HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-28 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
-------PALOAL.TOCITY COUNCILMEETINGSARE BROADCASTLWE VIA KM-FREOUENCY9O.1 ON FM DIAL
Regular Meeting
March 28, 1988
ITEM PAGE
Oral Communications 59-325
Approval of Minutes of February 16, February 59-325
22, and March 6, 1988
1. Appointments of Three Human Relations Com-
mission Memberss to Fill Three -Year Terms
Ending March `31, 1991
2. Appointments of Two Human Relations Com-
mission Members to Fill Unexpired Terms
Ending March 31, 1990
59-325
59-327
Consent Calendar 59-327
3. Easement Agreement with Southern Pacific
Transportation Company for Alma/Churchill
Intersection improvements
4. Resolution 6678 Ordering the Summary Vaca-
tion of an Alley Easement Adjacent to 490
California Avenue
5. _ Resolution 6679 Authorizing the Metropoli-
tan Transportation Commission to Function
as the Regional Service Authority for
Freeway Emergencies (SAFE)
6. Ordinance 3798 Amending Title 18 (Zoning)
by Adding. Conditional Uses to the Public
Facilities (PF) Zone
7. Report from Council Legislative Committee:
1) Wildlife, Coastal', and Park Land Con-
servation Bond Act,. (Prop. 70); 2) ACA 32;
3) Amendments to Cable Act of 1984; 4) AB
2802
59-327
59-327
59-328
59-328
59-328
59-323
3/28/88
ITEM P A G E
8. Ordinance 3799 Amending the Budget for the 59-328
Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Provide an Addi-
tional Appropriation for the Gamble Prop-
erty Capital Improvement Project
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Unani- 59.332
mous Recommendation in the Appeal by Lidia
Reguerin from the Decision of the Zoning
Administrator, that Council Not Revoke the
Use Permit for a Day Care Center for Prop-
erty Located at 450 W. Charleston Road
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Robert Moss and 59-336
John Joynt, Representing the Barron Park
Association; Marilyn Mayo, Representing the
Palo Alto Civic League; and Julia Mayberry,
of the Decision of the Architectural Review
Board and the Director of Planning and Com-
munity Environment to Approve the Design of
a Seventeen -Unit Condominium Project at
2705 Ash Street known as Mayfield II
Recess
Council Member Levy re Bring Forward Item 12
12. Discussion of Cable Television Underground-
i ne Pr_ o jram
13. Parking Citation Collection Services
59-343
59.344
59-344
59-364
14. Resolution 6681 Authorizing the .. Mayor to 59-365
Execute the Golden Triangle Task Force
Implementation Agreement. and Supplement
Thereto.
15. Lease and Amendment to Lease - Palo Alto
Unified School District
16. 1987-88 Requirements for Jordan and
Cubberley Schools
11. Report from Council Legislative Committee:
I) Belch Hetchy Water Supply System; 2)
Toll Bridge Revenue
Adjournment at 1:05 a.m.
59-366
59-368
59-369
59-3.69
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 28, 1988
The City. Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date
in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:32 p.m.), Cobb,
Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci,
Sutorius, Woolley
ASSENT: Renzel
Mayor Sutorius announced that a Closed Session re Litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss 1)
Reimer v. City of Palo Alto; and 2) Century �edera1 v._ City
of of Palo Alto was held in the Council Conference Room prior
to the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding complaints
against the Police Department, open government, and the
"Star Chamber."
2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke to the
meaning of "greater public access" to the Palo Alto
Yacht Harbor.
3. James Johnson, 1006 Ramona, shoved pictures of El Palo
Alto's ,daughter tree in Mitchell Park, planted in 1968.
El Palo Alto was showing signs of growth. ;He was
concerned about the tree's leaning but believed
something would be done to guy the tree back and to
improve El Palo Alto Park.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy,
approval of t s Minutes of: rebruery 16 and 22, and March 6,
1988, as subbittsdm
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb "abstaining* from the
Minutes of rebruary 16, 1988, Rama! absent.
1. APPOINTMENTS OF THREE . HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISION. EMBERS
TO FILL THREE-YEAR TERMS ENDING MARCH 31, 9 0
Mayor Sutorius intended to vote for Robert Woods on the
first ballot. His qualifications both at the federal and
59-325
3/28/88
local levels in the housing arena were eminently important
and valuable. If Mr. Woods was elected, he intended to
support Nancy Shipley and Roslyn Gray for three-year terms.
Ms. Shipley had remarkable child-care . background, and had
provided services in areas of mental health. Ma. Gray's
background was pyschiatric nursing, and her service as a
consultant to the Disability Task Force was valuable.
Vice Mayor Klein agreed with the first two positions taken
by Mayor Sutorius. For the third position he intended to
vote for Trina Lovercheck. She was President of the
Parent/Teachers' Association (PTA) Council and a devoted
follower of the negotiations between the City and the Palo
Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). She was previously a
teacher in the Ravenswood School District and brought a
different focus to the Human Relations Commission (HRC) .
He believed Ms. Lovercheck had experience in community youth
matters to share with the HRC and Youth Advisory Committee.
Council Member Cobb concurred with Vice Mayor Klein's
choices. In the past few months, he had been the represen-
tative to the HRC and saw Mr. Woods in action. He would
support Mr. Woods on the first ballot; Ms. Shipley on the
second ballot; and Ms. Lovercheck on the third ballast.
RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING:
Deputy City Clerk Corene Avlakeotes announced the results of
the first round of voting:
VOTING FOR WOODS: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy,
Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley
Ms. Avlakeotes announced that Robert Woods received eight
votes and was appointed.
RES+` VTa OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING:
....qY=--•air -
VOTING FOR SHIPLEY: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy,
Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley
Ms. Avlakeotes announced that Nancy Shipley received eight
votes and was appointed.
RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING
VOTING FOR LOVERCHECK: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein,
Levy, Patitucci, Woolley
VOTING FOR GRAY: Sutorius
59.326
3/28/88
Ms. Avlakeotes announced that Trine _ Lovercheck received
seven votes and was appointed.
2. APPOINTMENTS OF TPJO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS
TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS ENDING MARCH 31, 1990 (702-04)
Council Member Cobb said given the changes in the :�R`:, he
believed it was appropriate to reappoint Commissioner Roe to
provide continuity. His experience would also help the new
members contribute more quickly and •positively. He would
support Commissioner Roe on the first ballot, and would
support. Teresa Roche on the second ballot..
RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING:
VOTING FOR ROE: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein,
Patitucci, Woolley
VOTING FOR GRAY: Sutorius
Ms. Avlakeotes announced that Richard Roe received seven
votes and was appointed
RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING:
Mayor Sutorius said he wc'uid support Teresa Roche,
VOTING FOR ROCHE: Bechtel,, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein,
Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley
VOTING FOR GRAY: Levy
Ms. Avlakeotes announced that Teresa Roche received seven
votes and was appointed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by
Sutorius, approval of the Consent Calendar.
3. EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION
COMP: NY FOR ALMA CHURCHILL INTERS CTION .IMPROVEMENTS
0 / ' CMR: 6:
4. RESOLUTION 6678 entitled "owcnr r1TTO' OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF
AN ALLEY EASEMENT ADJACENT TO 490 CALIFORNIA AVENUE"
(701--04/720-03/3`00). (CMR:193:8)
59-327
3/28/88
5. RESOLUTION 6679 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO FUNCTION AS THE REGIONAL
SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE)"
.,(701-04/1163-02) (CMR:210:8)
6. ORDINANCE 3798 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING) BY ADDING
CONDITIONAL USES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES (P F) ZONE"
(1st Reading 3/7/88, PASSED 8-0, Woolley "not
participating") (731-03)
7. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE: 1) WILDLIFE
COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION BOND ACT PROP. 0 ;
ACA 32; 3 AMENDMENTS TO CABLE ACT OF 19841-71-0
2802) (702-06) (CMR:202:8)
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley "not participating" on
Item 6, Renzel absent.
8. ORDINANCE AMENDING BUDGET RE GAMBLE PROPERTY CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (701-03/300) (CM 8:194:8)
Council Member Woolley understood the criteria for
evaluating the various items requested by the Gamble Garden
Center was whether they protected the structural integrity
of the buildings. She asked staff to expand upon their
thinking that Items 4 and 5 in the letter from the Gamble
Garden Center, of March 21, 1988 (on file in the City Clerk's
office), did not protect the structural integrity.
Real Property Manager William Fellman said Item 4 was for
the gutter for the Carriage House. Staff bid out the roof
project, and at the time the gutters were not on the
Carriage House but stockpiled nearby. He believed the
gutters were not needed to protect the structure of the
house. Item 5 was the parking lot structure, which was
going to be part of the lawn bowl area. He did not believe
the parking lot protected the structure nor was it necessary
because ;the Lawn Bowl Association currently parked on the
street. The City had received no complaints from neighbors
and had no intention of building a parking lot there.` The
parking lot was strictly to serve the use of the Gamble
property as a garden center.
Karen Olson, 566 Washington, appreciated the staff support.
A11 the terms of the 2.0 -year lease, with the City were met,
and the Gamble Garden Center had controlled the property for
about eight months. It raised $525,000 for the capital
expenses of restoring the buildings and the gardens. Over
59-328
3/28/88
1`000 people contributed money for the project, and many
others volunteered as gardeners, office workers, and class
teachers or to help with fund raising. The Gamble Garden
Center was excited about the enthusiasm of the community for
the project.
Jane Ulrich, 2160 Bryant Street, was excited about the
Gamble Garden Center's upcoming public opening. Its third
annual Spring Garden Tour was scheduled for May 6 and 7,
with lunch being served at the gardens. Last October, the
Garden Center hired a horticulturist -who, with other garden
enthusiasts, prepared the property for the installation of
the irrigation system and parking lot. One concern was the
possible water shortage and the impact of water rationing.
During the lease/ option period, the Garden Center ran two
pilot programs. The Elder Walk Program brought house -bound
seniors for a tour of the gardens, a short talk, and
refreshments. The Intergenerational Roots and. Shoots
Program wasin its third year, and it paired third grade
students with senior citizens to learn about gardening. The
program won awards two years in a row from the National
Gardening Association, and an article about it would appear
in the April issue of National Garden Magazine. The program
was chosen from over 700 applicants rased on its outstanding
leadership, programming, and high level of community sup-
port. The project was judged to exemplify what youth
gardening was about. .The operating budget of the Gamble
Gardens Center was $81,000. It expected to raise funds
through memberships, contributions, grants, rental fees, and
special events.
