HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-02 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
PALOALTO CI fYCOFJNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA ICSU-FREQUENCY9O.1 ON FM DIAL
Regular Meeting
May 2 , 1988
ITEM
Study Session re Financial Condition of the
City
Communications
Approval of Minutes of April 4, 1988
PAGE
60-3
60-3
60-4
1. Process and Criteria for Selection of 60-4
Tenants at Jordan School Site - Refer to
Policy and Procedures Committee
2. Co =tract with Sierra West Industries, 60-4
Inc., for Trimming of Street Trees
3. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Enter
Into an Agreement to Provide Local Law
Enforcement Agenoy Access to the
California Identification System and the
City Manager to Send the City of Palo
Alto's Financial Contribution for th4
System to. the City of San Jose
4. Ordinance Amending Title 18 (The Zoning 60-4
Code) by Adding Multiple -Family Zoning
Chapters 18.22, 18.24, and 18.26 (Regula-
tions) and, Chapter 18.28 (Guidelines),
Repealing Multiple -Family Zoning Chapters
(18.21, 1#.23, 18.25, 18.27 and 18.29.
(Regulations) and Amending ._other. Sections
to Refer to the New Chapters
Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of 60-4
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map} to Change the Classification of all.
Properties Zoned Multiple -Family
I,
tis.a _
60-4
ITEM
PAGE
5. Resolution Temporariliy Suspending Resolu- 60-5
tion No, 6568 and Resolution No. 6453
Pertaining to the Effecting of Certain
Changes in Gas Utility Rates
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Victor Zacher 60-5
of the Decision of the Architectural
Review Board and the Director of Planning
and Community Development to Approve the
Design of a Nine -Unit Townhouse Project at
1235 and 1245-1247 Alma Street (Continued
from 4/25/88)
7. Municipal Service Center Building "C" 60-11
Remodel, CIP 86-08 Budget Amendment Ordi-
nance, Award of Construction Contract and
Increase of Contingent Authority to Con-
sultant Services Agreement No. C-4631
(Continued from 4/25/88)
8. Funding Assessment for the Countywide 60-12
Hazardous Waste Management Fund
Recess 60-13
9. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission re 60-13
Staff Response to R-1 Ad Hoc Committee
Report on Oversize Houses on R -.l Lots
10. Council Member Gail Woolley re Ordinance 60-24
Amending the Moratorium Ordinance
11. Proposal to Restructure Santa Clara County GO -25
Transportation Commission
Adjournment at 11-,10 p.m.
60-28
Regular Meeting
Monday, May 2, 1988
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date
in the Counci? C::bmbets, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:55 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 8:02 p.m.), Cobb,
- Fletcher, Klein (arrived at 8:00 p.m.),
Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:56 p.m.),
Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
STUDY SESSION RE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CITY
The -C;suncil met at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Root:
for a Study Session regarding the Financial Condition of the
City.
City Manager Bill Zaner presented an overview of the revenue
and expenditure levels for the City budget. The overview
included information related totrends in the major revenue
sources for the City, including _:ales taxes, property taxes;
interest income, and revenue from other agencies. He then
outlined the strategy for dealing with the 1988-89 budget
shortfall, which involved reducing the operating budget by
approximately $1.7 million, reducing the Capital Improvement
Program by approximately $1 million, and taking the remain-
ing $1 million from the General Fund Reserve for Contin-
gencies. Council Members discussed other potential solu-
tions, including increasing the rate of return for the
Utility trans`et as well as taking more (or less) money from
reserves versus the operating budget. Discussion also
related to the need to reduce (or eventually eliminate)
programs and services. The: Council Members agreed that
developing a strategy for the 1989-90 budget would be of
critical importance and decided to meet as a Committee of
the Whole periodically over the next several months to make
the policy decisions related to developing the long-term
reduction strategy. The first meeting was scheduled for May
12, 1988, at 7:30 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ben Bailey, 171 Everette -_ spoke regarding" a citizen's
right t( know the number of Palo Alto Police Department
complaints and disciplinary actions.
2. .DeWitt Brown, 780 Talisman Street, -asked tho City to be
more responsive to a street light that had been out in
his neighborhood for over a month.
60-3
5/42/88
Mayor Sutorius assured Mr. Brown there would be a
follow-up.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley,
approval of the Minutes of April 4, 1988, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Klein absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley,_
approval of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
1. PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF TENANTS AT JORDAN
SCHOOL SITE - REFER TO POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
(CMR:259:8) (720-05/300)
Action
2. CONTRACT WITH SIERRA WEST INDUSTRIES, T.�1r. , FOR TRIMMING
OF STREET TREES (CMR:255:8) ('1014/720-U[i
3. RESOLUTION 6689 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CI'T'Y OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE. MAYOR TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY ACCESS TO THE CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION \ SYSTEM
AND THE CITY MANAGER TO SEND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO'S
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FO"' THE SYSTEM TO THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE FINANCE DEPARTMENT CMR: .0:: .1 .04/720-06/
1202)
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACCESS
TO THE CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
4. ORDINANCE 3407 entitled "ORDINANCEOF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING z TITLE 1_ THE ZONING CODE BY
ADDING MULTIPLE -FAMILY ZONING CHAPTERS 18.22; 18.24 and
' 1RGULATIoNS AND CHAPTER 18.28 (GUIDELINES),
REPEALING MULTIPLE -FAMILY ZONING CHAPTERS Jc2 _ .2:
AND AMENDING OTHER.
SEC •NS._ TO FE • TO H NEW CHAP ERS st ea • Ong
4/18/88, PASSED -0, Cobb absent)
ORDINANCE 3808 entitle °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
C O AL AMEN- N ON . . F
MO MUNiCIP CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE.
