared the Public Hearing open. Michael Fleming, 1159 Lincoln Court, believed the plan before the Council reflected the concerns of the neighbors for the most part. He emphasized they wanted to provide a suitable home for their family and intended to spend the next ?n . to 30 years on Lincoln Court. The plan provided the best combination of meeting their family's needs and 59-296 3/14/88 minimizing the home's impact on the immediate surrounding neighbors' properties and the neighborhood in general. He asked the Council to approve the proposal. Council Member Cobb understood Mr. Fleming planned to stay at the subject property with or without the approval of the application. He asked if it was correct that if the Planning Commission recommendation was denied and the appli- cant was forced to stay within the confines of the existing substandard lot, he intended to build the lot out to the maximum allowed. Mr. Fleming said yes; their plans were ready to go to the Building Department in that event. Mayor Sutorius referenced correspondence entitled "Condi- tions for Support of the 1159 Lincoln Ct. Subdivision," (on file in the City Clerk's office) ► and asked whether Mr. Fleming was agreeing to a setback beyond what was contained in the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. ,Fleming said he was agreeing to a setback beyond that contained in the Planning Commission recommendations. Mayor Sutorius asked if that would also apply to the set- back from the Savoye's side property line, which the . docu- ment indicated as 12 feet. Mr. Fleming said yes. There was a fireplace projection into that which was not normally considered part of the setback, so it was a 12 -foot setback. Mayor Sutorius asked if Mr. Fleming was concurring to a limitation that the basement would have a maximum finished ceiling height of 6 foot 9 inches. Mr. Fleming said correct. Council Member Renzel asked if it was the applicant's intent to sell any of the land that would remain open. Mr. Fleming said it was not his intent. Council Member Renzel clarified Mr. Fleming would not anti- cipate within the next 10 or 15 years selling any of the land. Mr. Fleming said he did not anticipate ever selling Council Member Renzel assumed the basement would have a sump pump, and she asked how that would drain. 59-297 3/14/88 Mr. Fleming said a sump pump normally drained into a drain line to which the gutters of the house were also attached, and it bubbled out onto the normal drainage line on the sur- face of the Court. It was illegal to tie the sump pump into the sewer system. Council Member Cobb asked if the applicant had considered a single -story variation which would involve some of ,the "footprint" of the house he wanted to build now, but still left the area undeveloped to the corner. Mr. Fleming said the alternative was considered fairly extensively with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's decision was that the footprint was about 40 percent less for the two-story variation, and it was a trade-off of impacts between having some second -story windows versus having the house spread out more, smaller setbacks on the sides, and having the house seem more expan- sive on the lot. Council Member Cobb was referring to an single -story alter- native that resat icted the house to Parcel A of the existing parcel. Mr. Fleming said no; they did not look at that exact alter- native. Larick Hill, 3250 Ash Street, showed transparencies of the property. Carole Fleming, 1159- Lincoln Court, said they had worked with their neighbors as much as possible and understood the concerns regarding oversized housing in Palo Alto. In the agreement referred to by Mayor Sutorius, they had agreed to two extra restrictions. Because of the 26- to 30 -foot set- back, they provided relief in the perceived density on Lincoln Court. The character of Lincoln Court changed as one moved toward the end where it opened up. They would make the transition one house earlier. The property would fit the architectural style of th.e last four houses. She implored the Council to delibe`atelyextract the issue from the overwhelming political crossfire relating to building restrictions in Palo •Alto. Helen A. Low, 1230 Emerson, spoke on behalf of the appli- cants so they might build a home _tor their family. Palo Alto should encourage young families. 59-298 3/:14/88. Robert Johnston, 754 Southampton, supported the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the plan for 1159 Lincoln Court. He urged approval. Julie Keady, 3444 Kenneth Drive, said the Flemings were good neighbors, the quality of Mr. Fleming's work was outstand- ing, and she hoped the Council would vote in their. favor. Lucy Berman, 535 W. Crescent Drive, had watched the Flemings work hard to piece together land large enough for their family to have room to grow and play, and she hoped the Council would support them. Heather White, 1177 Lincoln Court, did not believe whether the Flemings lived on the court was the issue. The issue was the long-term effect on the court of whatever was built there. She wrote the petition against the subdivision prop- osal but decided to withdraw her name and support from the petition after working out an agreement with the Flemings and others. The agreement was for the Planning Commission's recommendations and the points referenced by Mayor Sutorius She knew the only difference between a subdivision and keeping the lot substandard was the size of the front and side setbacks. Besides the Flemings, 12 homes used the court driveway and 6 were for the subdivision proposal and 5 were against. If the subdivision was granted without the conditions worked out, three would withdraw their support. The current plan was very reasonable, and if she had seen it initially she would never have complained. Something would be done with the land -locked parcels and the proposal was the best use of the lot. Council Member Cobb asked for Ms. White's position on the issue of the sewer line. Ms. White said a larger house would obviously impact the substandard, 60 -year old collapsing sewer. She hoped .at the same time the undergrounding was done on Lincoln Court for the utilities, they could put a new sewer line down the center for everyone to hook up to. If that could not be done in the near future, in the meantime the intention was to upgrade the sewer as far down as people . would allow. Council Member Woolley asked the location of Ms. White's house. Ms. White said her house was across the street and down one house. 