Jack Rominger, 10S7 Guinda, referred to the Gamble Garden
Center's accomplishments, i.e., a new storage building, and
new restroom facility with five fixtures for men, women, and
handicapped. The Carriage House was renovated and would be
used for meetings. The Tea lHouse and main house were also
renovated. A handicapped lift was added and a toilet
facility within the house was modified for the handicapped.
A new parking area was being installed for joint use with
the Lawn Bowling Green. The Gamble Center needed to install
a heavier pavement section than - was originally planned pri-
marily because the soil was not of sufficient quality.
Decomposed granite was suggested for the Gamble Garden
Center because of the environment. The Architectural Review
Board (ARS) supported the use of the decomposed granite and
would not back off if the Garden Center decided it might be
too such money. He urged Council support for additional
funds to help offset the Garden Center's additional costs
for the particular area. It would cost about $247,000 for a
full irrigation system and for fully landscaped gardens.
59-329
3/28/88
Since the lower floor of the main house would be used as a
public space, a sprinkler system was required. While the
gutters for the Carriage House were not needed, the siding
would deteriorate much faster without them. It was decided
that gutters were a necessity and the Garden Center
requested assistance.
Mayor Sutorius clarified that the gutters were not actually
on the Carriage House prior to the reroofing but just laid
aside somewhere.
Mr. Rominger said there were no gutters on the Carriage
House when t:he Garden Center took it over, and he was not
aware there were gutters in the area.
Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma Street, #1107, a member of the Gamble
Garden Canter Board, ` passed around pictures showing the con-
dition of the roof. He extended appreciation to staff for
their help over the past three and one-half years and
thanked the Council for the lease -option on the property.
He referenced the Center's letters of September 4, 1987, and
March 21, 1988, and said the staff report (CMR:194:8) recom-
mended $53,000 -worth of work, fundable from the moneys
collected from the Gamble property itself. Mr. Feliman's
philosophy was similar to that of private real estate sales
in which the roof, foundation, termite work, and dry rot
were all items that generally had to be taken care of by the
seller. He hoped the City Council would feel that way about
their property and supportthe staff's recommendation. The
Board requested Council fund the gutters. There would be
charges for use of some facilities, but basically the prop-
erty was open every day for the public to enter; therefore,
it seemed logical that the City's General Fund could support
some expense, such as the lawn bowling share of the parking
lots of $17,500, the fees paid of $3,000, and the telephone
pole removal from one of the parking lots for .$2,000.
Council might also consider funding the development of
irrigation wells of $15,000. There were many nonprofit
organizations within the City that received funding from the
City in various degrees on utilities. The Council else
might support use of the City's compost for the gardens, and
permanent dumping privileges.
NOTION: Council Bomber Woolley moved. secohded by
Bechtel, to adopt staff recommendation as follows:
1. Adopt Budget Amendment Ordinance making funds available
for maintenance of the Gamble Property and . for the
acquisition and development of senior housing.
59-330.
3/28/88
MOTION CONTINUZD
2. Authorize the expenditure of no more than $53,000 for
Items 7 and 8 as outlined in the September_. 8 letter fros
the Elizabeth F. Gamble Garden Center, and Items 1, 2,
and 3 for the fence repair, reroofing, and asbestos
removal as outlined in the March 22, 1988 letter fros
the Elizabeth F. Gamble Center. Any remaining funds
after the completion of the work as outlined will be
transferred to the Housing In -Lieu Fund for use in the
acquisition and/or development of senior housing, and
the Gamble Garden CIP will be closed.
3. Authorize the .mediate transfer of $10,037 to the
Housing In -Lieu Fund for use in the m cquisition and/or
development of senior housing.
ORDINANCE . 3799 entitled. "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATION FOR THE GAMBLE PROPERTY CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT"
Co=uncil Member Woolley supported the staff recommendation.
The project was supposed to be self-sufficient and not have
ongoing support from the City's General Fund, and Council
should hold to that precedent. The decision was made not to
use a portion of the property for senior housing, and the
.motion to put the ,remaining funds towards senior housing was
probably a token, but she would still, like to see._ the
Council put some of that funding towards senio.Y housing.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to
increase the funding in the amount of $1,000 for the
reinstallation of the gutters.
Mayor Sutorius believed the protection that would .be
provided by the gutters was important and a logical City
expenditure.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Levy voting "no,"
Menzel l bsen t .
Council Member Fletcher asked if staff would have any
problems with use of the City's compost facility by the
Gamble Garden Center.
Assistant City Manager June Fleming said so far the Gamble
Garden Center's use of the compost area had not posed a
problem. However, it was mad a clear the use would end when
the project was finished.
59-331
3/28/88
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by
Cobb, for the City to authorize the Gamble Gardien__Conter to
make use of the City's compost center.
Council Member Levy preferred the item be agendized at a
separate time. He was not familiar with the compost program
and was not prepared to vote about it that evening.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Menzel absent.
Mayor Sutorius added his appreciation and commendation to
the Gamble Garden Center for the work underway and looked
forward to its early completion.
9 k.. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION• UNANIMOUS RECOM-
MENDATION RE APPEAL BY LIDIA REGUERIN FROM THE DECISION
OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT COUNCIL NOT REVOKE THE
USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
CHARLESTON ROAD WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE
450 W.
PERMIT COME BACK TO
IN Six MONTHS ( Continued from 12/21/87) _ (CMR:208:8)
(300 )
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
REVIEW
Planner Joanne Auerbach said the applicant's letter of March
21, 1988, requested that she be able to continue operating
the day care center with 12 children until some of the
occupancy change issues had been resolved, and then
potentially go up to 16 children.
Council Member Woolley referred to the conditions for 12
children or less and assumed the City did not know whether
the applicant would be residing at the home. She asked
which obligations for 12 children or less the applicant had
fulfilled
Ms. Auerbach said for 12 children or less with the director
residing off -site, th3 best information she had available
was that the applicant had not received a final State
license, the parking was not in, the variance had expired,
the fence permit had not been applied for nor issued, there
had not been an Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of
fence permit and landscaping, the conditional use permit was
before the Council that evening, and the use and occupancy
permit• had been applied forbut the deficiences noted had
not been corrected. If the applicant resided on -site, the
obligation* went into a totally different category and many
of staff's abilities to regulate were preempted by State
law. , If the operation was modified t.o a . family day- care
59-332
3/28/88
home with the director residing on site, the only thing the
operator would have to do was get a license from the county
and file for a fence permit. Other than that, the operation
was treated the same as a single --family dwelling. The
applicant did not have a license from the county at
present.
Council Member Levy asked if the applicant could continue to
function if the Council revoked the use permit or whether
the use stopped immediately.
City Attorney Diane Northway replied the applicant would
have to reside on the premises in order for the operation to
be a family day-care home. If Council revoked the use
permit that evening, the only uses allowed were the
permitted uses: family day-care home; operator resides on
the premises.
Council Member Levy asked if the Council had the option of
revoking the use permit in 30 days to give the applicant
time to reside on the premises if she wished.
Ms. Northway said yes, the Council could make its action
effective in 30 days.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open.
William Spangler, 471 Carolina Lane, referenced his letter
(on file in the City Clerk's office) to the Council prior to
the December 21, 1987, meeting suggesting that if the use
permit was upheld; it be conditioned on the installation of
the normally -required semi -circular driveway and reduction
to the one kitchen allowed in R-1. Since the business was
for sale, imposition of ordinary day-care requirements
should not increase the cost of day care. The minutes of
the December 21, 1987, meeting reflected the applicant
stated the property was no longer for sale. The semi-
circular driveway was defeated, perhas in response to that.:
statement. He was surprised to see the "For Sale" sign go
up, and to see the operation advertised for sale as a
licensed day-care center. in the January.. 13, 1988, Palo Alto
Weekly. A real estate flier he received that day listed it
as a pending sale. He was not sure the applicant was com-
pletely frank in making statements to the Council. He sug-
gested the City deny the use permit for ' any number of
children. He realized the Council could not prevent use as
a licensed day-care home for up to 12 childen, but he
requested Council enforce the R-1 limit of one kitchen to
avoid it becoming or remaining an honorary duple► in the R-1
district.
59-333
3/28/88
Lidia Reguerin, 575 Arastradero, referred to the licensing
report that stated in the last paragraph, "If Ma.
Ritzheimer's qualifications i:annot be verified by 1-29-88,
evaluator to recommend license for capacity of 12, ages
month -- 30 months." That showed she was recommended to get
a license for 12 childrer, On the other items, she worked
at the center from 8:00-a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and did not
understand the procedure. She applied for a use permit but
did not take into consideration the request that she needed
a use and occupancy permit. She hired architect Bob Jenks,
who was in charge of complying and telling her what she had
to do. She did not plan to live on the premises, and the
property was for sale. The person buying the property was
also going to operate a child-care center with 12 children.
Mayor Sutorius said Council had no indication of anything
transpiring at the property for over a month nor any appli-
cation to take care of the physical work previously identi-
fied. He asked if anything was going on.
Ms. Reguerin said she wanted to make the changes but only if
she was going to stay there.
Council Member Cobb said the Council saw evidence that the
property was up for sale as a "licensed day-care center,"
which was in conflict with his understanding that Ms.
Reguerin wanted to operate a day-care centers He asked for
clarification.
Pis. Reguerin clarified the property was not for sale as a
day-care center, but one of the items on the real estate
contract was that the use permit was pending.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member Woolley believed staff had bent over
backwards to explain the process and to help the applicant
take the steps necessary in order to get the permit. In
December, Ms. Reguerin was given extra time and some of the
conditions were still not fulfilled. The hardest to under-
stand was the fence permit, which was not difficult to
accomplish.
MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb,
to adopt staff reco zuation that the City Cecil_ revoke
Use Permit 86 -UP -7 for the day care center at 450 Neat
Charleston, based on the following findings'
1. The `operator has failed to comply with conditions
imposed by Use Permit 86 -UP -7, in that the day care
59-334
3/28/8,8
MOTION CONTINUED
center has been in operation. for over one year without
implementation of the parking plan proposed by the
applicant and approved by the Zoning Administrator for
this site. In addition, a landscape plan ,to screen the
proposed parking area which was required by Variance
86-V-15 has not been submitted or implemented. A fence
permit application has not been submitted. The
deficiencies noted in the Use and Occupancy Permit
inspection of January 8, 1988, have not been corrected,
and therefore._a Use and Occupancy Permit, required as a
condition of the Use Permit 86 -UP -7, cannot be issued.
2. The day care use is being conducted in a manner detri-
mental to the public health; safety, and welfare, in
that the day care peration has been conducted for over
one year without issuance of a State day care license.
While an application for a license has been made, the
State Community Care Licensing Division has not issued
the permit after more than seven site inspections, due
to violations of child supervision standards and lack of
appropriate qualifications of the on -site manager.