CLASSIFICAT1i - ALL PROPERTIES ZONED MULTIPLE -FAMILY'
st Rea ng , PASSED , Co b sear
(701-03/237-01)
60-4
5/02/88
CONSENT CALENDAR CONT'D
5. RESOLUTION 6690 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
TH CITY OF PALO ALTO TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 6568 AND RESOLUTION NO. 6453 PERTAINING TO THE
EFFECTING OF CERTAIN CHANGES IN CAS UTILITY RATES"
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF :VICTOR ZACHER OF THE DECISION
OF -THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO APPROVE THE DESIGN
OF A NINE -UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AT 1235 AND 1245-1247
ALMA STREET (Continued from 4/25/88) (CMR:257:3) (300)
Council Member Renzel said the -project had been processed
prior to the multiple -family ordinance adoptions, and she
asked whether it was correct that if Council upheld the
appeals it did not mean they could not build an apartment
building but it would have to be a different design.
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the project would
have to be a different design in terms of certain setback
requirements and would also have to be re-Liced from nine to
seven units. The appeal before Council was not dissimilar
from the Mayfield II project where it met the in -effect
multiple -family regulations et the time, as did the subject
project.
Council Member Renzel said even if the project had to meet
the new requirements, it would still- be multiple -family.
Ms. Jansen said yes.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Chairman Aino Vieira-da-
Rosa .said the ARB rFviewed the project on eeveral occasions,
worked with the applicants on certain specifics, and
believed it was a good project and would be an asset to the
street.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open.
Victor Zacher, 128 Kingsley, disagreed with the ARB's opin-
ion. He said the project was an intrusion of a multi -
development into a neighborhood now only comprised of
Ingle-fumily residences; the project was architect.iurally
incompatible .with the neighborhood; auto traffic generated
by the project would exacerbate an existing traffic problem;
and the project would obstruct sunlight from theneighboring
60-5
5/02/88
properties. Whi io each project in itseit might not have a
negative impact; he was concerned about the cumulative
effect on traffic,.and said the project was more compatible
with "Miami Vice" than his neighborhood.
Steven Carlitz, 4062 Second, Street, the applicant, reiter-
ated the staff report and the ARB feelings were extremely
positive. While it was true that any project would impact
the neighbors, they had done everything possible to minimize
the impact including being more than seven feet under the
height limit, designing each floor plan differently to
lessen the impact of windows on surrounding propert es,
depressing the parking, and extensive landscaping. He
pointed out most of the surrounding lots were multiple -
family.
Jim Poppy, 135 Melville Avenue, disagreed with the ARB
analysis and recommendations and opined the proposed project
did not promote orderly or harmonious development of the
site in consideration of adjacent residential uses. To
position nine condominiums amidst a neighborhood of mostly
single-family homes would ue an errosion ;.,f the quality of
life of the entire neighborhood. He was concerned about the
parking situation and the threat to pu-oiic safety, and he
urged Council to reduce the number of units to a number com-
patible with recent changes in multiple -family zoning.`.,
Mr. Zacher was concerned the project required only one
visitor parking spaceand said there was only one multi-
family dwelling in the area.
PSr. Carlitz read from the staff report (CMR:257:8) in regard
to parking, "...the project is required by the Zoning
Ordinance to provide onlyone visitor parking space. The
applicant has purposely designed the project with open
garages in order to help insure that the garage spaces will
not be used for storage and will be available for visitor
use."
Mayor Sutorius declared the public Hearing closed.
Council Member £letc-_hAr asked height limit for the
Council v a - �i Ti _ the
single-family zones in the neighborhood if they built a
second story.
Pianner James Gilliland said 30 feet.
Council Member Fletcher asked if the highest point of the
roof in the center of the project was 27 feet 10 inches,.
60-6
5/02/88
Mr. Gilliland said yes, from the existing grade.
Council Member ,Fletcher wondered if the grade would be
higher when construction started which would raise the
height overall.
Mr. Gilliland said the specific drainage and site plan had
not been submitted at present, but it was not anticipated
that would happen.
Council Member Fletcher wanted to check that because the
plans she had still said 31 feet.. She did not see any legal
reasons whereby Council could justify turning uown the proj-
ect because it was in conformity with the zoning.
MOTION: Council= !Member Fletcher moved, seconded oy
Woolley, to adopt staff recommendation to uphold the deci-
sion of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the
Eirector of Planning and Community Environment, and approve
the Negative Declaration and the design of the nine -unit
townhouse project including the following findings and con-
ditions:`
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 i :pact, minimize
energy consumption, and reduce parking and automobile
impacts, as reflected in the negative declaration.
2. The design of the project is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan objectives and compatible with the
immediate environment in that it meets Program 9 of the
Housing Element by providing a net gain of six housing
units and Bak unit, and it promotes orderly and har-
monious development of the site in consideLation of
adjacent residential uses.
3. The site design promotes a harmonious transition in
scale_ and character between the adjacent residential
properties in that the depressed parking reduces the
agentheight of the building, the apparent mass of
apparent
the building has been reduced by eliminating plain, flat
e.li a, the bulk of the building has been reduced by
utilizing a design that provides for five interconnected
buildings, and the sloping roofs and limited mail
heights will allow air and aun into the site and sur-
rounding properties.
4. The building design' and amount of open space is appro-
priate for the function of the building and site in that
the project design provides for immediate identification
of the building function arid orientation as to access
60-7
-5%02/83
MOTION CONT'D
and egress for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The
landscaping plans, including plant material and screen-
ing materials, are designed to minimize visual and
parking impacts on the adjacent land uses.
5. The planning and location of the various functions on
the site create an internal sense of order and provide a
desirable environment for occupantu, visitors, and the
general community in that landscaping, vehicular park-
ing, bicycle parking, and user amenities have been
designed to create a safe and convenient environment for
pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.
Council - Member---Renze1__ was concerned about whether there
wou?d_be_ a_arade differential in the back of the property.