59-299 3/14/88 Council Member Woolley asked about the neighbors' positions either side of the proposed development. Ms. White added Mt. Miller who owned the house next. door to her had also signed the agreement. There appeared to be no correlation between one's location on the court and whether one was for or against. In fact, people farther away seemed to be more opposed. Mrs. J. W. Burgess, 1178 Hamilton Avenue, said her two-story house overlooked the proposed lot. She was familiar with the traffic patterns and the problems of the court. She was concerned about access and creating a fire- and earthquake- trap. She understood the City could be liable if a cata- strophe occurred. Allowing the population to increase by overbuilding diminished the park facilities in perspective. She also expressed concern about parking and sewers. She requested an environmental impact report on the Lincoln Court proposal and the City's decision on definite regula- tions for building. Trish Johnson, 1435 Parkinson Avenue, said her house was designed by Mike Fleming and Larick Hill and she received many compliments on i t . She was confident the subject pro- perty would be in keeping with the other homes on Lincoln Court. She wholeheartedly supported the request. Rudi Newmarker., 1444 Edgewood Drive, knew Mike Fleming and Larick Hill to be responsible people. He welcomed a family with four children who supported the schools. Leslie Newmarker, 1444 Edgewood Drive, hoped the Flemings could raise their family in Palo Alto and that the applica- tion would be passed that evening. Robert Horn, 180 Erica Way, Portola Valley, owned 1155 Lincoln Court, and said the proposed development would change the character of Lincoln Court. A concern related to increasing the population density of the Lincoln Court area,. which implied less privacy, less open space,. heavier traffic and parking. They requested the property remain as a sub- standard lot. Lee Horn, 180 Erica Way, Portola Valley, asked the Council to "just say no" to the project being proposed. She was concerned about overloading the old sewer line. It was a private line, and it was not known where it hooked up to the City line. Problems would come in the form of additional traffic and in maintaining a privately -owned driveway. 59-300 3/14/8.8 Jackie Salabert, 1141 Lincoln Avenue, was opposed to the current plan and hoped the Council would realize its impact. Terry Stewart, 1141 Forest Avenue, said the proposed house would look into his backyard. The letter of the law on set- backs might have been met if it was a normal rectangular or square lot, but when dealing with a 12 -sided lot, the spirit of the law was violated. It was still a rear -lot subdivi- sion off a substandard access of Lincoln Court. A "yes" vote. would set precedence that would justify developers in putting together unbuildable lots with sections of other properties to get around the, spirit of the law. The devel- oper had other options. They were not opposed to the Flemings' adding on to the property; at least, it would not be looking into the neighbors' backyards. Council Member Bechtel asked how far Mr. Stewart's house was from the back property line. Mr. Stewart said six feet. Council Member Bechtel, clarified the maximum size agreed tr was 2,800 square feet plus a 200 -square -foot garage. Mr.- Stewart believed the size was approximately 3,400 square feet with the garage. There had been many. sets of plans and he was not certain. Council Member Bechtel understood one of the conditions of the Planning Commission had to do with the maximum size of the home to be developed. Mr. Stewart said that was true. Juliet Stewart, 1141 Forest Avenue, referenced a petition requesting that the parcel map change as requested by Mr. Fleming be denied and said 135 signatures were indicated. Since that time they collected 20 more signatures. They had an overwhelmingly positive response to the petition. People telt strongly that the character and scale of the neighbor- hood should remain the same. On behalf of the 155 people represented in the petition, she requested the Council deny the parcel map change and help ensure a more appropriately sized .house was developed on the property. John Boyd, 1196 Hamilton Avenues, spoke in favor of Mr. Fleming's plan and urged the Council to make a positive vote on the matter. 59-301 3/14/88 Harold Justman, 715 Ashby, believed there should be renewal of the City's housing stock. He asked ache council to vote in favor of the proposed house. Greg Osborn, 1450 Greenwood Avenue, pointed out the floor area ratio (FAR) was only 26 percent of the whole lot. He said the City had laws about the use and occupancy of single-family dwellings, none of which addressed sewer capacity or family size. The Flemings had done everything possible to accommodate their neighbors, to provide for the lowest impact possible, and to come up with a reasonable alternative. They deserved to have the plan approved. Mr. Fleming was aware their plan still generateconcern for. the: neighbors. He was still open to talking with the neigh- bors about such things as the sewer line and fire hazard. He had offered to replace the sewer line and was willing to sprinkler his -reef. The plan was the result of many compro- mises and was reasonable. It would benefit the neighbor- hood, was not detrimental to the general welfare of the nei yhberhoed, and addressed the neighbors' concerns. Council Member Renzel asked if Mr. Fleming was willing in some fashion to covenant not to develop the open space on the remainder of the lot to all of the remaining people on the court. Ms. Northway said the covenant would be to properties which abutted that piece. From the standpoint of real property law, a covenant usually ran with the land that touched the land and should in some way affect properties that had a common boundary with the property they were concerned about. Since the covenant would run to all of the properties, even if one wanted to buy it, there would still be others to deal with. Council Member Renzel asked if Mr. Fleming would be willing to enter into such an agreement. Mr. Fleming was willing to enter into an agreement. His only concern was that he would like to be able to build a movable playhouse with no foundationor install a swingset. Council Member Renzel was not concerned about those kinds of things but about items that would require a building permit and be considered structures within the ambience of the law. 59-302 3/14/88 Mr. Fleming had no problem since there would be no habitable structures on the land in question. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. Planning Administrator Lynnie Melena said on the parcel of land that fronted on Lincoln Court, which was about 4,400 square feet including the easement, the size house that could be built there was about 1,500 square feet, and a basement underneath could bring it up to 3,000 square feet, but it still could not exceed 20 feet in height. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:31 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. Council [Member Bechtel said the Council received voluminous amounts of material on the project and had read and observed that the proposal had gone on for eight months. She walked up and down Lincoln Court and into the backyard of the pro- perty to see exactly what wae involved. They were speaking to the replacement of one house with one other house, to a property that had been looked at carefully by the Planning Commission and staff and had received their support with the conditions outlined, limiting the height of the building, the size of the structure, and the rear, side, and front setbacks. The neighbors had, in addition, a notarized agreement for further conditions. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt .the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the preliminary parcel map with conditions. The Council finds that the approval will secure substantially the objec- tives of the regulations or requirements to which the exceptions are requested, in that the private easement (which is one of the exceptions) historically has provided mess to a single louse at this location and will continue to do so and Parcel B has . always been 48 feet wide (the other exception) and will continue to be 48 feet wide; that the approval shall protect the public health, safety, con- venience, and the general welfare in that special require- ments designed to protect neighboring properties are to be pieced on Parcel 4 as conditions of approval; and that the approval , shall be - consistent with, and implement the poli- cies and objectives of, the Comprehensive Plan in that the conditions of approval are intended to preserve the single- family residential character of the neighborhood. 59-303 3/14/88 MOTION COLT' D In addition, find that: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property in that the only reasonable access to Parcel A is over the existing 16 -foot wide easement, and Parcel B has always been 48 feet wide and will continue to meet area requirements under this proposal. 2. The exceptions are necessaryfor the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the peti- tioner in that two of the parcels cannot be used unless they are merged with a parcel which has access to a street, and the parcel with which they are being merged presently has access to a public street over an ease- ment. 3. The granting of the exceptions will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated provided that conditions of approval on building location, size. height, and setbacks are established. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law in that Parcel A meets the width, depth, and area require- ments of the R -1 zone district. and Parcel B meets all requirements except the width, which will continue to be 48 feet. C Z DITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Buildings shall be limited to the west side of Parcel A and two-story options may be consideredin that area with a 20 -foot height limit. (The west side was defined as the portion of Parcel A having direct frontage on Lincoln Court and extending back to the Echols' property line.) 2. Within than buildable area described in $o. 1, the setbacks shell be 30 feet from the Lincoln Court access easement; 20 feet from . the Stewart's rear parcel line; 20 feet from • the Echols' rear property line; 10 feet from the Stewart's side property line; 12 feet from the Savoys' s side property line; and 12 feet from the Parcel's side property line. 3. The size of the house and garage shall be limited to 3,000 square feet. 59-304 3/14/88 MOTION CONT'D 4. Height shall be limited to 20 feet to the peak of the roof. 5. The basement shall have a maximum finished ceiling height of 6 feet, 9 inches. 6. Conditions 1 through 4 shall be recorded with the \ parcel asap. 7. The overhead electric . telephone lines crossing parcel A shall be placed underground at the owner's expense and a five-foot wide utility easement shall be granted to the City of Palo Al to to accommodate the underground .lines. The undergrounding must be done to City of Palo Alto specifications. Council Member Woolley understood the present house was about 800 square feet and the proposed house was 3,000 square feet. Ms. reiena said that was correct. Council Member Woolley clarified the square footage did not include a 1,000 square foot basement. She asked what was the biggest house that could be built on the Lincoln Court parcel if the Council denied the lot merger. Ms, Melena said a house of 1,500 square feet :ould be built on the Lincoln Court parcel, assuming 35 perce. t lot. cover- age. The house could have a basement underneath which would have another 1,500 square feet, as long as the house was less than 20 feet in height, for a total of 3,000 square feet. Council Member Woolley said the change seemed major for that neighborhood, not only from what was there at present but from what could be there if there was a new .house . on the present lot. She asked staff to explain the neighbors' request that the basement be limited in height to 6 feet 9 inches so the basement was not habitable. Most people were not taller than 6 feet 9 inches. Ms. Melena said by Building Code requirements, 7 feet 6 inches was s the minimum for the space to be called *habit- able." Council Member Woolley clarified that according to code it was not habitable space, but it probably was habitable space for human beings. - 59-305 3/14/88 Ms. Melena said probably. Council Member Woolley believed they would be getting, in effect, a 4,000 square -foot house versus the present 800 square- foot house or the 3,000 square -foot house allowed by the substandard lot, incl ;wing the basement. She opposed the motion. She could not make the finding the Council needed to make that the approval would not be a detriment to the public welfare and that it would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan which spoke to preserving the charac- ter of single-family neighborhoods. The character of the neighborhood would be significantly changed. She referenced Council Member Levy's question that there was no obligation on the part of the City to permit building or to permit the joining of the parcels or necessarily to allow something to be built on a very small parcel. The Council needed to say "no," and needed to take a firm stand in order to send a message to people who were assembling small parcels that it was not necessarily their right to expect that they would be allowed to build on them. Council Member Cobb said originally he believed he would oppose the motion. After much thought and visiting the site, he found himself comparing what the approval would. give against what would be built if the approval was not given. His comparison was predicated -on the idea that the Council could covenant the back property against any further development, as suggested by Council Renzel. If the Planning Commission recommendation was granted, they got larger `setbacks, motee space for cars, an owner -occupied unit for a small family --which they wanted to encourage --'the front of the property would be opened up, and they had the opportunity to restrict the back piece of property eseen- tially to permanent open space. They had heard a lot of talk recently of the concern for R-1 homes, and he shared that concern, but they also heard a lot of talk about encouraging families to reside in Palo Alto. One of the comments that evening was to somehow draw the line between speculators doing terrible things to neighborhoods and the opportunity for young families with children to live in'Palo Alto. Mr. Fleming made it clear something would be built on the lot, and the Council had to look at what would happen and what could happen and make the best choice from the alternatives. He concluded the best choice for the commu- nity as a whole, the least impactive on people, and the one that gave the benefits was to go along with the Planning Commission recommendation. 