Vice Mayor Klein asked what the action meant, particularly
with regard to people who might have childen at the day care
center.
Ms. Northway said the motion meant, for the operation to
continue at all under the City's Zoning Ordinance, the
applicant would have to reside on the premises so it would
become a day care home, in which case the City would not
have to issue a conditional use permit nor would the
revocation affect the operation.
Vice Mayor Klein recalled the applicant had said she would
►lot reside on the premises.
Ms. Northway said then the applicant would be operating in
violation of the Zoning Ordinances, because once the use
permit was revoked, there was no authorization for a
day-care center to be operated on the premises and the City
would treat the matter as it did any other violation of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PA?IC).
Vice Mayor Klein asked if _ that. meant the City would shut
down the child care center the next morning.
59-335
3/28/88
Ms. Northway said it would not be that immediate. Staff
would have to confer with the enforcing department to deter-
mine how to proceed. The City Attorney's office would prob-
ably adhere to 60 days....
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, that
the revocation of the Use Pewit be effeetive 30 days from
March 28, 1988.
Vice Mayor Klein assumed, if .the amendment passed, that the
staff wouldprepare appropriate notification to the parents
involved.
Ms. Northway did not believe staff had the names of all the
parents, but to the extent they were known from the past
meeting, staff would notify them.
Council Member Fletcher believed even if an operator moved
into the building and, operated the center, there was an
illegal kitchen.
Ms. Auerbach said, as far
kitchen for the dwelling
floor and additions made
legal kitchen. One of
completely removed.
as staff could tell, the original
unit was located on the second
to the first floor constituted a
the kitchens would have to be
MAKER AND SECOND INCORPORATED THE AMENDMENT INTO THE MAIN
MOTION
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent.
Council Member Woolley asked if the Council needed to take
action with regard to the illegal kitchen.
Mr. Auerbach replied no Council action was necessary.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF ROBERT MOSS AND JOHN JOYNT,
REPRESENTING THE BARRON PARK ASSOCIATION; MARILYN MAYO&
REPRESENTING THE PALO ALTO CIVIC LEAGUE; AND JULIA
AYBERRY ( OF THE DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT TO APPROVE THE DESIGN OF A SEVENTEEN --UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 2i ASH STREET KNOWN •AS
;0319116-11-1751R: 903---1-6-1-600) ;
Chairman of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Aiflc
Vieira-da-Rosa said the ARB supported the staff report
(CMR:209:8)
59-336
3/28/88
Council Member Levy asked the City Attorney the significance
of State Government Code 655095 in relation to the appeal.
City Attorney Diane Northway clarifiedthe significance was
that the ability of the Council to deny a project involving
a housing developmentproject or to reduce the density was
very limited. Council would have to make specific findings
relating to health and safety concerns to justify any
denial. In addition, if there was litigation challenging
such a denial or reduction in density, the burden would be
on the City to Austify those findings, which was not the
usual situation. Usually, the City was presumed to have
followed the law when it acted. and in the subject case it
was not.
Council Member Levy referenced the request for preferential
treatment for the Below -Market -Rate (BMR) units to apply to
the residents presently on site and asked how that would be
applied.
Ms. Northway said the request was to the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation (PAHC). She did not see it as a problem, but if
the City made it a requirement of the project, that would
be something the PAHC, not the applicant, had control over.
The PAHC was not before the Council for the particularly
action. They had their own policies_ in terms of how their
preferences worked.
Council Member Levy asked if the City Attorey had any
problem with Council's request of the PAHC.
Ms. Northway said no.
Council Member Fletcher was confused about 16 units versus
17 units.
Planner James Gilliland said the question was whether the
land was considered as one or two parcels. If it.. was one
parcel, the particular project was only allowed 16 units.
If, however, the parcel was merged with the original Phase I
project, the calculations allowed a total of 83 units, which
would be 17 ' for the site in question.
Council . Meleber Fletcher asked whether the applicants would
build 17 units and follow up on the merging if Council
denied the appeal or if that was left up in the air.
Mr. Gilliland said it was really either/or.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open.
59-337
3/28/88
Bob Moss, 4010 Orrne, said the ARB did not unanimously
approve the quality and adequacy of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). There was no comment during the EIR process
about the toxic pollutant plumes which existed in the area,
and the staff report (CMR:209:8) continued to ignore that
fact, .He referred to known toxic pollutant plumes, and said
it was not necessary for the excavation to penetrate to the
ground aquifer to stir up and spread pollutants. The
Environmental Impact Assessment .(EIR) prepared by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District for the Barron and Matadero
Creek bypasses presupposed construction in the Watkins -
Johnson parking lot. Stanford University sent a letter to
the Water District saying even though the toxic spill was
above the water table, it wanted to have monitoring wells
drilled . and personnel on site during the excavation to
ensure the toxic plumes were not excavated and the toxic was
not scattered or liberated to the area. In the August,
1986, Consultants' Report from the Citywide Land Use and
Traffic Study (on file in the City. Clerk's office) , in the
intersections at Level F, El Camino Real and Page Mill Road
were at 1.09. Traffic had not improved in the last two
years, so any increase in traffic would exacerbate an
already unacceptable situation. That intersection already
had a three-hour congestion period in the afternoon, and the
morning peak -hour congestion began at 7:45 a.m. a'nd extended
to about 9:15 a.m. In regard to the loss of existing,
affordable housing, for every Comprehensive Plan element
that supported the project, he could find one or two that
opposed it. Fans of Mayfield I would love Mayfield II,
although it was not as big. At the time the project began,
the applicant relied on existing zoning; but as soon as
Mayfield I was approved, the Council wondered if it really
wanted RM-5 density anywhere in the Palo Alto, and the
consensus seemed to be that it was Inappropriate, If
Mayfield I was overbearing and excessive, Mayfield II would
be equally so. He asked how a project at that density and
bulk could be a harmonious transition. Nearby and harmoni-
ous projects which included the Court House and Birch Court
were almost three blocks away. Most of the nearby apartment
houses were either two or three stories. The developer had
not been the most cooperative or responsive. He recalled
the office building at Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard
where the Council approveda slightly larger development
than would normally have been allowed. One reason was
because the developer promised to construct a good-looking
building with a fountain in the lobby to hide the parking
lot from people passing by on the street. There was, no
fountain..: The March 3, 1988, ARB minutes reflected frustra-
tion and irritation by the entire ARB with the history of
Mayfield I, and the fact the applicant seemed not to have
59-338
3/28/88
good faith regarding the need for large tress to screen the
massive project, and the changes made without ARB approval.
ARB members were not satisfied with deciduous trees and
could not support the phasing. The ARB again stressed the
importance of the applicant checking with and working with
staff before returning. Finally, he heard comments by
Council Members when Mayfield I went through that it was
done at the staff level and by the ARB. If the Council had
been apprised of the scale and mass of the project, it would
not have approved it. He appealed the project to give the
Council an opportunity to review it and decide whether it
found the density and bulk to be appropriate. He urged
Council to uphold the appeal and deny the project..
Michael .Lyzwa, 193 Waverley Street, said the applicants
first approached the ?IRB with the project in November, _1986,
before there was discussion about the RM-5 zones and other
high --density housing. The applicants carefully studied the
project with the ARB and City staff, removed dormers, chim-
neys, and a perimeter wall; added trellises, extensive
landscaping, and a copper roof; and preserved all the trees.
The issue between 16 and 17 units had already been
explained, and the project before the Council was for 16
units. There was unanimous approval from the ARB with one
abstaining vote.
Harold Hohbach, 29 Lowery Drive, Athe :•ton, believed Mr. Moss
had brought in issues That were not a part of the project,
such as 200 Page Mill Road as a pollutant site. . The issue
involved a filling station that was abandoned at least. ten
years before he started the office building project. There
was a fountain in the building. All the work was done
within the existing zoning, and they did not expect to seek
any variances now. The only difficulty Mr. Moss mentioned
was the effect of the large trees which were supposed to
have been planted for Mayfield I. With the setbacks
required by the Citye there was room to plant big trees
without actually enveloping the balconies for the buildings.
Applicants were proposing to the ARB to plant the Ponderosa
Pear, which was a City tree..
Sam Sparck, 565 Arestradero, believed the Council had sev-
eral reasons for upholding the appeal to reject the project:
thepresence of polluted aquifers, the question of traffic,
and the appropriateness of the RM-5 zoning. In the 20 years
he lived in Palo Alto, he had seen parking problems grow and
traffic approach gridlock in most of the main- intersections,
due largely tO City Council's decisions to grant variances,
density bonuses, and reduce parking requirements,
59-339
3/28/88
John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, was concerned that the report
did not indicate Mr. Hohbach's affiliation. Council denied
the proposal to close Ash Street and sent strong signals to
the developer that such a large project was a bad idea. He
referred to the adverse pressure on the surrounding rental
properties from being overshadowed by the current project on
Page Mill Road. Some small -to medium -size rental complexes
were being bulldozed to be replaced by huge structures.
Low- to moderate -income rental housing was being replaced
with condominiums which most of the current occupants, and
many Palo Al tans, could not afford. He supported the
appeals of the Barron Park Association (BPA), and Civic
League, and specifically the remarks in their letter of
February 14, 1988. He challenged Finding 8 in the EIA on
the grounds that the early City Planners never envisioned a
full build -out of RM zoning in general, and specifically
RM-5. He urged denial of design approval on the basis that
the project was too large and imposing. If a project of
that floor area ratio (FAR) was approved at the site, an
open-air parking lot, and maybe the preservation of a few
trees was feeble compensation for such an imposing
structure. He urged the structure be a transition to
less -imposing structures. More importantly, the design
should not .put further pressure on those remaining small -to
medium -size rental- properties to go to condominiums. He
urged the Council to do all within•: its power to prevent the
project..
Mr. Moss was also disturbed that the project replaced -rental
housing. Rental housing stock in Palo Alto was not easy to
come by, and there was a lot of negative comment throughout
the years from the residents about the condominiums. People
preferred rental housing be retained. He was also surprised
that the subject property was owned by a woman in Los Altos
and that official documents did not mention Harold Hohbach's
name. With the lack of affordable rental housing, tonics
and traffic problems in the area, Council would be justified
in rejecting the project and asking it be scaled back to be
more in keeping with the new proposed RM-40 zone. Approving
the project would send the wrong message to developers and
the public.
Mr. Hohbach believed the project would reduce rather than
increase traffic because people would be living where they
were working. The project would be mapped as a condominium,
but the Mayfield I project was cuing to be a rental project
tor the foreseeable future.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed.
59.340
3/28/88.