The problem had occurred numerous times before in 'multi-
family projects, particularly on "the north side of the
street becaue the drainage continued further north toward
the Bay. The grades of several properties had to be raised
as much as two to four feet relative to adjacent, properties.
She asked if staff had any sense of what might be required
in order to drain the project to the street.
Mr. Gilliland said staff had a reasonable sense that it
could be done. In the grading and drainage --which had to be
approved by the Public Works Department before issuance of a
Building Permit --if there was a problem in having to do fill
on the back side, staff would consider that a significant
change in the project, particularly after the problems in
the past. At that time, the project would have to return to
Council for 1pproval.
Council Member Renzel was L:vml‘ erned b.riAngza the property was
deep and abutted several properties on Kingsley. While all
but one of them were developed in multi, -family, the remain-
der of the block was single-family in nature. She recalled
she was not in favor of continuing multi -family on the sub-
ject site a long time ago and now =:w -the reason. While the
project was attractive, the site was right at the point
where the traffic funneled down and was a dangerous traffic
area. The density was a real -question where they were
adding traffic in that particular location. The grade and
traffic impacts were important factors.
Mayor Sutorius 'asked for clarification of the variation
between Sheet 1 and Sheets 6 and 7 of the plans (on file in
the City= Clerk's office). Sheet 1 indicated maximum height
was 31 feet; sheets 6 and 7 gave a measurement of 32 feet.
60-8
5/02/88
Sr. Gilliland said there was an element in the front of the
building along\ Alma Street that at one time was 32 feet
high. During the review process by- the ARB, that element
was -reduced to 27 feet 10 inches, and it was the highest
element on the building. Staff would hold the building to
that height.
Mr. Carlitz clarified the front was 31 feet and was lowered
to 27 feet 10 inches. There was a small portion in the back
of the project about 9 feet long which he believed was 32
felt high.
Mr. Gilliland said the portion was it- the middle of the
site, and he wondered if that could be reduced. It was set
back 24 feet from the property line.
Ms_ Janeen said the ARB's concern was with. reducing the
front element to 27 feet 10 inches. Whether the nine -foot
element was reduced to 27 feet 10 inches was a question
before the Council.
Mayor Sutorius asked if it was a courtyard separation of two
portions of the project.
Mr. Gilliland said correct,
Mayor Sutorius asked if it was facing onto an adjacent prop-
erty or facing interior to the subject property.
Mr. Gilliland clarified the north elevation faced the prop-
erties that fronted onto Kingsley. It was a gable roof so
the peak was set back from the roof itself and the peak was
at the courtyard.
Council Member Fletcher was under the impression from the
material that the ARB put an absolute height limit of 27
feet 10 inches, and saying that was at the center of the
project. The 32 feet was closer to the residents and was
higher than the limit.
Ms. Vieira-da-Rosa recalled originally the area of concern
was some soaring elements at the front of the project, and
those were reduced in height and made intoa pitched roof
which gave a visual impression of reduced height. She did
not recall any discussion of -tie -area in question.
Ms. Jansen added the portion was a loft area which would
have the potential for height reduction without compromising
the floor plan per se.
60-9
5/02/88
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by
Renzel, that the maximum height of the entire project would
be not to exceed 27 feet 10 inches from grade level.
Council Member Levy asked the developer about thc; feasi-
bility of the amendment.
Mr. Carlitz's architect said the reason for the height was
to create a certain perspective in the design, to create the
feeling of'a small street. It was important in terms of how
-it looked but not in terms of how big the unit was. The
portion in questionwasquite a distance from the property
line and would not be seen from north elevation. The space
was about four to five feet deep and was vainly ornamental.
Mayor Sutorius clarified the portion was about 45 square
feet that extended to a maximum of 32 feet in an angled
fashion.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Cobb, Fletcher, Renzel
voting "aye.'
AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by
Klein, to request staff to return to the Council if there is
a change in the grade differ,ntial of one foot or greater in
height from the neighboring sites.
1_
AMENDMtAT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Woolley, Patitucci
voting "no."
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher reed, seconded by
Renzel, to request staff to return to the Council if the
32 -foot height was five feet closer to the property line
than the 30 -foot specified.
Council Member Levy asked if the premise was correct that
staff did not know how far the subject portion was from the
property line.
Ms. Jansen said on the reduced scale it appeared greater
than 30 feet; however, if Council's direction, was: 25 feet or
less, that was her understanding of the a e ndment,
Council Memb cr Patitucci did not see the significance of the
last two amendments, even if they might have merit. They had
an ARS and an administrative process that ensured the:
requirements of ARB and other bodies were met and adhered
to, He would oppose the amendment. -
Council Member Fletcher believed Council was standing in the
shoes of the ARB, not only in looking at the nature of the
design, heights, etc,, but iri a sense had to try to under-
stand row . the project would impact the neighbors. Chances
were the amendment would have no effect since it appeared
the height was farther away. Sometimes designs ignored cer-
tain realities with respect to the site.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel,
Voting "aye.'
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting
*no.'
7. MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER BUILDING "C" REMODEL, CIP
86-08, BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT AND INCREASE OF CONTINGENT AUTHORITY TO CON-
�ULTAN SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. C-46.31 (Continued from
4/25/88) (CMR:224:8) (701-03/810-02/720-06)
Mayor Sutorius said the item was continued due to an inad-
vertent erroneous identific6tion on the agenda as being an
item that had received the approval of the F&PW Committee.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, secbnded by Bechtel, to
adopt staff recommendation as follows:
1. Approve the Budget Aaerdaent Ordinance in the amount of
$170,000 for remodeling of the !Municipal Service Center
Building 'c'.
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the construction contract
with Man Wah Construction Co., in the amount of
$378,000.
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the con-
struction contract up to $122,000.
4. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the Conau3-
tent Agr_ement No. C-4631 with the firm of Wood son/
Barksdale Architects ,tup to at total of $39,000.
ORDINANCE 3809 entitled NO DUNCE OF THE COUNCIL
OP THE CITY OF F -AL NG THE BUDGET OK
FISCAL MBAR 101T -81r- TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
CONTRACT WITH NAN WAR CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR BUILDING C
REMODEL
60-11.
5/02/88-
MOTION CONT'D
INCREASE OF CONTINGENT AUTHORITY TO CONSULTANT SERVICES
-AGREEMENT NO. 4631 WITH WOODSCN/BARLSDALE ARCHITECTS
MOTICT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Patitucci voting "no."
8. FUNDING .ASSESSMENT FOR THE COUNTYWIDE_ HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT 'FUND (CMR:262:8) (1440-01)
City Manager Bill Zaner said a number of discussions had.
taken place in the last few days to try to get consensus
among the 15 cities in the Courty as to how to fund tin:
$100,000 expenditure imposed by the Tanner Bill. No matter
which formula was used, the cost to Palo Alto would be
about $5,000. He originally recommended a formula based on
population alone; however, a number of cities preferred to
use a base amount plus a prorated amount based on the waste
material generated in the city, and a small consensus seemed
to be developing around that system. He saw no problems
with that kind of an arrangement for Palo Alto. He recom-
mended that the base share plus the prorated system be the
City's preferred alternative and that the Intergovernmental
Council (IGC) representative, Council Member Woolley,' be
authorized to modify that position at the IGC if it turned
out the majority of members preferred another method.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Renz•ly
to:
1. Recommend a base share and prorated system to be the
City's preferred alternative; and
2. That the Intergovernmental Council (IGC) representative,
Council Member Woolley, be authorized to modify the
City.'s position should the majority of suers prefer
another method.
Council Member Woolley asked if the prorated share was based
on population or waste generation.
Mr. Zaner said an the waste generation.
Council Member Woolley said the other method suggested would
likely be based on population.
Mr. Zaner said probably.
66-12
5/02/88
Council Member Woolley appreciated the flexibility. The
item had been before IGC for a few months and they needed to
come up with a solution. Since the method would ,i,ot mate-
rially affect the City, the City Manager offered a good
proposal.
MOTION PASSED Nunani■ ously.
RECESS FROM 8:55 P.M. TO 9:05 P.M.
9. JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION RE STAFF RESPONSE
TO R-1 AD 'HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON OVERSIZE HOUSES ON R-1
LOTS (CMR:261:8) (250/237-01)
Planning Commissioners
Present: marsh, Wheeler,
Christensen, Huber
PlannilIg Commissioners Absent: Chandler, Cullen,
Hirsch
Council M �br Cobb referred to the "front yard impact for-
mulz.. and the staff report (CMR:261:8) statement that "it is
possible to accomplish similar restrictions of the mass at
the front of the property while allowing for a widcr variety
of design with`a relatively simple ordinance." Hh queried
what form the ordinance might take. Regarding the discus-
sion of side`: yard setbacks, the staff report stated "side
yard setback averaging may be unnecessarily complex and a
similar result is achievable in a more straightforward
fashion. "He asked about specifics.
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the front yard
impact formula basically forced the building back on the
property to accomwodate the formulas criteria. As a worst
case, a single family structure would have to be placed 40
feet back on the property; most would be approximately 34
feet back on the property to meet the front impact formula
requirements. Nothing else would change, Structures could
be set back on property based on front yard setback require-
ments that were sensitive to the area. They might be based
on the averaging of front yard setbacks of structures in the
adjacent area or on street setback lines more sensitive to
the particular street scape of a property. She believed
specifics would result from a neighborhood analysis survey.
Council Member Cobb queried how the simpler approaches would
move ahead.
6.
Ms. Jansen said the pools of information were easy to find
once Council decided what it wanted to do; the most impor-
tant part was to well -integrate it. She believed regu-
lations would uliAmately he a bland of expertise similar to
the procf.ss used for the multiple -family regulations.
Council Member Patitucci said Council was originally encour-
aged to review the R-1 Committee repott as an entire pack-
age. The report (CMR:261:8) reviewed one element at a time
but nothing addressed the total package. He queried the
#if€erence between the total package versus the analysis of
individual components.
Ms. Jansen said an analysis of the entire package would be
that it did not do much in terms of addressing single-family
regulations. A number of elements of the Committee's pro-
posal were accurate in terms of issue identification and
might partially be the most applicable kind of tool in the
final analysis. It was hard to say which elements those
might be because regulations needed to be dealt with as a
total --not individually. The fallacy in past looks at
single-family regulations was that only one tool was looked
at.
Council Member Bechtel said the neighborhood analysis
sounded major. An Eichler neighborhood might be relatively
simple but somr_ others where every" other house was different
would be considerably harder: She queried whether a neigh-
borhood analysis could be completed before the conclusion of
the moratorium: and, in light the City's current gap in
revenues and expenditures, how much it would cost.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber
said the cost would not be beyond available resources.
Priorities would be shifted, and if staff was directed to
undertake the assignment, it would be assessed in greater
detail in terms of how it would play out within the yPlanning
Department. Staff hoped that after some initial eeview of
various part of the community, it could ic1e fy some typi-
cal areas that neighborhoods, streets or sections of streets
fell into. If areas did not fall into',: four or five rela-
tively neat categories and there were a lot of exceptions or
areas that did not meet any one set of standards, the job
would be more difficult and staff might not be able to,,re-
turn with .a set of regulations as part of the initial pack-
age at the end of the eight -month period. Staff hoped to
complete .she analysis by the end of the moratorium
ordinance.
60-14
5/'02/86
Council Member Bechtel queried how the neighborhood analysis
would be separated from the architectural review with which
staff did not want to get involved.