59-306 3/14/88 AMENDMENT: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to approved an additional requirement that the applicant execute within 60 days a Covenant Not To Develop, running with the land, that provides for restrictions identified in the 3/10/88 staff report (CMR:187:8), with all of the adjoining property owners to require that no habitable building be permitted in the area. Council Member Renzel asked if the Planning Commission intended 3not buildable" to include any structures that required a building permit, including garages and accessory structures. Ms. Jansen said yes. Council Member Renzel said a garage was not necessarily habitable, so that might not be the right word on the cove- nant. Ms. Jansen asked if the wording "any structure requiring a building permit" would be acceptable. MAKER AND SECOND OF AMENDMENT AGREED TO REPLACE "EEO HABIT- ABLE BUILDING" WITH "ANY STRUCTURE REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT" Council Member Renzel believed the wording was important, particularly if the parcels were transferred to adjoining properties, it would change the flexibility for those pro- perties to intensify in an area that was already- twice as intense as R-1 normally would permit. She . dived in the neighborhood and was very familiar with the lot, with Lincoln Court, and with the scale of the property. It was extremelydifficult to come down on the side of approving the motion. On the other hand, in the absence of approval, she believed they would see a massive structure built because their rules were too lenient, and they would prob- ably see the rest of the site parceled out to other adjoining parcels and big structures built on them as well. That would be tragic in the delicate environment of Lincoln Court. If the Covenant Not To Develop was applicable to all the adjoining property owners so it required all of their approvals for any of the property to be sold, that would provide as much protection as the Council would be able to require, Unless the City Attorney:. could offer other sugges- tions. The vast majority of the properties abutting the landlocked lot would have more stability than they otherwise would have if the Council was to deny the approval. Some of the more technical concerns had been addressed in terms of 59-307 3/14/88. the sewer line and the electric line running over the pro- perty. She would support the motion if the covenant passed, otherwise she would not. Vice Mayor Klein concurred with Council Members Bechtel and Cobb. He walked on . Lincoln Court with Council Member Bechtel and they came to much the ; same conclusions. In response to the comments made by Council Member Woolley, who found the addition of 1,000 square feet was a disaster, he did not, particularly with the existing trade-offs. He believed the neighborhood was getting some benefit for the extra 1,000 square feet of building. The setbacks from the street and the various lots and the Covenant Not To Develop the other portions were significant benefits. 1it:eed, one of the criticisms some of the opponents had mace was that the construction of the house would somehow be a fire haz- ard. To the contrary, having more room by the setbacks would actually reduce the danger of fire on Lincoln Court. A newer house was probably less of a fire hazard than the present house. Council's task in any decision with regard to single-family homes was to do a delicate balancing act between preserving the character of Palo Alto but still allowing change. He worried some of the comments heard that evening indicated they should never have any change in Palo Alto, and that was an impossibility. The change must be ,sensitive, and he believed the subject change was sensi- tive. The Flemings had gone the "extra mile," but they had to keep in mind that no community could stay stagnant. He did not believe the question was "just say no." That phrase referred to an illegal activity, and he hoped they never came to the point where wanting to build a house sensitively in Palo Alto was regarded as an illegal activity. To the contrary, they should be affirmative and say that was what the Council wanted so the community could remain vital. Council Member Levy, asked staff how the effect of the cove- nant that was the subject of the amendment would differ from the restrictions that had been already put on the property by the Planning Commission. Ms. Northway clarified the difference would be in terms of ease of change. Some future Council could change what was done that evening and allow the land to become usable in terms of computing allowable building area, either for the subject site : or for another site. If the applicant executed the covenant, she believed it would be more restrictive in terms of .his ability to ever get all the adjoining neighbors to agree to let him 'out of it. 59-308 3/14/88 Council Member Levy asked if under the amendment the occu- pant of the home could build a swimming pool. Ms. Nor thwa y said no. She clarified the amendment had been changed to 'requiring a building permit.." Council Member Levy was uncomfortable not allowing the home owners to have some kind of use of the property with a swimming pool or possibly a tennis court. He assumed those changes would have to return to the Council. The Planning Commission had given the City Council the power to control the usage of the lot, and he was comfortable with that. The idea of a covenant where every neighbor had to be contacted was unusual and not needed. Council Member Fletcher also visited the site. Although the structure was larger than fitted harmoniously with the other buildings on Lincoln Court, it did have other protections which, on balance, made it acceptable to her, i,e., signifi- cant ,setbacks from the other properties, the 20 -foot height limit, and the dedicated open space. There was more protec- tion built into the conditions than would otherwise be the case. The fact the issue created so much discussion and controversy pointed to the need for the City to adopt restrictive rules on R-1 developments. She would vote in favor of the amendment and motion. Council Member Bechtel referenced the change in the motion from "habitable building" to "any structure requiring a building permit." She asked what structures required a building permit. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said accessory buildings that met the zoning setbacks and covered less than 150 square feet of projected roof area were exempt from Building Code requirements. Council Member Bechtel believed the property should not be developed to allow anybody to live there, but a property owner should not be denied all uses of that property. Even with staff's clarification as to what required a building permit, she believed a swimming pool might be permissible. AMENDMENT T. AMENDMENT: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, that the Covenant Mot To Develop shall be for any habitable structure including the garage. Council Member Renzel opposed the amendment to the amend- ment. There were generous setbacks within the buildable area in which some of the things could be accomplished if desired. She asked if the covenant would say that the 59--309 3/14/88 nonbuildable area might not be counted as part of anyone else's buildable area even if it was sold to someone else. M s . Northway clarified the intention was for the covenant to run with the laced. If the land was conveyed to somebody else, the covenant ran with the land no matter who owned i t . Council Member Renzel said the purpose of the covenant in her mind was to prevent pieces of the land from being sold to adjoining property owners which could enable increased density on any of the surrounding properties. She believed any structure that required a building permit should be covered. That was the deal the neighbors bought into, and the change in the center of a neighborhood where it abutted eight or nine properties was structured so as to minimize impact. She did not believe anybody could say swimming pools or tennis courts did not have an impact. If the cove- nant did not cover those, she would not support the motion. Mayor Sutorius asked the City Attorney if the land was transferred to another property, would it require a subdivi- sion and then need to go before the Planning Commission and the Council. Ms, Northway assumed it would require a lot line adjustment and that could be accommodated at the staff level. Mayor Sutorius clarified under the present wording, Council Member Renzel's concerns potentially could be realized. Ms. Northway believed so. Other than making the property somehow permanent open space, she could not think of another way to accomplish the result. Council Member , Patitucci asked if there was a lot -line adjustment and part of the land could be parceled off and sold to someone else, how much could be parceled off and sold and still be within the zoning requirement. Ms. Jansen said the requirements for the 3,000 square -foot house would be 8,600 square feet. The total lot was approximately 11,000 square feet, so the difference was approximataly 3,000 square feet that potentially could be parceled off. Council Member Patitucci clarified the 3,000 square feet would probably have to come out of the nonbuildable area. He .believed the Council was playing "Planning Commission" to the micro level. If there were no serious problems with the 59-310 3/14/88. process the planning Commission had gone through, even if certain parts made the Council uncomfortable, he believed they had to permit the project to go ahead. He did not see why she Council should place any stricter requirements on the people who lived on the property than, for example, on people who lived on Hamilton. There were many deep lots on Hamilton of 12,000 or 13,000 square feet and people could continue to build out into their backyards. Changes in the future should be left to future City Councils. He would vote in favor of the amendment to the amendment and against the amendment itself. Council Member Frenzel said the whole reason the matter was before the Council was because there were some landlocked lots, including about 21 feet being merged to the developable parcel. The Council was not obliged to let the applicant use the landlocked parcel. Without the covenants, the Council would essentially increase the size of a substandard Lincoln Court property, allowing much more than otherwise could be developed, and they would also enable the rest of the landlocked parcel to be sold off and incorporated as part of parcels which could be used for purposes of other density calculations. In comparison, Forest Court was built according to the zoning ordinance. A court built today would need a full street right-of-way, a 90 -foot bulb, and nine houses. The corner of Forest and Lincoln, including the court, had 18 houses on it, twice the normal R--1 density. When the Council was expanding the court property by adding the landlocked parcel to it, they were in fact changing it from a substandard parcel to one which would be not quite substandard and, in effect, were releasing some landlocked parcels which were currently not developable. It was important to recognize that the owner of the property, if the motion passed, would enjoy substantial benefit that would otherwise not accrue from the landlocked lots, and it was important for the Council to protect the rest of the neighbors from the potential of having the rest of the landlocked lot used to intensify further all of the properties surrounding it. She believed the Council should deny the amendment to the amendment and support the original amendment. If that was not the case, she believed the application should be denied. Council Member Cobb asked if it was legally possible to ask that the Council covenant the so-called nonbuildable area so as to not count against the buildable area of any lot it might be attached to. Ms. Northway said no. 59-311 3/14/88 Mayor Sutorius would support the amendment to the amend - anent. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT .PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Renzel, Woolley voting "no." Mayor Sutorius asked staff if accessory structures were "habitable." Mr. Herman said no, as long as they were not cottages. Ms. Northway suggested that the amendment include language that the covenant would be in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, MAKER AND SECOND OF MOTION AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE "IN A FORM Pe"CEPTAELE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY." Council Member Renzel clarified the map condition said that there was a nonbuildable area, and she assumed that meant anything. She asked if the covenant was all that was restricted to the criterion or whether they were saying the nonbuildable area was now also fair game for anything except garages and habitable structures. Ms. Northway believed the amendment was in addition to the motion, and the motion contained that condition. Mayor Sutorius clarified that "nonbuildable area" was a des- criptive phrase to say they had decided the setbacks would be involved and that was , the envelope in which the ho►e could be built. The phrase was not the same as saying what the covenant was saying. The covenent was not saying it was not a buildable area, but that a habitable structure could not be built in that area, including a garage. He .hoped that was what the wording would represent because that was the intention of the maker of the motion. Ms. Northway disagreed. The motion was originally as approved by the Planning Commission with the modifications