Council Member
suggested the
tenants of the
BMR units in
suggestion was
Woolley said the
Council recommend
existing apartment
the new project.
feasible.
staff report (CMR:209:8)
the PAHC give displaced
priority for renting the
She asked whether the
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said she was unable to
get in touch with Silvia Seman, but the Director of Planning
and Community Development believed the PAHC did have the
flexibility and Council could make such a recommendation.
Eight units were being eliminated by the proposed project
but she was unable. to say how many of those tenants would
qualify for BMR units.
NOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher,
to adopt the staff recommendation to uphold the decision of
the Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning
and Communit Environment, and approve the Negative
Declaration and the design of the 16- or 17 -unit addition to
the previously approved 66 -unit condominium/apartment
project including the following findings and conditions:
1. The project, as proposed, will not have a significant
impact on the physical environment since the project has
been designed to decrease the visual. impact, minimize
energy consumption and reduce parking and ay.tomnbile
impacts, as reflected in the attached negative declara-
tions.
2. The design of the.project is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan objectives and compatible with the
immediate environment, including approved improvements
on the site, in that it promotes orderly and harmonious
development of the . site in consideration of adjacent
commercial uses and residential uses, and provides for
the addition of multi -family residential units its
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The site design prdotes a harmonious transition in
scale and character between the adjacent commercial
properties, the nearby office uses and the residential
uses in that the underground garage, tae user areas of
the complex, and too - landscaping .plane • including plant
material and preservation of *slating troths. ere
designed to minimize _visual and parking impacts on = the
adjacent land uses,
4. The building designand amount of open space is appro-
priate for the function of the building and site in that
the project design provides .for immediate identification
59-341
3/28/88
MOTION CONTINUED
of the building function and orientation as to access`
and egress for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
5. The planning and location of the various functions on
the site create an internal sense of order and provide a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community in that landscaping, vehicular
parking, bicycle parking, and user amenities have been
designed to create a safe and convenient environment f A
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
Staff recommends the following condition as required by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) a
1. Final landscape and irrigation plans that address the
following staff concerns shall be.. submitted . for ARB.,
review and approval prior to issuance of a building
permit:
a. The design and landscaping adjacent to the pad mount
transformer.
b,. The design and external appearance of the garage
exhaust.
c. Details of the design of the elevated planting boxes
at the bass of the building.
Materials and color samples for the building and
paving neteria1s.
Substitution of street trees as required by the City
star bor i s t .
i. Detail design of the three proposed painted steel
tube arches in the surface parking lot.
2. Details of the exteriorlighting, including fixtures,
sixes and locations shall be s aitted for APB .approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. Replacement of all sidewalks and construction of a
handicap ramp at the corner of. Ash and. Sheridan.
4. Prior to issuance of the building permit either: ;i) a
parking end access agreement a s /or easement (i f 16
units) shell be prepared and submitted to the City
Attorney for review and recordation: or, 2) the parcels
Abel l be merged (if 17 units) .
59-342
3/28/88
Council Member Fletcher believed the Mayfield I and II proj-
ects were too dense and out of place, but since the proposed
projects were within the permitted zoning Council did not
have the authority to deny the project. She agreed that the
addition of eight or nine residential units would not make a
signi firanf difference inthe traffic.
Council Member Cobb had a problem with the bulk, size, and
mass of the project. He did not support Mayfield I and he
would vote to uphold the appeal because he could not find
that the project did not have a significant adverse , environ-
mental impact.
Council Member Levy said the basis of the appeal .was that
the project was too dense. RM-5 was an inappropriate zone
in Palo Alto and the bulk allowed thereby was in the process
of being eliminated. Since RM-5 existed, he did not find
a basis for rejecting the project. The project did away
with affordable housing. Any new project was likely to be
more expensive housing, but he did not believe on that basis
Council could say it would not allow any new housing.
Regarding the increase in traffic, he agreed with Council
Member Fletcher. Council needed to move ahead as quickly as
possible to reduce the larger zones, but the process in
effect said the applicant began and moved forward under the
existing zoning.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of ?;-1, Cobb voting 'no,' Renzel
absent.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher,
that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation give preferential
treatment for the BMR units in the new project to those
parsons displaced by removal of the apartment buildings.
Council. Member Fletcher wanted the BMR units located in
Mayfield I also available to the displaced tenants.
Council Member Levy did not believe the tenants displaced by
the proposed project should be treated any differently than
other displaced tenants. Council should review with the
PAHC its general policies and make suggestions if neces-
sary.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Klein, Levy voting 'ono,'
Renzel absent.
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:45 p.m. TO 10:00 p.m..
59-343
3/28/88
COUNCIL MEMBER LEVY RE BRING FORWARD ITEM 12
MOTIO1s Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, to
bring forward item 12 and place Item 13 at end. of _ agenda.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Patitucci, Renzel
absent.
ITEM 12, CABLE TELEVISION UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM (CMR:213 :8 )
(i1 1)
Council Member Cobb asked if there was any reason why indi-
vidual neighborhoods could not be given the option of having
the system aboveground or underground.
City Manager Bill Zaner said there was no problem except for
the time involved. He was advised that PacBell could accom-
modate a neighborhood -by -neighborhood change.
Council Member Cobb asked to what extent the particular
problems of a particular home could be addressed in terms of
where boxes were placed.
Mr. Zaner said there was some flexibility in moving the ped-
estals along the line but it was relatively limited. The
design of the system was such that the pedestals could not
be moved a great deal.
Council Member Cobb asked about the costs of,obtaioing ease-
ments in areas where boxes were to be aboveground and the
resident opted to have them in the sideyard since there was.
no appropriate place, in the front yard,
Mr. Zaner said easements were obtained in the normal course
of City operations, especially in the Utilities Department.
An average cost of an easement was around $250 to $300 just
for processing. He assumed the easement referred to by
Council Member Cobb would not he in favor of the City and
PacBell would need the easement. He was concerned about the
City's costs being assigned to Pac!e11.
City Attorney Diane Northway said in addition to the proces-
sing costs was the actual survey forthe property descrip-
tion.
Council Member Cobb asked about .the feasibility of putting
underground boxes in the sidewalk.
Mr. Zaner said in some cases a.cable television box might be
placed in the sidewalk. It would depend upon what else was
in the sidewalk.. If utilities were already there, it would
59-344
3/28/88
be difficult to place the cable television box there. It
would have to be on a location -by -location basis.
Ms. Northway deferred response as to the legal problems.
Council Member Woolley was confused about the tuning issue
in terms of individual neighborhoods deciding whether they
wanted cable television boxes above- or below -ground.
Mr. Zaner clarified that it was feasible to consider a
neighborhood -by -neighborhood question of undergrounding.
PacBell could deal with the issue on a neighborhood -by -
neighborhood basis but not on a house -by- house by basis.
One of the problems would be timing. He did not want
Council to think staff could start that evening going
neighborhood -by -neighborhood and PacBell would have no
problems with timing. It would be a lengthy process --not
impeseible--and it would cause delay: P cBel1 was prepared
to move into the underground areas quickly and such a delay
would cost money.
Council Member Woolley understood undereroundina had tempo-
rarily stopped and she queried what was done with PacBell's
crews.
Director of Information Resources Dianah Neff said the crews
were working on completing the commercial and multiple
dwelling areas. It was estimated that by April 6, 1988, all
commercial areas other than downtown and all other non R-1
residential areas would be completed.
Cot.,*cil Member Woolley clarified Council had until April 6
to decide what would be done in the next R-1 area.
Ms. Neff said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Klein was glad to hear Council had some flexi-
bility but was upset to hear Council had the same flexibil-
ity six or eight weeks ago. He queried the logistics of the
neighborhood -by -neighborhood question.
Mr. Zaner said it would be the best. for the City to put
together a team to go out into the neighborhoods using
PacBeli as the technical resource. A neighborhood wcuid
probably be leafleted and a meeting would be called. The
City and PacBell would explain what was being donee and the
process would be repeated in each neighborhood. There were
about eight or nine neighborhoods or about 1,500 residents
involved. Some would say they did not hear about the meet-
ings. The process would be imperfect and there was no
guarantee of consensus. City staff would , be augmented by
casuals and part time people. but it would not cost a great
deal. He estimated it would take 60 days.
59-345
3/28/88
Vice Mayor Klein clarified it was a rolling process and
staff only needed to complete the first neighborhood by
April 6, 1988.
Ms. Neff said while all neighborhoods were not cabled simul-
taneously, it would not take 60 days to complete the
remaining R-1 area.
Vice Mayor Klein asked whether enough time existed.
Mr. Zaner said it would he extremely difficult to complete
unless the city was willir to pay delay costs.
Vice Mayor Klein was somewhat bitter because if the poll
Legan six weeks ago, it would have bean done.
Council Member. Levy was also frustrated because everytime
Council discussed the issue, the developer was ready to go
next week. He asked what would happen if the City just said
it wanted extra time.
Ms. Northway believed there could be disagreements about
rights and responsibilities and the usual outlet was in the
court system.
Cc'uncil Member Patitucci said one problem was Council did
not get cooperation from the Cable Cooperative or PacBell in
coming up with an alternative when there was time to deal
with it. The first citizens in November or December wanted
to know what it would cost to have their choices. If the
City went with the special assessment approach, it could not
just pay estimated annual costs. The costs needed to be
actual, which set in motion a secondary cost of monitoring
and determining the actual costs. The estimated costs,
according to the present value of additional servicing and
maintenance costs on an annualized basis, worked out to be
between $30,000 and $40,000, which PacBell said it would
take if the City settled on that number. The most reoent
report (CMR:213:8) saiJ it would cost about $30,000 per year
to Calculate the costs to determine if additional maintee
nance and servicing costs were $30,000 per year. "If the
City agreed to pay a stipulated amount, for the special
assessment districts it would have to go through the addi-
tional cost of obtaining actual costs. If the City just
paid, it could agree on a 'dollar amount settlement annually
and not incur the costs of measuring the costs.- The City
could say it would pay $30,000 annually; it -wanted the
system underground and that would be it.,
Mr. Zaner said that was corri.ct, and it was the staff recom-
mendation if Council made the decision, to go underground.
59-346
3/28/88
Council Member Woolley asked . which residential areas had
been undergrounded and which were remaining.
Ms. Neff said to date, 195 vaults out of the estimated 600
vaults were placed in the residential areas. She believed
vaults were placed in Crescent Park III, Grennacres which
included the Donald, Wilmer, and Maybeli areas off of
Arastradero; and in the Holly Oak and Cork Oak areas.
Council Member Woolley was concerned about having accurate
information because it would make a big difference if
Cour,.il knew whether the neighbors in the areas not yet
undergrounded wanted to have vaults or pedestals.
Council Member Fletcher referred to the smaller tap pedes-
tal, and said only the top 11 inches were aboveground, and
there were several color options. She clarified Council was
not referring to the 22 -inch high pedestals but rather the
11 inches.