Mr. Schreiber said the process of single-family design
review had the potential of consuming vast amounts of staff
time and ultimately Commission and Council resources.
Neighborhood character dealt with setbacks, parts of land-
scaping and height. Staff envisioned the regulations being
more closely aligned to front yard setback and height regu-
lations than any type of design review. Modifications to
regulations would be based on characteristics of particular
area that were notably precise and clear no that people
could identify with them.
Council Member Woolley believed the neighborhood character
issue was essential in order to arrive at a complete pack-
age. She asked about the extent of the survey and whether
stiff intended to create a series of overlay zones.
Mr. Schreiber said as part of the initial study, staff would
survey some select areas to try and identify typical areas
and standard types. The concept was not to dealwith over-
lay zones.
Vice Mayor Klein said the report (CMR:261:8) indicated in
several places that the R -1 report addressed the problems of
front yard effect at the expense of pushing development into
what would be side yards and rear setbacks. He understood
the R -1 report did not recommend any relaxation of the rear
yard setbacks but rather a strengthening of the side yard
setbacks. That being the case, it seemed it would not be
possible for ttie subcommittee's recommendations to result in
houses just being moved into the back and the side any more
than would be presently allowed.
Ms. Jansen said the 20 -foot rear yard setback requirement
was rarely an impediment in any' kind of construction of
single-family additions or development. The formulas --
particularly the front impact formula --basically shifted the
same building element• back on the property. In terms of
evaluating the standard lotting patterns, staff looked at
all of the single-family additions and new construction
applications with a 0.5 FAR and applied the formula. Basi-
cally the formula took the same building and pushed it back.
The; same FAR could be 'built, with basically the same side
yard setbacks. The City tiad narrow deep lots so the front
and rear yard setbacks rarely did much in terms of reducing
building mass.
60-15
5/02/88
Mr. Schreiber said staff analyzed numerous plans either in
process or recently submitted for conformance. with the R-1
Committee's report and what ;;nanges would have to . be made to
bring those plans _into conformance. On most lots in most
parts of town a house have= -;4 a 35 percent lot coverage times
2 or a 0.7 theoretical maximum FAR could be accommodated.
In addition, staff observed for many applicants there was a
high priority on square footage and less of a priority en
open space than perhaps ten 'years ;ago. Within the standard
60 -foot by 100 -foot lot, just taking the setbacks 45 percent
of the lot was left to work with even with the increased
side yards. The building could be moved back and the maxi-
mum square footage gained at the sacrifice of open space.
Many people were making that trade off.
Vice Mayor Klein clarified by and large staff believed pure
square footage was a problem or "the" pr:,blem whereas the
R-1 Committee took a different approach.
Pr. Schreiber believed that was fair. If someone put a
4,000 square foot house on a 6,000 square foot lot, staff
did not believe there was any way to configure the house
so that some combination of street scape and privacy of the
adjacent rear yards and the lots across the fence would not
be impinged upon.
Council Member Renzel said in Council's original referral it
asked for some other parameters, i.e., review of the day-
light plane, daylight basements, and noncomplying wall
extensions, to be explored. She queried whether that needed
to be reiterated or whether it would automatically be part
of any assgnment to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Jansen said it would be part of any integrated set of
regulations. Staff's report tried to hit the high points of
the Subcommittee's recommendations.
Council Member Patitucci queried whether FAR was a central
issue if staff concluded that square footage was a primary
objective of much of the development.
Mr. Schreiber said FAR was perhaps the best tool to gat at
the overall massing issue. The key was a "combination" of
parameters. Building mass was part of the .problem which
needed to be brought under some greater control than the
0.68, 0.7 FAR presently possible under the unamended R-1
ordinance. The area was critical for Ccuncil direction.
Council Member Patitucci clarified the interrelated natUre
of the variety of the regulatory elements and that previous
approaches were probably too simplistic. Council needed to
60-16
5/02/88
arrive at a combinatioe,, closer to what the Subcommittee
recommended than something like a moratorium or some of the
previous proposals. He asked whether it could be done in
eight months.
Mr. Schreiber said staff recommended the issue be referred
to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had two
recently successful products, i.e., the multiple -family
regulations and the transitional zone regulations. Both
cases involved complex development issues. The process for
the multiple -family, and transitional_ zone regulations was
that the Commissioners themselves, with outside assistance,
put the initial package, together. The package was then
changed but the process provided a greater understanding of
the interrelationship of elements. He recommended the
Commission seriously consider involving one or two ARB mem-
bers for their design assistance and they, drawing on, as
resources, members of the current R-1 committee, past com-
mittees, members of the public, architects, property owners,
etc. us was done in the multiple -family process. He
believed that process could work within the time frame being
discussed and return with a fairly smooth sailing product.
Council Member Woolley referred to the graduated FAR where
on a 5,000 square foot lot the house got an extra 500 square
feet. If developed to the full lot coverage for the first
floor, there would need to be an extra 500 square feet in
order to have 1,000 square feet on the second floor. The
FAR fanged from 0.55 a t 5, 000 square feet to 0.415 a t 10,000
square feet. The Committee and staff might wish to look at
not just a flat across-the-board FAR but some kind of gradu-
ated FAR so it would not necessarily be the same for all
L
sized_ lots.