contained in the letter. As approved by the Planning Commission, Condition 1 said "Buildings shall be limited to the, west side of Parcel A," and she understood from staff that had to do with nonbuildable area. Therefore, if that condition stayed, then the Council was free to change it; but if that condition stayed as written, it was in addition to that. She did not hear the maker of that motion saying there was a substitute for that. Mayor Sutorius asked if it was the intent of the Planning Commission in their motion to describe the envelope in which 59-312 3/14/88 the home structure, including its garage, would be phys- ically confined. Planning Commissioner Huber said yes. It was not cleat from the Minutes, but his sense was that the Planning Commission did not want anything in the nonbuildable area.. They were not interested in seeing swimming pools or anything like pools, and he believed his colleagues would agree that the sense was to leave the area aline. Council Member Patitucci asked what the view of the Planning Commission was on the mechanism for enforcing that intent. Planning Commission Huber said he was giving the intent, and it was clear the mechanism was not there. Council Member Patitucci was satisfied with the original proposal from the Planning Commission and believed the con- fusion generated added to reasons why the amendment was not productive. It should be left to future City Councils and staff to deal with the property. It was not a good idea to tie nine or ten properties into deciding what should happen to the property in the center. He opposed the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-5. Cobb. Fletcher. Renzel, Woolley voting *aye." Council Member Sense' said without the covenants she did not believe there was adequate protection to Lincoln Court nor to the abutting neighbors as to what happened with the sup- posed open space that was being traded off for the enhanced° value property on Lincoln Court. There was a serious problem in the future, and when the Council could anticipate a problem, they should not leave it to some future Council. ruture City Councils might not see any of the subsequent things that might, take place. As a result, if there was a lot merger, staf'f could do that, and there would be no notice to anybody. It was unfair to intensify the neighbor- hood with a merger that created a subdivision and, at the same time, not provide adequate protection. She opposed the motion. Council Member Klein said the neighborhood was adequately protected, and to say otherwise indicated there was no faith either in future City Councils or future City staffs to adequately protect neighborhoods. P'' applicant or any successor owner of the property could c do things "willy- nilly" with the nonbuildable property but would have to go through various governmental processes. He supported the motion. 59-313 3/14/88 Council Member Levy was uncomfortable to find out a change could be made in the process by staff alone and believed that was inappropriate. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, that any lot change to the property should go before the Planning .Commission and the City Council. Ms. Northway had concerns about establishing a different type of procedure for the property. Under procedural due process everybody should have the same ability to have things changed. She did not believe they could change that in the manner in question for the property. She was also concerned about equal protection problems. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER Council Member Levy said his overall concern in any of the processes was that the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and of their zoning laws was maintained. He believed in the subject case that the spirit was maintained. What the Council was approving adhered to all the setbacks for R-1 zoning and, in fact, exceeded them in some cases, it adhered to the height limits; the lot coverage was well below the maximum, the lot was large and the footprint was only a small percentage of that. With all the built-in protec- tions, the safety and flexibility for Lincoln Court was expanded. They had more than sufficient protection and, therefore, he supported the motion. Mayor Sutorius associated with Council Members Cobb's and Bechtel's opening comments. Council Member Woolley and he were recently involved in a situation involving a decision of the Council in the 1970s that affected a court that was under private ownership. A subdivision process came before the Council at that time, and the Council labored over the issue extensively and invented a new solution for the prob- lems. It did not solve the problem to the satisfaction of some of the people currently at the premises and had been a thorny situation. They hoped it was reconciled now, but for reasons of that nature he did not care to invent a new pro- cess at Council meetings. The covenant activity and .discus- sion had considerable risk associated with it and not considerable benefit. He supported the main motion. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 712, Hensel, Woolley voting °no. " 59-314 3/14/88 ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER 10:30 p.m. Council. .Member Fletcher indicated there was no need for dis- cussion on Item 9,, Opposition to SB 1809 Use of Transit District Funds for Multiple --Occupancy Vehicle Lanes. Mr. Schreiber said there were no major projects pending that would be affected if the decision was delayed on Item 8, Public Hearing to Adopt New Multiple -Family Zoning Ordinance Regulations. MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to continue Item 8, Public Hearing to Adopt New Multiple - Family Zoning Ordinance Regulations, to City t.ouncil meeting of 4/18/88 with the public hearing notice to be readver- tised. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Renzel, Woolley voting 'no. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPEAL OF HARRY, RUTH AND EUGENE WOOD AGAINST THE DECI- SION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4216 MANI'ELA AVENUE (CMRs188:8) (300) Zoning Administrator Nancy Maddox Lytle said the staff report (CMR:1188:8), after Conditions 1, 2, and 3, should include the sentence, "The Zoning Administrator shall make the final determination as to whether these conditions have been satisfactorily met." Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Harry Wood, 849 Mesa Avenue, said their primary concern was to hide the tennis court fence which would tower almost 12 and one-half feet above their property, on their property line, only 26 feet from their house, withthe 8 -foot setback required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) which spe- cifically dealt with tennis court fences, Ordinance 3954, which went into effect June 2, 1987. Also, they must hide the redwood wall which extended nine and one-half feet above their property. They requested limiting the tennis court fence, as Mr. Joe Hirsch suggested, and which Mr. Brennan had agreed to, i.e., to 10 feet above natural grade along 24 feet from each end, then dropping to 7 feet in the center section. They asked the Council to recognize its intent to preserve the natural beauty of Palo Alto. The November 24, 1988, issue of the Palo Alto Times quoted Council. Member Larry Klein as saying, "Aesthetics are not something to be minimized. To a significant degree, that is what Palo Alto 59-315 3/14/88 is all about." The PAMC regarding excavations, grading, and fills expressed the intent, "To protect property values by ensuring the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the Foothills area consistent with reasonable economic enjoyment of such property." That should answer the ques- tion some raised of whether the City had a right to soften the impact of the fences. For screening, the Planning Commission opposed the use of Coast Redwoods that were being considered. It was now clear that a pittosporum hedge was a satisfactory answer for attractive appearance and fast growth. Even _then, landscape experts estimated that 15 - gallon plants on three-foot centers would require three to five years to hide the ugliness they faced from their. 4 ��4r J. kitchen, family room,. bedroom,, and yard. Forty plants would be needed on their side of the wall. He would add more at his expense to continue the hedge to the end of their prop- erty. He had estimates from three companies which special- ized in planting trees and shrubs;: which ranged from, $75 to $115 per shrub. The total ranged from $3,000 to $4,600, The Brennans had damaged their rural environment and created an eyesore. In all fairness, they should be solely respons- ible for providing a natural screen as quickly as possible, The City Zoning Administrator and the Planning Department had both stated that, "Applicant shall install material acceptable to both parties in order to screen the tennis court fence." As a compromise, he requested the City Council to require the Brennans to share one --half the cost of having a reputable tree company acceptable to the Woods, buy and plant 40 of the 15 -gallon pittosporum of the type they selected. A curb to direct rainwater into tennis court drains and prevent it from washing over onto their property as it did during the January store also deserved attention. In order to avoid further controversy, they would also install their own drainage system. Now they had heard the tennis balls hitting the fences, they requested all wire fencing be covered with netting. There would still be racquet noise, shouting, and yelling, but they deserved one concession to noise abatement. Gene Wood, 849 Mesa Avenue, added that there had been signi- ficant stressin their home due to the problem. They put up with months of bulldozers coming at the wrong time, problems with the Brennans regarding how to soften the impact on their land, the various City processes to be gone through, and doubt cast as to who was the injured party. The tennis court was already in place and their concern was how to soften the impact and abate noise. He would appreciate the Council's consideration of their position.. 59-316 3/14/88 Stephen W. Player, 550 Hamilton, represented the Brennans. On September 1, 1987, the Brennans applied for a fence permit to complete their tennis court project. Many conces- sions were made by the Rrennans in an attempt to reach a compromise. The Planning Commission recommended the con- struction of a ten -foot fence and to provide funds for screening. The present fence was legal and if it was left as -is with no further requests of the Brennans, there would be no further requirement of landscaping mitigation or any other requirements under City ordinances. The only issue before Council was whether the Planning Commission recommen- dation was acceptable. He was not entirely satisfied the proposal would solve the problem since clearly, a gap in the ten -foot fence would result in some tennis balls going across. If t1'e proposal was accepted, both parties would have to live with the problems. The Brennans were prepared to go forward with the compromises as stated. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Renzel said Mr. Woods suggested that rather than the 31,000 there be some agreement to share one-half of the costs of an agreed -upon reputable firm to put in the 40 plants. She queried whether such a requirement could be imposed by the City. Ms. Northway said yes. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen did notadvise that the City impose such a requirement. One of the difficulties with the application was trying to pin things down which was accomplished by naming a dollar amount rather than a number of plants or a landscape contractor. Staff preferrednot to be involved in the final negotiating of the plants. Council Member Cobb was concerned about the gap in the fence. He believed plants along the area made sense for both parties. He queried whether any thought was given to some type of sound barrier on the Brennan's side of the fence. Mr. Player said a wire mesh was planned for the Brennan's side of the feriee to deaden the sound. MOTION: Council Member Patitucci coved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt the Planning. Commission recommendation to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to .grant the variance, with conditions modified as follows: 59-317 3/14/88 MOTION CONTINUED 1. Applicant shall modify the decision of the proposed wire west; fence on the northerly property line *ugh —that the portion which extends above the existing solidboard-on- board fence, i.e., that portion which requires a vari- ance, shall terminate at points 24 feet from either end of the tennis court. This design was di assed and agreed to by ,both the applicant and the appellant at the Planning Commission. hearing. and is illustrated in the drawing provided by the applicant and attached to the staff report, CMR:10Z:8. 2. Applicant shall pay a landscaping in -lieu mitigation fee of $1,000, to be used by the Woods to install land- scaping along their side of the fence. This payment shall be completed within 90 days of the effective date of the variance and evidenced to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 3. The tennis court fence materials shall be 4 -inch by 4 -inch redwood posts, 10 feet on center and top rails, 2 -inch by 4 -inch rectangular mesh galvanized No. 14 gauge, in accordance with the fence permit dated September 1, 1987. 4. The Zoning Administrator shy+ll make the final determina- tion that the conditions have b3en met. ANBNDMENTs Council Member Fenzel moved,_ seconded by Fletcher, to raise the landscaping in -lieu mitigation .fee to $1,500. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Bechtel, Leery, Patitucci, Woolley voting "no." Mr. Player clarified that if the in -lieu mitigation fee was increased to $1,500, the shrubbery would cover the entire fence, GO feet of which was a legal fence with no land- scaping. If Council directed landscaping be across the entire fence, a portion of which was a perfectly legal fence, the logical conclusion would appear to be that the 10 -foot wire mesh should be extended across the front because the screening effect would be just as strong on the ends as it was in the middle. It would put to rest the problem of any tennis balls going out. Mr. Woods said there was a major noise problem: was every time the balls struck the fencing fabric in place. AMENDMENT: Council Member Bechtel moved,`. seconded by Klein, that a ten -foot wire mesh fence be installed for the entire site at the property line. Council Member Cobb supported the amendment. Mayor Sutorius supported the amendment. Council Member Levy was.uncomfortable waking what he con- sidered to be minor changes in the Planning Commission recommendation which was thoroughly discussed and con- sidered. He opposed the amendment. AMENbMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Renzel, Fletcher, Levy voting ."no." MOTTrni A S a;ZDED PASSED :unanimously. 8-A (OLD 1), CONTRACT WITH C & J CONTRACTING, INC., FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE FIFTH FLOOR OF CIVIC c'ENTER (801-02) T :181 s 8 ) Council Member Patitucci was concerned the contract repre- sented a significant capital project which appeared to be funded out of the operatilg budget of the public Works Department. He queried why it was not a capital improvement project. City Manager Bill Zaner referred to a program in the Public Works Opetating Budget known ae "Facilities Rehabilitation," which included a variety of projects done during the yearto maintain and operate the 60 buildings owned by the City. The fund contained approximately x.200,000 for fiscal year 1987-88. There were expenditures each year for remodeling and reconstruction. Council Member Patitucci asked about the difference b [,een the fifth floor project and the remodeling at the MSC :they than size. Mr. Zaner said the fifth floor project also .included buying partitions and telephone work. The whole Facilities Rehabilitation Program could be included in the CIP and be just as valuable. MOTION: Council Member Bethtel moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the contract for Alterations to : the Fifth Floor of the Civic Center. Con trac t C & J CONTRACTING, INC. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 9. COUNCIL MEMBER FLETCHER RE OPPOSITION TO SB 18.09 USE OF TRANSIT DISTRICT FUNDS FOR MULTIPLE -OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES (725-02-02) Council Member Levy said the Council Legislative Committee discussed reaffirmation of the Council action taken in September,. 1985, urging the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to seek alternate .sources of funds for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes rather than using transit funds. The Board voted contrary, but a lawsuit was filed by transit workers and they prevailed. The 1Board of Supervisors had now requested the legislature to pass an ordinance enabling them to use transit funds for.HOV lanes. In 1985, the City Council voted -to oppose the use of transit funds for highway expenses because it believed that to do so would dilute the effectiveness of transit funds. After dis- cussion, the Legislative Committee voted unanimously to uphold and reaffirm the Council's action of 1985. NOTION s Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council reaffirm its previous opposition to the_ use of the transit tax to fund construction of commuter lanes. Vice Mayor Klein recognized that lie supported the motion three years ago. He wanted to support trari it, but all of his work the past few years on the Golden Triangle Task Force lead him to believe that unless something was done about HOV lanes quickly to get people out of single- occu- pancy cars and into multiple -occupancy -cars, there was a serious threat. of Santa Clara County drowning in its own traffic. If something was not done in the short -testa, they would not get to the long -tenon transit situation. He now believed that what the Board of Supervisors was doing made more sense for .the area. He would not support the.motion. Council Member Fletcher sat through many transportation committee meetings and there was always the matter of "we don't have the funds to provide the service." It was espe- cially true with regard to CelTrain, which service she believed was in jeopardy. Further, the cutback in bus service in Palo Alto was postponed --not settled. The issue would return in the , spring and Council would be asked to deal with it. The County was planning light rail in the Highway 237 corridor, A tT into San Jose, and an extension of CalTrain into downtown San Francisco, and it was going : to have to rely on the local transit tax for the funds to make up part of what . was being lost from the State and federal government. She could not see using funds which would jeop- ardize transit to build HOV lanes on the expressways. A half -cent sales tax already existed for building lanes on. roadways and there was one --half cent tax for transit. The provision of public transit would be seriously jeopardized if funds were provided for HOV lanes. Neither the Supervisors nor the Transportation Agency did any Analysis of how funneling the funds would impact the transit system. She urged Council support of the motion which she inter- preted as opposing SB 1809. Council Member Renzel associated herself with the comments of Council Member Fletcher. Her experience in traveling. to San Jose was that many of the vehicles in the HOV lanes were not multiple -occupancy vehicle. During the non -restricted hours, the capacity of the freeway made it more convenient for people to use their cars and less likely to use transit. Council needed to ensure that moneys which were voted on to be s.rwn t the L�s.slr,i�. were used for transit. Otherwise, area would be gridlocked without any ability to do more for cars and the transit systems would languish. Transit needed to be efficient relative to the freeways to get people to use it. Council Member Fetitucci believed HOV lanes made sense within the context of automobile transportation and highways as a more efficient way to use an existing road. He referred to the appointment of a new transportation director who would supposedly look at innovative approaches to making the highway operations more efficient. He suspected HOV lanes needed to return to the context of automobile trans- portations He could not see taking more money out of transit. He supported the motion. Mayor Sutorius associated with the comments of Vice Mayor Klein. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 3, Klein, Sutorius, Cobb voting 'no. s 10. MAYOR SUTORIUS RE CANCELLATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING S .HEDULED FOR MARCH ,c MOTION: mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, to cancel the City Council meeting scheduled for March 21, 1988. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 59-321 3/14/88 ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:37 p.m., ATTESTS y Clerk APPROVED: ayor 59.322 3/14/88