Paul Walker, 1423 Hamilton Avenue, complimented PacBel1 for
the cable installation in the Edgewood area. He thanked the
Council for being sensitive to the artistic needs of Palo
Alto and encouraged continued sensitivity.
Irene Hesemans, 660 Arastradero Road, was concerned that the
roads were continually being dui up. She believed she
already had the cable connection.
Elizabeth Paschal, 569 Patricia Lane, lived in the Crescent
Park III neighborhood which was already undergrounded.
After everything was done, their neighborhood was told of
the possibility of having to pay an extra assessment for a
considerable period of time. She referred to a letter which
she received on January 26, addressed to the property
owners, which said "the cost of building the new underground
distribution system, electric, telephone, and cable televi-
sion, in the public right-of-way will be borne by the
respective utilities. The only cost to you as.a property
owner would be that of putting a new underground service
across your property from an underground service box located
outside your property»' She supported the idea of con-
sulting neighborhoods because if her neighborhood was
consulted in the beginning, she believed many were not
interested in cable television and did not want to pay for
something it would not use. She did not see why individuals
who did not want to have cable television should be asked to
pay the costs of undergrounding when they were told at the
beginning that the underground costs would be borne by the
respective utilities.
59-347
3/28/88
Council Member Levy asked what the individuals she surveyed
expected to pay. -
Ms. Paschal said they used figures obtained in the news-
paper. It could be anywhere from $1.50 to $3 per month to
be paid. over 15 years. People knew the alternative was to
have a pedestal in front of their house. The preference was
not to have pedestals and not to pay if they did not want
cable television.
Al Kartchner, 577 Patricia Lane, did not want cable televi-
sion. Most of the vaults in his area were in place, flush
with the ground. Five out of six homes in his area surveyed
did not intend to subscribe to cable television. With the
technology available in Silicon Valley it was conceivable to
make a little casket which was impervious to moisture.
Ken Schulz,,, 4x50 Willmar Drive, asked his neighbors to rate
a properly screened pedestal and the $150 offered for
screening and no assessment versus a tap pedestal. His
neighbors were running about 15 to 1 opposed to vaults with
assessments. After polling his neighborhood, it was too
late to stop installation. He also polled the Los Arboles
neighborhood and got about the same response. Based upon
his polls and surveys, close to 100 percent of the solicited
households were opposed to further assessment for cable
installation or maintenance. The vault solution for mini-
mizing landscape damage or impact was fine for some loca-
tions but had an opposite effect in others. He believed the
pass through approach on assessments was a poor business
practice. There was little incentive on the part of PacBeil
or the Cable Co-op, who did not want to do the under-
grounding anyway, to minimize their expenses. He could not
think of any way to separate expenses arising out of mis-
takes or poor workmanship from those which were intrinsic to
an underground system. He believed the residents would pay
for it all. Pedestals required screening and there were
some places where they did not fit in. Credibility was low;
the biggest error was in delegating authority or granting a
franchise or hiring a subcontractor and failing to institute
proper checks and balances of the feedback procedure to
ensure everything was being done properly, and that people
were informed of the choices. If nothing was done, to
improve credibility, regardless of what was done that eve-
ning, it would not go well. He suggested the neighborhoods
not be assessed; and that Council institute a notification_
procedure as quickly as possible.
Council Member Woolley asked whether his neighborhood was
completed.
59--348
3/28/88
Mr. Schulz lived in Greenacres II and his vaults were in.
He believed the vaults at Greenacre 1 were also completed,
In Los Arboles, the trenches were dug but the vaults were
not installed.
Council Member Cobb asked how the installers interfaced with
homeowners in terms of picking the location for the vaults.
Mr. Schulz said homeowners received a leaflet on the door-
step saying what would happen, and it providing a few phone
numbers to call with questions. The external dimension box,
which was 22 by 35 inches, was labeled as being a 17 by 30
inch unit.,
Council Member Patitucci clarified Mr. Schulz' surveys had
to do with the assessments.
Mr( Schulz said before the installation in his neighborhood
and in Los Arboles he asked people whether they preferred to
have a tap pedestal aboveground, properly screened, without
an assessment versus a vault which would be flush in the
ground.
Council Member Patitucci asked whether people had the choice
of a vault without having to pay for it.
Mr. Schulz said no.
Mayor Sutorius sensed earlier that Mr. Schulz had an aware-
ness of the potential of the service degradation of an
underground tap pedestal. He asked whether the subject
arose in any of his surveys.
Mr. Schulz said he mentioned to people the feeling of both
t ,e Cable Co-op and PacBeil that service would not be as
good with underground vaults and that there would be corro-
sion developments.
Vice Mayor Klein was intrigued by the disparity in results
of surveys between Crescent Park III and Greenacres. He
asked Mr. Schulz if he knew of any reason why the results
should be so different.
Mr. Schulz said people generally expected the vaults would
be out of sight and there would be no impact on the land-
scaping. when they saw the piece of cardboard which he used
as an example sitting on their lawn or near their bushes,
they had a different view. He also believed the landscaping
varied in different parts of town. About six of the vaults
in his neighborhood resulted in the removal of a whole
juniper bush, a corner of a hedge, and the end of another
59-349
3/28/88
hedge. One of his neighbor's bushes was killed, and another
was removed. were impacts. The same things might not have
happened in Crescent Park. Installers might have been more
careful or perhaps landscaping was di:ferent.
Irving Sunshine, 4173 Arastradero Road, concurred with all
but the first speaker's presentation. Aesthetics were one
thing and finances were another. He heard the figure of $3
a month as a possible assessment. The cost of the enter-
prise was a significant factor to many people who did not
want to subscribe to cable.
Sid Owen, 246 Walter Hayes Drive, queried why such large
vaults were needed belowground if connections couldbe made
in such a small pedestal as that which was on display. He
saw vaults in neighboring towns which he could cover with
his feet. Cable was supposed to service Palo Alto not the
other way around. IJndergrounding was not yet started in his
area and it was possible they would pull out altogether if,
it turned out that PacBell was running the City. They pre-
ferred to keep their poles and their uncluttered front
yards.
Elliott Bolter, 286 Walter Hayes Drive, surveyed the areas
and understood the frustration of residents. TCI Cable -
vision had been undergrounded in San Carlos for 23 years.
He was told that City's managing team insisted on an under-
ground`; system since the area did not get a .good television
signal and cable television was imperative. Some problems
existed but the differential cost was nominal, which was not
what the Palo Alto City Council was told. The boxes in San
Carlos were 11-1/2 inches by 15 inches. Palo Alto's pro-
posed vaults were 23 inches by 35 inches. He queried why
the the vault had to be so big, and whether it could go in
the sidewalk. He was advised that work crews usually went
in and put in the vaults on a per installation basis.
Jim Dinkel,* 3380 Cork Oak Way, referred to his letter of
March 22,. 1988 .(on file in the City Clerk's office) and
added an item "j" to force, require, or request that PacBell
put the boxes in the sidwalk. There was no technical.
reason why it could not be done. In Los,Arobles, a section
of sidewalk had been removed and barriers with lights had
been up for three weeks. The project was now on hold, and
cable was not yet in. He would have a big box because the
little tap boxes were already installed on the other side of
the street. There was no reasonwhy a water department size
box could not be placed in the sidewalk.. Out of the 100
boxes surveyed, perhaps two or three needed to be reset in
the sidewalk.` In his case, putting the box where PacBell
wanted would wipe out a tree because the root system was
there.
59-350
3/28/88
Jack Pines, 4109 Donald Drive, said television was a luxury
entertainment service. People who were going to use the
service should pay for it.
Harry Ratchford, 4177 Hubbard, said his street was above the
former Terman High School on Arastradero. The people along
Arastradero were assessed to death. Oregon was paved on a
bond issue, but for some reason a bond issue could not be
done for Arastradero and it was paid for by a graded assess-
ment. .He lived in the fourth house off of Arastradero.
When Arastradero was paved, the man on the corner of Hubbard
and Arastradero was assessed $1,500, and he lost 15 feet of
his property when they widened the street. .The second
household was assessed $750; his assessment was over $400;
Mr. Sunshine's assessment was only $70; the fifth house was
zero and it was zero or, down the street. Then there were
assessments to underground utilities. It cost him $450 to
move the street light from one side of his property to a
light standard on the other side. All he got out of it was
moving the light. As part of the assessment, there was a
cable system built in the utility underground. He now heard
that cable system could not be used. In essence they bought
a dead horse. When Terman Junior High School was to be
sold, the assessment arose again. Since it would only serve
to ,make the residents on Arastradero mad, it was withdrawn.
Now Council was discussing an assessment for undergrounding
cable when some people did not want it.
Bob Moss, 4010 Ormne, said on February 8, 1988, Council voted
7-1 to make the survey being discussed. Several hours into
the meeting, ` Vice Mayor Klein made a motion to reconsider
the vote. It" was reconsidered and failed by a vote of 4-4.
He resented any suggestion that the Cable Co-op was urging
an assessment district or that it was delaying things or
that the problems were the. fault of the people installing
the system The system was designed for pedestals. The
City was warned there would be controversy. Council should
stop any undergrounding of vaults Without a positive
response on a community -by- community, -.underground district -
by -underground district basis that they wanted vaults. and
understood there would be costs borne by the people in the
district. He was assessed for undergrounding on his street
even though he still got his utility service from a tele-
phone pole. It was established that the mere fact the
utilities were underground and that he did not have tele-
phone lines in_ front of his house was an aesthetic benefit
and, therefore, he benefited. The pedestal was approxi-
mately 10 inches in diameter by about 20 to 22 inches high,
and half of it would be underground,-which.most people would
accept.: In terMs of carrying the costs of the -existing
underground vaults, the suggestions of Council Member
3/28/88
59-351
Patitucci that the first come from the upper Page Mill give
back and second from concessions in the franchise fee were
the way to go. He surveyed his neighborhood and 7 out of
the 22 households preferred to have the pedestals sight
unseen, as long they did not have to pay anything. He was.
confident, particularly inhis neighborhood where there were
a lot of seniors on fixed incomes, that the majority of the
people would want to have the pedestals rather than the
underground vaults. The baseline should be pedestals unless
people specifically requested vaults and said they would pay
for it.
Jim Dobbie, 586 Center Drive, spoke to about 20 of his
neighbors. No one was very interested in cable and did not,
want aboveground pedestals. They would probably pay $2 to
$3 per month for undergrounding if it was the only alterna-
tive and it was forced on them by the City. They were happy
with the undergrounding of the utilities. The City did such
a large job relatively well in undergrounding the utilities,
and people wondered why it was such a big deal to under-
ground the cable especially when many of his neighbors were
technically -oriented and knew there was no real tecnical
problem in putting the system underground. He was advised
to resist undergrounding until the City Council told him
there was no alternative. He was not concerned about the
maintenance or performance of underground cable and believed
the only difference was a slightly added cost in the instal-
lation. It was clear to him that the Cable Co-op and
PacBell did not want to underground the system. The older
systems provided good cable for many years and some of the
tap pedestals were less than one foot square and were
located in the sidewalks.