Mayon` Sutvrius appreciated that staff did not identify FAR
as the necessary way of approaching the problem. He hoped
whatever device would give consideration to relating it to
the envelope rather than the lot size. A lot size ratio
for a 6,000 square foot lot would convert to an absolute
number Cf square feet for bulk disregarding the dimensions
of the lot. He believed consideration of the envelope
should be factored into the thinking. The other reference
to FAR was made in the pro and con discussion of site -cover-
age and the recommendation on the part of the ad hoc commit-
tee that..consideratfon be given to increasing the site
coverage and a number was suggested to 0.42. Staff identi-
fied the pro and can considerations and concluded that if
the sitecoverage was expanded that the option of a second
story pcFtential should be precluded. He understood from the
adrioC comet ttee report that:one-of the reasons for offering -
the recoasendation for consideration dealt with the
60-17
5/02/88
situations where the existing home was a one-story home
where the neighborhood character would only allow for one
£,troy but that also there might be situations where there
was an existing home that had a partial two-story and the
opportunity to coo slightly beyond 35 percent at sKhe first
floor was a natural opportunity for expanding. It was not a
matter of adding a large amount of space but it was the
location of the space. He understood staff did not favor
the idea of going beyond the 0.35 FAR if there was already a
second story and it would require a variance approach if
that was whatt the property owner wanted to do.
Ms. Jansen said that was correct and it was the same process
already in effect for going beyond the 35 percent 'lot cover-
age. There needed to be findings' associated with the
variance. The primary thrust of the Committee's discussion
and the primary basis for its recommendation was to maintain
the\ architectural integrity and to accommodate additions to
homes where second story additions were not permitted.
Mayor Sutorius suggested a bonus situation for second story
where the amount of site coverage was reduced. The point
would. be to create more open space and more landscaping
opportunity using less of the site so there was less wall at
the second level intrusion.
Council Member Woolley referred to page 10 of the staff
report, "Modifications to Subdivision Rule,," She was
interested in Item 2 regarding flag lots and item 4 regard-
ing parcel assemblage and queried whether there needed to be
separate direction if it should be considered because it was
not included under items for Council Concurrence or in the
action plan.
Ms. Jansen said the issue of flag lot - development was
scheduled to be reviewed by a subcommittee of the Planning
Commission. The subcommittee's review of „ the issue would
probably run in tandem to much of what was tieing done on the
single-family regulations in general.
John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, commended staff for its anal-
ysis of the Ad Hoc Committee's report. There needed to be a
way to address neighborhood compatibility, and he hoped
Council could come' up with a process which was more repre-
sentative of the entire community and which would respect
the individual neighborhoods and not Just those involved in
the design and building of houses.
Judith Schwartz, 2330 Bryant Street, commended staff for
its efforts in taking what was good from the Ad Hoc Com-
mittee's report and trying to come up with other solutions
when the problem, was not addressed. She commended staff for
using common sense in attempting to deal with only obviously
L trusive. projects. The objectives were to try and address
quality and diversity of design and to give families the
flexibility__ to add on. Council heads: to go on record in
support of protecting people against intrusive development
and to give staff . the chance to do it recognizing that not
everything could be reduced to a math problem.
Martin Bernstein, 617 High Street, was concerned about a
movement to define "neighborhood Compatibility" as a
building style. He suggested the phrase *neighborhood
character" be changed so as to not confuse people,
Linda Houle, 244 Tennyson, supported the comments of Judith
Schwartz. She was concerned that Palo Alto would end up to
be neighborhoods with houses and no yards and none of its
historical depth of character. Flag lots restricted privacy
and usually affected five neighbors.
Jon 3chink, 420 Lowell, addressed the issue of neighborhood
character, and said having built and developed property in
Palo Alto for ten years and having served on the City's ARB,
it was absurd to think criteria could be developed for
neighborhood character. He encouraged Council to try and
define neighb(rhood character in the 300 or 400 block of
Lowell. He suggested Council stick with the basic zoning
ordinance., If Council adopted a neighborhood criteria ordi-
nance, it would be a boon for developers, because while
staff desired simplicity, it was the type of regulation thet
compelled people to call developers because they could ,not
understand how to work with them. Regarding the 42 percent
lot coverage, the Ad Hoc Committee saw it as an opportunity
to be applied in situations of existing two-story residences
L ___� would be - J the � L1
where it inappropriate LO expand second floor
further but it would be appropriate to expand on the ground
level. He urged that it be kept in mind.
Mayor Sutoriva-clarified that the neighborhood characteris-
tic concepts would be more complex than the front yard Ret-
back calculation and the side yard averaging and daylight
plane exemption ;process.
Schink believed they would if he '' use...' his block as an
example and tried to apply any neighborhood concepts.
Council Member Woolley referred to the Ad Hoc Committee
report addendum and said what was essentially proposed was
that if the majority of garages were at the: -back, the . garage
would be: put at the back. She did not see that as being
hard to understand.
60-19
5/02/88
Mr. Schink salt the example in and of itself might he one
simple answer but he referred to the diversity of his neigh-
borhood on Lowell where there were three garages in the
front and the rest were in the back.
Council Member Woolley believed Council needed towork on
whet constituted "majority,* and how ` to come up with the
average.
Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant, agreed the matter should he
returned to the Planning Commission. She was concerned
about ignoring due process, that the issue had been cata-
pulted into the front of everybody's consciousness without a
thorough community -wide review, and she believed neighbor-
hood compatibility was a hopeless administrative task. She
asked if it would be the neighborhood goal if the majority
of the houses were unattractive.
Robert Her r iot, 7066 Byron, noticed the staff report
rejected some of the front setback ideas submitted in the
R-1 Ad Hoc Committee report. He agreed that all that was
achieved by pushing the houses further back was a smaller
yard, but one conclusion was the houses could be smaller,
not necessarily from a FAR but if setbacks were set suitably
in the side and rear yards to make up for houses being
pushed back. The important things was the perceived mass
not the actual mass. He believed the Ad Hoc Committee might
have been too lenient in some of the numbers, and a great
deal of time should be put into deciding on the correct
numbers for setbacks on all sides of the property. He
believed they should continue to explore the idea of nei;h-
borhood compatibility. He suggested the notion of exception
zones for side setbacks. The only way to decide on reason-
able numbers was to look at a lot of houses and have a lot
of public input.
OPTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, soconded by
Klein, to concur with Items 1 - 6, on pages 11 and 12 of the
staff report (CMk:261:8).
1. The R-1 regulations as presently written are a serious
problem and need major revisions to address community
concerns.
2. Single-family regulations should be easily comprehens-
ible` to the hoaeeowner and not dictate the need for
professionals in plan preparation.
M ei bbcrhood character needs to be identified and quan-
tified so that it is a unable factor in erals,,ling
projects.
60-20
5/02/88
noTips C ST'D
5. A combination of development parameters ircluding sets
backs, building mass, second -story placement, and
daylight plane needs to be related in a refined set of
regulations. Changes to any oae or - a few of these
factors will not accomplish the task.
6e Staff concurs with previous Council direction that a
formalized single --family design review process is
uidesirable
Adopt the Action Plan on pages 12 and 13 of staff report
(x:261:8) as follows:
1. Refer the issue to the Planning Commission for consid-
eration of Council direction and policy input on
preparationof new in-depth modifications to -the single -
,family zoning regulations.
2. Direct staff to seek input from outside organizations,`
previous committees, and other communities dealing with
similar changes to R-1 regulations.
3. Direct staff to prepare a Neighborhood Analysis
Survey.
Council Member Bechtel- confirmed staff's understanding of
what they would do related to the neighborhood analysis was
not to do a street -by -street overlay, but simply to :sample
several neighborhoods to come up with a system of quan-
ti is ing and measuring. She shared John Schink's concerns . as
to. how the analysis could be achieved in some neighbor-
hoods.
M. Schreiber said yes'.. and staff might conclude that imple-
mentation was not appropriate or feasible based on the
data,
Council Member Bechtel was prepared to -vote for the motion
as long as staff's answer could be a possible conclusion.
Council 111tmber Woolley believed Mr. Bernst in's suggestion
to, change -"neighborhood compatibilty" :to•, "neighborhood , pate,:.,
tern," was probably a good idea. It had nothing to do ° with
specifying style. The vrristy of styles within the commu-
nity was one of the teal. pluses. The idea was lot new. The
City had a provision on its boOks since 1980 when the
pistoric.Preservation Ordinance was passed. Every house
within the historic d itrict of Professorville held to be
reviewed, and the reason was to see whether it was compat-
ible to the historic district. That, involved a review
board, and she was aware they were not'\talking about a
review board so they needed to establish more definite
derfcriptions. The criteria used by the Historic Resources
Board (HRB) were more general and ` would not _ be . workable in
the present case. She supported the recommendations.
Council Member Levy supported the motion on the floor,
recognizing a lot of discussion was yet to come and the
elements of neighborhood compatibility needed extensive dis-
cussion. He was satisfied staff had a good understanding of
the goals. As the months passed, he ,was concerned they
would confuse what the community concerns were that moti-
vated them in the first placer
AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by
Fletcher, to add to the end of Item 1: °aboutintrusive-
ness, scale, and neighborhood compatibility.°
MAXER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE AMENDMENT IN THE
MAIN MOTION
1
Planning `Commissioner Pam Marsh was willing to return the
matter to the Planning Commission, but she implored Council
Members to give more thought to .wh't they perceived ae the.
problem and to give the Planning Commission some specific
direction. She still did not have a clear idea as to what
the Council saw as the problem, i.e., was it on all lot
sizes, was it with demolitions, or was it also with small
remodels, was it a problem with lack of open space as sug-
gested by Mayor Sutorius,. or .with mass as suggested by the
staff.
Council Member' Fletcher did not believe it would bediV=
icult to define neighborhood patterns, and said; she found
most neighborhoods had distinctive patterns, e.g., College
Terrace, i vergreen Park, Downtown North, and especially
_South ,Palo Alto. In reference to Mr. Mock's comment$, . she
would like to have one or two residents included who went to
the Council and asked something be done, and certainly there
should be a public process. The language °"'incorporated in
Item- : ;1 specified the problem: intrusiveness, scale, and
neighborhood, compatibility. When ,__there teas suddenly one
building 'enlarged significantly or two new buildings next to
each other, they stuck out like, a sore F thumb because they
were so different in style, in setbacks, and'€ in mass. That
was what concerned the community, plus the reduction in
privacy for the neighbors. �r
.:
s
Council Member Cobb said Commissioner Marsh's remarks were
well. taken._- It was difficult to give a better feeling for
the problem. A quick answer would be that the problem was
one of excess and impact. Hel personally would like to see
the neighborhood -character issue incorporated, but his own
neighborhood was a mixture of Eichlers and ranch houses
which had a 'definite character. It was subtle and not easy
to define. A concern remained that if theproblem was one
of excess and impact, how did they, draw a line with formulas
and specific regulations between someone who built an egre-
giously large, highly impactive, obviously obnoxious house
and someone who had high FAR and 10 'coverage in an area of
similar 900d -sized houses on fairly small lots. It would be
tricky to make those kinds of distinctions, but they needed
something otherwtse they would catch the "good guys with the
bad guys." He was concerned that the job would require more
time than the eight months of the moratorium.
Council Member Renzel was concerned by long two-story walls
at the side yard setback, or closer in some cases. That had
to do with the daylight plane and with the setbacks. Some-
thing needed to be done to break up both the visual, mass
intrusion and A privacy intrusion for the neighbors. She
agrseu with Council Member Cobb that it was an excess and
impact issue and part of it had to do w`jth overall size.
The community was not laid out or subdivided to accommugiate.
the size and scale of houses being built.:', today. They needed
to reestablish some relationship between the subdivision and,
the kind of development. No matter what zoning rules they
had, there would always be individuals who were impacted and
had sympathetic cases. Council should recognize that occu-
pants of houses came and went, and it was the character of
the town that.. would remain and people bought the ambience of
a town. To the extent the Council.., created planning rules
that ,fostered reasonable development, it would serve them
well over the long --term. She learned long ago on the
Planning Commission that adjusting rules for sympathetic
cases was usually a mistake and the proper consideration was
the overall good of the community, obviously bearing in mind
people's needs generally. They needed to move on.