Council Member Bechtel asked about the size of the flush -
mounted vaults.
Chris Salkeld, Project Manager, PacBell, said there were
vaults in neighboring communities that had tap pedestals
undergrounded in a size that would be 11-1/2 by 15 .inches.
He pointed out that Palo Alto requested a duel cable
system --not a single cable system that would require just a
single tap --to be someday used for data transport. To place
that type of facility underground, there needed to be enough
space for two taps. PacBell could place two underground
vaults that were both 11-1/2 by 15 inches as a gentleman
earlier mentioned. There were two taps in Palo Alto's
system.
Mr. Zaner said vaults could be placed in the sidewalks
depending on the particular location. In some instances?
utilities were already in the sidewalk and in some instances
53-352.
3/28/88,
there were none. Staff would need to go into each indivi-
dual area and see what was there. If utilities were i.n the
sidewalk and there was room for cable television, then the
vaults could be put in the sidewalk. If there was no room
in the sidewalk, then the vaults needed to go back in the
easement.
Council Member Cobb queried whether PacBell krew of any
aboveground pedestals for the extenders and the amplifiers
that were smaller than the ones Council had seen :o far.
Mr. Salkeld said on the basis of size only, Pa.Be11 dis-
tributed to staff and Council a package put together by
Channel Corporation which had pedestals that were similar to
the size of the pedestals currently being used except they
were horizontal rather than vertical. He believed there
were tap pedestals as well as line extender pedestals on the
market that would be smaller in size.
Council Member `'Cobb said his impression was that relatively
little effort was made by the installation crews to find out
where the underground vaults or the pedestals could be
installed where they would cause the least problem to the
homeowner.
Mr. Salkeld said the installation crews talked tohomeowners
on a number of occasions it the attempt to relocate pede-
stals.
Council Member Cobb asked about the flexibility of locating
aboveground pedestals either in the easement or on the side -
yard assuming the question of obtaining additional easements
was resolved.
Mr. Salkeld said such flexibility could be provided.
PacBell previously stated that generally, it would look at
ten feet to be the average for a relocation for pedestals
without severely affecting the engineering design for the
tap. Beyond ten feet, PacBell would want .to look at the
area to see whether there would be a problem.
Council Member Cobb referred to the statement that except at
the end of the chain where the degradation might become a
problem, it was not likely to be that difficult of a situa-
tion,
Mr. Salkeld disagreed. Looking at the basic design of the
trunk cable itself,. he would agree. However, looking at the
design of where the Cable Co-op .had to place its service
drops, the further the pedestal was placed from the custo-
mer's home, there was a limitation on the length the cable
drop could be located which was the problem.
59-353
3/28/88
Council Member Cobb asked, assuming the question of ease-
ments in the sideyards could be resolved, whether there was
a technical problem with installation.
Mr. Saikeld said yes. The staff recommendation at one point
was to move the pedestal 20 feet, as an average, down the
homeowner's side easement, which would add a ,40 -foot loop to
each pedestal.
Council Member Cobb said if something like that had to be
pursued, he queried whether the solution was more tap pede-
stals or an entire system redesign.
I►Mr. Saikeld said there would be no need for an increase in
the number of tap pedestals, but there would be a redesign
of the cable plants to get to the tap pedestals. It would
be the system leading up to the particular pedestals. It.
would not have any impact on the additional trunks through-
out the serving area of the franchise.
Council Member Cobb clarified it had to do with all the
different kind of boxes in the loop.
Mr. salkeld said yes.
Council Member Levy clarified PacBeli's flexibility was that
tap pedestals could be moved ten feet to either direction.
Mr. Salkeld said PacBell did not necessarily havetheflexi-
bility but suggested it would like to limit relocation to a
ten -foot increment on one side or the other. With that,
PacBeii believed it had relative security in the knowledge
that it might not have to add to the additional line
extenders or cable of the facilities.
Council Member Levy said if the average lot was 60 feet in
width, it meant PacBell had the flexibility over 20 of the
60 feet.
Mr. Salkeld said generally that was correct. On more than
one occasion that evening he heard that the delays were
being caused by PacBell. He reminded Council on more than
one occasion PacBellwas there to build a cable system for
Palo Alto's needs and would like tohave resolution to the
matter as soon as possible. When PacBell first appeared
before the Council, it was told a. solution. would . be reached
within 60 days. He believed PacBell as well as the Cable
Co-op did all it could to answer the questions.
Council Member Cobb was frustrated. Council made its share
of mistakes . but was aided by the way the system went in.
59-394.
3/28/99
Previous remarks notwithstanding, to some degree Palo Alto
was set up to fail because a lot of people were upset with
the way the installations were made originally and now
Council heard from yet another neighborhood who was also
upset with the way the installations went in. Some other
people said the installations went well in their neighbor-
hoods. At best, it had not been a consistent application of
consideration. If Council had been more careful about
asking people where to put the various boxes and vaults, the
City would not have the problems it was having. He person-
ally liked the idea of asking neighborhoods before going
above or below -ground. If the taps were undergrounded, he
also liked the idea of putting them in the • sidewalk. It
seemed to make more sense and be better for the`'system. The
dilemma was that no one wanted pedestals in their yards,
everyone wanted them underground, and no one wanted to pay
for it. Payment was a serious problem because there needed
to be equity. Two-thirds of the people were not using cable
and yet there was the aesthetics' issue of the boxes above-
ground. Many people said they would not support an
assessment.
Council Member Patitucci said the question was who would pay
for the undergrounding. Unfortunately, the Cable Co-op
flatly refused to consider any alternative of passing along
the cost to users, which he believed was the appropriate
place for the costs to gee._ Because Cable Co-op would not
cooperate in trying to set up a system whereby the benefici-
aries paid, he believed Council had to consider whether the
City should pay. He liked the idea of choices and would
have liked to have gone through the neighborhoods and laid
out reasonable choices and let people select their alterna-
tives, but each time Council considered the issue, it never
had the time to give people choices. In listening to
PacBell, it sounded like the flexibility of moving the pede-
stals around was not quite as great as Council would like to
expect. If it was going to cost an amount equal to the
estimated costs to measure the cost, perhaps it would be
easier for the City to settle with the Cable Co-op and
PacBell and pay a number like $30,000 per ,year after the
benefits of the concessions were used up, and underground
the system.
Council Member Woolley said according to what Council Member
Patitucci proposed, the concessions would be made by the
City in the franchise agreement and by the Cable Co-op con-
tributions less marketing and administrative costs. She
asked how long those two sources would pay for the cost of
the underground vaults and the maintenance.
59-355.
3/28/88
Mr. Zaner believed it was something close to six or seven
years.
MOTION; Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius,
that when new funds are required for __future underground
areas (if new utility underground areas are ._ever added),
then these shall be paid for from one or a combination of
the following (in order of preference):
1. Through additional concessions that the City and Cable
Co-op may be able to negotiate at that time;
2. By reductions in the franchise fee; and
3. By assessment districts established to pay the costs
that are known at that time.
Further, staff is directed as follows:
1. To conduct surveys in every neighborhood yet to be
undergrounded to determine whether they want: a) tap
pedestals at no cost; and b) undergrounding with the
understanding that ultimately they will have to pay some
fee for the maintenance program.
2. To work together with Pac8.1I. on putting vaults in side-
walks to the extent possible; and
Treat the neighborhoods which already have underground
pedestals the same way on a financial basis as those
neighborhoods which elected to have underground vaults
installed.
3.
Council Member Bechtel said staff indicated it would be very
difficult to accurately get any kind of a survey of a neigh-
borhood considering the time frame. She asked how Vice
Mayor Klein proposed it would be done.
Vice Mayor Klein said he heard staff say it would be hard
but it could be done.
Council Member Bechtel clarified staff said it would take 60
days minimum and probably prior to that the contractor for
the undergrounding area would be finished.
Vice Mayor Klein said if PacBell had been up front with
Council 90 days ago, the survey would have been done.
Council Member Woolley said the three areas not yet under -
grounded were Crescent Park I, Crescent .Park II, and Leland
Manor. She believed the residents in these areas
59-356
3/28/8.8
consistently wanted undergrounding but it was the Greenacres
I and II where Council heard the reverse and both of those
areas were completed_ She did not see the value of survey-
ing Crescent Park I, II, and Leland Manor unless Council
wanted a commitment on their parts to go. along with the
assessment district when and if that became necessary.
Vice Mayor Klein had no intention of surveying the neighbor-
hoods already done. His proposal was that if the neighbor-
hoods yet to be surveyed voted for tap pedestals above-
ground, then it would be only fair and appropriate for the
City to absorb the costs. If everyone else voted to under-
ground, then he believed the ones already undergrounded
should share in the cost.
Council --Member Woolley believed the only flaw in the argu-
ment was that Council had abundant evidence that evening
from Greenacres I and II that they -would have preferred the
aboveground pedestals rather than the underground vaults.
Vice Mayor Klein said the surveys taken showed him that
surveys were significantly- biased by who the taker.of the
survey was. He referred to election results historically in
Palo Alto and the differences from neighborhood -to -
neighborhood ran 10 to 15 percent --never 70\to 80 percent.
Council Member Fletcher asked staff whether -the survey
request was reasonable and practical.
Mr. _Zaner believed staff could organize some quick meetings
in neighborhoods and notify people to come. He could not
guarantee who would show up nor could he guarantee, that
after the work was done Council would not have another part
of the neighborhood claiming they were not involved in the
decision. In order to ensure that would not happen, staff
would need a lot of time and multiple meetings and staff did
not have that kind of time.
Council Member Fletcher could not support the motion and the
concept that the neighborhoods already undergrounded should
have to pay when they had no choice. She believed it was a
mistake to go underground. She also did not agree that once
the financing was figured out, everything would be fine. Of
all the cable operators with whom she spoke across the
country, every one of them had negative things to say about
undergrounding taps. She wasconcerned there would be cable
subscribers before Council complaining about underground
service until Council brought all the . equipment back above-
ground. She urged Council defeat the motion in order to
move forward with a uniform system with the smaller pede-
stals which could be hidden by shrubbery in almost all
cases. She visually surveyed the underground areas and
believed it was so illogical the way shrubbery was cut down
to put the vaults in whereas with an 11 inch pedestal the
shrubbery could have hidden it.
Council Member Patitucci tried to create some sort of incen-
tive for the Cable Co-op's re-evaluating its position at
some point and figuring out a way to pass costs along to the
benefiting subscribers. If the City of Palo Alto was next
in line to pay at the time when the benefits of the previous
concessions ran out, then there might be somepressure, if
Cable Co-op was financially healthy, to figure out a way
that it might pay some of those additional costs. He also
believed that putting the franchise fee ahead of the assess-
ment was important although he was not opposed to some
concept that ultimately Council might have to end up with an
assessment district.
Vice Mayor Klein said the City had no leverage on the Co-op
at the present time. He did not rule out what might happen
in the future and if they got to that point, he hoped the
Council would use that leverage. _At the present time, he
believed it was an unrealistic source of financing. If they
went to the next two sources in Council Member Patitucc.'s
original memo, reduction in the franchise fees and by the
City of Palo Alto, either one made the last suggestion
totally irrelevant because they would never get to it. They
knew the City of Palo Alto would always have enough money so
they would not have to go to the assessment district. The
question was the fair means of payment --an assessment
district or General Fund money. He believed there needed to
be one or the other.
Council. Member Patitucci said his memo implied the City
would document actual costs. He asked whether that was
being retained. If the costs did not materialize, then the
assessment district might not be set up. If they did mate-
rialize and they were higher than estimated, then the actual
costs would be passed along to the assessment district.
Vice Mayor Klein did not focus on that but was willing to go
either way. The issue was important and should be decided.
Council Member Patitucci believed the question of choice
might be past. A uniform system with the pedestals being
installed in sidewalks might be the way to go with the idea
that the assessment district would be established in six or
seven years to pay a specified amount.
Council kewber Levy wanted to clarify the assessment dis-
trict question.. If the Council signed a contract with Cable
59-358
3/28/88
Co --op and the actual amount as determined by the contract
was $40,000 per year to be paid to Cable Co-op as the addi-
tional cost connected with undergrounding, he asked if they
could use that $40,000 contract as the basis for the assess-
ment district, or whether the assessment district had to be
based on the actual costs that the Co-op incurred.
Ms. Northway believed the City had to pass on the actual
costs incurred by the system by some reasonable method of
computation. If some reasonable method bore relation to
what the actual costs were, that might work; however, she
heard that was not the case.
Council Member Levy said if it would cost almost as much to
verify the costs of the best estimates, it seemed imprudent
to engage in the verification process.
Ms. Northway said it might well be imprudent, but she
believed the way the law looked at it was that the indivi-
dual being assessed had a due process right not to have to
pay for anything that was not actually incurred to benefit
their property. They were protected by the fact that the
expenses had to be actually incurred --or some close approxi-
mation of that -..otherwise they would have no protection from
someone setting the costs in a contract that was favorable
to somebody else and saying those were the actual costs.
Council Member Levy originally believed an assessment dis-
trict was the way to pay because they were not talking about
cable TV service but aesthetics for a neighborhood. The
neighborhood could chose its aesthetics and ! willing to
pay for it if there was an added cost. As the process pro-
gressed, he realized it was an incredibly complex and mis-
understood communications problem. Two-thirds of the people
were not going to use cable an.d were asking why they should
be assessed for the cable system. In fact, they were not
being assessed for the cable system but the aesthetics of
theirs neighborhood. If the City did not begin the assess-
ment district for seven to eight years, it would be even
more complex. By then, people who had been living with the
status quo would suddenly be assessed for something they did
not understand, and the assessment would not be .$2 or $3 a
month but $5 or $6 a month due to inflation, and they would
object even more. The answer might be to use the franchise
fee or for the City to pay. The City could negotiate the
figure now and save the verifice Lion costs, which would be
$20,000 or $30,000. He did not believe the people with
aboveground systems would object but would understand i t was
part of the aesthetics of the whole community. On that
basis, in terms of the motion, he agreed with Items 1 and 2
59-359
3/28/88
but would change Item 3. Instead of utilizing assessment
districts, he would opt for using the franchise fee or the
General Funds of the City.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by
Bechtel, to amend Item 3 to use as needed a ither _ a reduction
in the franchise fee or the General Funds of. the City
instead of an assessment district.
Council Member Levy said the concept of surveying made him
uncomfortable, and the amendment would eliminate that. The
already-undergrounded areas did not have the benefit of
saying "yes or no" to a survey which could be another com-
munications problem. He agreed with the concept of utiliz-
ing sidewalks where possible. He noted that evening's
surprisingly small complaint level among the areas that had
been undergrounded contrasted with when Leland Manor first
went aboveground. He was satisfied people seemed to like
the undergrounding that had gone on. He agreed with Vice
Mayor Klein's comment that surveys had a great deal of biae.
built into them.
Mr. Zaner said 60 percent of the people in the community and
in the assessment districts would not even subscribe to the
system. An assessment district hearing had to be held, and
all those people would appear before the City Council and
they would have a majority protest. In order to overrule a
majority protest, two-thirds of . the Council had to override
a majority of the community that did not want to pay for a
service they had already had for five or six years. In
effect, an assessment district would not happen. If Council
decided it wanted the system undergrounded, it had to find
another way to pay for it, i.e., either out of the General.
Fund or some other source. The General Fund was ultimately
the only source because the cable franchise fees went into
the General Fund. Alternatively, the Council could decide
it did not want any further undergrounding and stay above-
ground.
Council Member Bechtel agreed with Council Member Levy's and
Mr. Zaner's comments that the assessment district had a poor
chance of becoming a reality; therefore, the amendment was
valid and valuable.
Vice Mayor Klein was persuaded by Council Member Levy's and
Mr. Zaner's comments that unfortunately the assessment dis-
trict concept would .not work. He believed it would have
worked if choices had been given to the neighborhoods right
from the start. It would have been fairer because the
neighborhoods could have been given the choice with the
understanding that .voting forundergrounding was also voting
59-360
3/28/88
in favor of an assessment district. p.l t.nough it was not the
fairest approach, he would suppr- t the money coming out of
the General Fund. The publie relat:.ons' aspect of the
installation of the system by CaL:le Cc' -op and PacBell left
much to be desired. Council could not .:believe everything
that was told to them in meetings and always had to be sen-
sitive to installation of new services.
Council Member Cobb still liked the idea of the survey.
There was more to it than just how to pay but what people
wanted to happen to th:ir neighborhood. If somebody else
was goiag to pay, people would want the system under -
grounded. He asked if it was possible to combine the amend-
ment with a survey asking whether people were willing to put
the pedestals underground if they knew the cost had to come
out of the General Fund.
Mayor Su4orius believed people would certainly say they were
willing to have the money come out of the General Fund. He
seconded Vice Mayor Klein's original motion because of the
equity involved in having an assessment district play a
part. It was not a matter exclusively of whether someone
subscribed to cable TV at initial service -offering time. If
the property was prepared'toereceive cable and the neighbor-
hood had the undergrounding, there was value to the prop-
erty. He also felt it was fair to look at all the districts
as to whether they were presently undergrounded or pending
and treat them the same. With the changes, he could not
support the amendment; and if tae amendment went forward, he
could not support the main motion,
Council Member Patitucci hoped the amendment .contained
implications that, if there was another way to keep costs
down, the City would look for {ether forms of concessions
before going to the General Fund. The implication did not
need to be stated, and he could support the amendment as
proposed.
Council Member Woolley assocatee with the comments of Mayor
Sutorius. The question of whether the General Fund should
be used had bothered her from the beginning, and she had not
supported the undergrcunding at the two meetings where she
had an opportunity to vote. About 7 percent of the house-
holds in the City were affected, and she could not see using
the General Fund for something which benefited only a small
portion of the total population. The whole matter had been
handled poorly by the Council and everyone, but she could
not support the amendment or the motion.
ANUIDNEKT FAILED by a vote Of 4-4, . Levy, Bechtel, Klein,
Patitucci voting "aye," Renz.l absent.
59-361
3/28/88
Council Member Bechtel believed the Council .Members who
voted in opposition to the amendment might be opposed to the
whole business. She had really wanted to reconsider the
whole issue of the underground vaults, but as she listened
to the speakers and considered all the options and what they
had accomplished so far and in which neighborhoods, she felt
they were stuck with the underground alternative. She was
concerned about what it would do for the cable system and
believed it would be a mistake if the main motion passed
with assessment districts an assessment district would never
happen. There were differences in vegetation from neighbor-
hood
to neighborhood, and some neighborhoods might be better
served by the aboveground rather than the flush --mounted
pedestals. Forgetting about the cost issue and who was
paying, she believed Council needed to come up with a way to
find out how people would be better served. The survey
issue still needed to be pursued. She hoped one of her col-
leagues who opposed the previous amendment would move to
reconsider,
Council Member Cobb said the problem he had withs the pre-
vious amendment was taking the money out of the General
Fund. He agreed it would be difficult to pass an assessment
district, even if it was in the future. He still felt the
survey was important. He queried whether there was some
other way to survey whether people preferred the pedestals
underground or aboveground, recognizing if they went under-
ground there would be some additional cost passed onto the
citizens of Palo Alto, either directly to the consumers or
in some other way. If people were still willing for the
system to go underground, they should be given the opportu-
nity. If they did not want to deal with the cosh associ-
ated with putting the system underground, the pedestals
should go aboveground with the landscaping. Council needed
some answers to understand how to deal with the cost issue
so they could ask the right questions.
Council Member Fletcher reitereated that the Cable Co-op
offered to pay for vegetation. She believed the 11 -inch
high pedestal with vegetation would fit everywhere. It was
unconscionable to demand an assessment from the neighbor-
hoods that had the undergrounding against their will.
People complained about having the vaults on their lawns and
having their shrubbery cut. She hoped the Council would go
to the aboveground pedestals if the motion was defeated.
Council -Member Patitucci clarified II the motion failed and
the Council could not reach an agreement, the current, policy
continued in effect the following day when PacBell returned
to work.
59-362
3/28/88
3/28/88
Mayor Sutorius said that was correct.
Councii. Member Patitucci had trouble with the assessment
dietrict. If the question was whether not people who were
having the underground vaults would want to pay for them out
of the General Fund, he was not sure they would get an
answer. People did not see the General Fund as coming out
of their pockets. He also believed, contrary to Council
Member Woolley's comments, the Council did spend lots of
money in the General Fund to benefit just a few people, and
he referred to the Youth Hostel situation. The General eund
was used for the general community, and sometimes it had to
be spent in specific areas, and $30,000 or $40,000 a year
did not seem excessive if it got them past- the issue.
Council Member Levy queried what would be found out from the
survey, There was an incredible amount of misunderstanding.
Some people did not understand the difference between the
cable undergrounding and their electric utilities under -
grounding. The results of the survey were by no means going
to be conclusive and probably would result in as much acri-
mony after the survey as before.
Mayor Sutorius clarified the motion directed staff to con-
duct a survey that would communicate the following choices
within underground neighborhoods: A tap pedestal at no
additional cost, or underground at some cost in seven to
eight years. In addition, the source of payment for the
initial costs would come by concessions in the franchise
agreement; by the contributions from Cable Co-op and, when
thoce ®cu ccii weave depleted, by additional concessions that
the City and Cable Co-op might be able to negotiate; and
assessment districts would be established to pay .any
remaining costs that became known. The intent of the actual
undergrounding would be that they be placed on sidewalks
wherever feasible, and that all underground neighbors would,
in effect, be treated the same. A survey would be made and
a majority determination as to tap pedestal or underground
would be a neighborhood assessment district decision.
Vice Mayor Klein added the Council previously spoke to
establishing a system by which they could determine actual
costs and would go with whatever that figure was, i.e.,
$30,000 or $40,00.0 a year.
NOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Fletcher, Patitucci,.
Woolley voting "no," Wenzel absent.
Mr.. Zaner said staff might need to return to the Council if
the surveys gave noconclusive results.
59-363
3/28/88
13. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1987-88 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
PARKING FINE COLLECTION SERVICES (CMR:195:8)
( 761-�3/ 701--04/105 '
Police Chief Chris Durkin said page 3 of the staff report
(CMR:195:8) under County Surcharge, should read "...which
totals approximately $120,000 annually," instead of
"...which totals approximately $20,000 annually." He
introduced Mr. •Ron Henry, Deputy Director of Operations for
Datacom.
Council Member Levy asked for clarification of how the item
was budgeted. • The City would decrease the revenues by
$167,000 and there also appeared to be $60,000 more that
they were being asked to pay out; therefore, the City
appeared to be losing $227,000 by the contract. He assumed
the City was getting that back in some way.
Mr. Zaner clarified in the budget the Council adopted in
July, 1987, the City anticipated revenue of $728,000 from
parking citations. They were now revising teat estimate to
$167,000 less. The second part of the budget amendment now
set up funds for the City to pay the company that would be
doing the work. In the past, the previous company collected
the money and simply remitted the net to the City.
Council Member Levy asked why the estimate was revised down
by $167,000.
Purchasing Director/Systems Manager Lynne Johnson replied
the original projection was based on an issuance of 6,000
citations a month and the City averaged a little over 5,600
for the last eight months.. Additionally, since doing the
internal processing, staff had not pursued those who were
not paying off the windshield. The initial pay off the
windshield would be those people who paid once they ini-
tially received the citation.
t-_
Mr. Zaner clarified under the City's normal practice, when
they had a. company working for them, people paid the fine as
noon as they received the ticket on the windshield. If they
failed to do so, the company went after then and collected
the delinquent fines. As long as City staff had been doing
the project, they had just gone after the windshield fines
and not the delinquencies because of a staffing problem.
That would cause soee' of the revenue to be slightly lower
until they could catch up with some of the delinquent viola-
tions»
Council Member Levy asked if there was a reason why the
estimated citations dropped from 6,000 to 5,000.
59-364
3/28/88
Ms. Johnson said the City had only four parking monitors
during the past eight months instead of five due to turnover
in personnel.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to
adopt the staff recommendation as followsx
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in the
amount of $119,000 with Datacom Systems Corporation to
provide processing for parking citations for a one. -year
period beginning April 1, 1988.
2. Approve. the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of
$60,000 to cover costs associated with the agreement for
the remainder of the 1987-88 fiscal year, including
authorization for $6,000 in change orders, and a reduc-
tion of $167,000 in parking citation revenue.
3. Approve the resolution authorizing William Zaner, June
Fleming, Emily Harrison, Gordon Ford, and Ron Garrett as
signators on the Parking Citation Revenue account.
ORDINANCE 3800 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL
OP THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 1987.88 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR PARKING FINE COLLECTION SER-
VICES'
AGREEMENT WITH DATACON SYSTEMS CORPORATION TO PRO-
VIDE PROCESSING FOR PARKING CITATIONS
RESOLUTION 6680 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE OPENING
AND/OR MAINTAINING OF A PARKING, BAIL, PENALTY, AND
FINE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN SIGNATURES AND PROCEDURES'
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-0-1, Levy l"abstaining,"
Rensel absent.
14. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE GOLDEN
TRIANGLE TASK FORCE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT AND
SUPPLEMENT THERETO (CMR:199 :8 ) (701-04/1045-01)
NOTION: Vie. Mayor Klein moved, second*d by $ichtel, to
approti the r.aclution
RESOLUTION 66$1 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL
OF. THE CITY or PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING TSB MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE TASK FORCE IMPLEMENTA-
TION AGREEMENT AND SUPPLEMENT THERETO'
59-365
3/28/88
MOTION CONT'D
GOLDEN TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
SUPPLEMENT TO THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION AGREE-
MENT
Vice Mayor Klein said the Council had previously considered
all the policy elements included in the Golden Triangle Task
Force agreement. The motion formalized those agreements and
provided for a budget for Phase III of the Golden Triangle
process, which actually was already underway. The Other
cities had either passed it, passed it in concept, or were
in the process of doing so and there was no known opposition
at present since it reflected all the compromises which were
worked out among the various cities.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent.
15. LEASES AND AMENDMENT TO LEASE - PALO ALTO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT (CMR:2QO:t) (CMR: I1:8) (l341-61)
Council Member Woolley did not participate due to a conflict
of interest.
Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, understood the lease was the
result of the passage of the Utility Users Tax. Several
groups in the community worked hard for the tax and saw it
as a way of benefiting education and, particularly, the arts
and community groups . The interim agreement did not go far
enough. When the utility tax and Gann initiative came
around again to be reaffirmed, people would remember the
interim .agreement with dissatisfaction. She believed the
Council could have been more creative in meeting the needs
of both the Palo Alto Unified: School District (PAUSD) and
some of the community groups who suffered from the fact
there was no interim lease agreement. They would continue
to work for that goal.
James White, 435 E. Charleston Road, represented the Western
Ballet Theatre, and understood the school .complex they
occupied was not represented in any .of the City/School liai-
son committee meeting literature he gathered. In the
February 16, 1988, Minutes, Amendments to the Lease, Council
Member Klein explained the City had a policy with regard to
how it le`eed property which it controlled; that the City
was required to use ti.e competitive bid process, and that he
did not want community groups to got the impression that the
committee could make the decision as to which space would be
earmarked for a particular group. He understood that had
59-366
3/28/88
already been done. In speaking with the personnel at Lucie
Stern, he understood there had been more -or -less some sort
of affirmation that, due to the fact Lucie Stern would be
going through a revitalization process, some_of. the space in
the Jordan complex would be dedicated to them. The Western
Ballet Theatre and others requested the City Council con-
sider the Ohlone School site as part of the interim agree-
ment so their organization could continue to function and
they could derive some benefit from the Utility Users Tax
which they worked to support.
Mayor Sutorius clarified that a portion of Lucie Stern was
undergoing seismic rehabilitation. It had been identified
as proper to use the Jordan site on an interim basis to
relocate staff from Lucie Stern. The idea had been actively
discussed by both Vice Mayor Klein and Council Member Cobb
at the public meetings.
Jeanne Loomis, 445 E. Charleston Road, Executive Director of
the Western Ballet- Theatre, asked Council to consider that
the Ohlone School site multipurpose room and. library build-
ing were currently being used by the Western Ballet Theatre.
None of the other sites offered in the interim agreement
were suitable to their needs. They needed unobstructed
space with a high ceiling. Since the interim agreement was
piecemeal, she recommended the Council consider their two
buildings as part of the piecemeal plan. When she heard
figures like $190,000 being spent to refurbish football
fields and $19f,000 being used to convert a boys' locker
room to accommodate both men and women, she wondered why the
Council did not consider $24,000 a year to help subsidize
their rent. She knew the Council was opposed to subsidy,
bgt.renting facilities to arts groups at below -market prices
was a subsidy. They would like the same consideration.
They could not survive With a $4,000 per month rent, and the
Council could make a large difference to their future.
Council Member Fletcher said during the last discussion of
the itr e she expressed her disappointment that there was no
credit for purchase arrangement in the lease amendments.
She since learned there was some interest on the part of at
least one PAUSD board member, and perhaps a second, in con-
sidering such an arrangement. She would vote against future
lease agreements if those arrangements were not made.
59-•367
3/28/88
MOTION: Vice !Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
adopt the staff recommendation approving the negative decla-
ration and authorizing the M.yor to sign the . following: 1)
Amendment ° 41 to the Lease' -and Covenant . Not '..to .Develop; 2)
The Jordan Interim Lease Agreement; and 3j, Mks C zbberley
Lease Agreement.
LEASE WITH PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR JORDAN
INTERIM LEASE
LEASE WITH PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR CUBBERLEY
GYMNASIUM
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEASE AND COVENANT NOT TO DEVELOP
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley 'not participating,'
Renzel absent.
16. 1987-88 REQI UREMENTS FOR JORDAN AND CUBBERLEY SCHOOLS
(CMR :200:8) 701-03/1341-01
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved; seconded by Bechtel,
to adopt staff recommendation to:
Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of
$79,000 to establish School Site Improvements, CIP
87-30, which funds the following actions for the
remainder of FY 1987-88:
a) a consultant agreement for assessment of the condi-
tion of irrigation systems at the 11 elementary
school sites and Jane Lathrop Stanford (J.L.S).
b) one contract engineer technician in the Public Works
Facilities Management Division.
c) one hel.f-time contract clerk in the Public Works
Facilities Management Division.
4) An amendment to contract No. C-4733 with CSS
Associates, for professional architectural/.
engineering consultant services.
2. Approve the Amendment No. 1 to >existing consultant con-.
tract NO. C-4733, not to emceed $44,900, with CSS
Associates for professional architectural/engineering
cousultant services.
3. Authorize staff to. execute change orders to Contract Mo.
C-4733 of up to $7,100.
59--368
3/28/88
MOTION COAT' D
ORDINANCE 3801 entitled 'ORDIMANCE OF THE COUNCIL
F PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-30,
'SCHOOL SITE IRPROVERENTS' "
AMEND E$T MO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 4733 WITH CSS
ASSOCIATES FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
SERVICES
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley not participating,
Rsnz 1 ' absent.
11. REPORT FROM : COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE:
HETCHY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM: 2) TOLL BRIDGE REVENUE
( CMR: 2Q1: €) (702-06)
1) RETCH
POTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Klein,
continue the item to date to be determined by staff.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel, Woolley absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 1:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
59-369
3/28/88