Council Member Woolley saw three problems: Mass, privacy of
the immediate adjacent neighbors, and breaking up an obvious
neighborhood, pattern. She did not believe the ptoblem ap-
plied only to demolitionsnor to lot size.
Vice Mayor Klein was concerned about the vocabulary being
used. If the problem was *obvious," there would nct be
speakers on, both;: sides of the l sue. The word "intrusive*
6Q-23
S/02/80
As corrected'
6/06/88
was also not clearly self -defining. He agreed with Council
Member Cobb that the problem was difficult and drawing lines
would not be easy.
Mayor Sutorius said the focus of the discussion was all on,,
preventing things and had a negative cast. Be hoped they
would not forget the staff and Ad Hoc reports tried to pug
emphasis on positives. The zoning could help in the kind of
product that, the home owner wanted, increase the fiexi-
bility, and reduce obvious manipulations of the existing
zoning. The reports both emphasized the interaction of the
various elements,of zoning and the importance of not focus-
ing on any one element. Demolitions and second -stories
probably were getting emphasis at present because there was
a tremendous shock associated with them. He was concerned
about the neighborhood discussion:. He appreciated Council
Member` Bechtel's question and staff's response. He could
not sa'r what the character or pattern of his block was. It
ranged from modern, to traditional, a mix of one- and two-
story, small ranches, cottages, Tudor, and flag lots. The
pattern of the character was diversity. They wanted new
homes or remodels to respect the neighborhood, not to parrot
it nor to be frozen.
Planning Commissioner Ellen Christensen asked whether the.
Planning Commission would have the flexibility of estab-
lishing the ;makeup of the committee.
Mayon Sutorius said yes,
Planning Commissioner Helene Wheeler said taking on the
study would necessitate dramatic reshuffling ,of priorities:
within the Planning Department, and she asked which of the
studies in progress would be most severely impagt d.
Ms. Jansen said a nuber of items --mostly Council -directed
studies --had been held in abeyance, e.g., th. Foothill
design guidelines and a rewrite of the El Camino Real design
guidelines. Major studies, such as the Citywide study,
would continue , to progress, and wrap up on the multiple
family regulations would proceed. It had been a Herculean
effort to date and the work was just beginning.
NOTION PASSIM unanimously.
10 C9ONCIL EMBER GAIL: WOO .t Y•= RE ORDINANCE
MORATORIUM' RDIN CE gi-Q /2
Connell Member Woolley reference) her aerorandum'. of
April.<27, 1988, and added 4-f the variance was not approved
obvioully that was the : end ofthe, project. The motion would
only apply to those whose variances wRre subsequently
granted
MOTION: Council Member Woo1j, py moved, seconded by Levy,
that the moratorium shall not #ripply to structures for which
an applicatiiin: for a variance was filed prior to 5:00 p.m.
on April 11, 1'188
Mayor Sutorius; asked for an overview of any of the sig-
nificant difference; between the work materials prepared for
a variance versus application for a building permit.
Mr. Schreiber replied the, building permit application
required more detailed technical, architectural and engi-
neering work to meet the •Building Code submission require-
ments. In most cases, a variance_ application required the
proposer to think through the proposal and come up with
plans sufficiently detailed to allow for both an analysis of
the appropriateness of the variance as well as an assurance
the variance met the intended result. In both cases there
was considerable preparatory work by the property owner with
more technical work with the building application and moe
community outreach with the variance application.
Council Member Fletcher asked how many projects would be
affected by the motion.
Mr. Schreiber: said staff knew of only one project, but there
could be more in recent history. Staff had not identified
them.
MOTIO1i PASSED unani Ously.
11. PROPOSAL TO RESTRUCTURE SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTA-
TION COMMISSION (1510-01)
CouncilMember Bechtel agreed with the recommendations in
the two letters at places (on file in the City Clerk's
office) from fountain View and Sunnyvale and believed they,
might.. want: _to say something to the effect the Transmission
Commiscion needed to take a more major role; the Commission
should be smaller; and there should be no more than one
supervisorion the Commission. The 15 -member idea was a good
one.
Council Member Pletcher said there was no consensus around
the Transportation Commission as to the size of the
oasissia . The original reoossenda4ion from the Executive
Cos*i ttee came 'gip with only- reducing the Commission by two,
and their rationale was that taking on a larger
6,0-25
5/02/88
responsibility needed larger representation on the Commit. -
teen; howa•Ier, she did not -believe the point was necessarily
valid.
MOTION: Council Member- Fletcher moved, seconded by
Menzel, the T'ranspor'tation Commission consist: of 19 Members
as outlined in the letter from David Fadness dated\April 21,
1988, and adopt the responsibilities of the Commission as
included in the ;letter from Supervisor Dianne McKenna dated
February 22, 1988.
SUBSTI uiE MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by
Cobb:
1) That the Transportation Commission consist of the
smallest fasible size of 16 members with weicht voting
based not only on the nighttime population but also on
the daytime work force population in each community;
2) Authorize the Mayor to write a letter expressing the
City Council's concern that the Transportation Commis-
sion's review of transportation planning be tied to land
use issues.
Council Member Fletcher preferred ' the makeup of the Com-
mission in David Fadness's letter because nothing would get
approved without the concurrence of Sap Jose. San . Jose was
concerned about one representative from each city with
weighted votes because they would lose representation on the
committees. 'Itm formula which allowed more representatives
from San, Jose would stand more chance of being approved.
The daytime; nighttime population was a useful point to
make.
Council Member Levy said the motions were similar. He did
not believe there was a dramatic difference between 1.6 mem-
bers and 19 members. He agreed with Vice Mayor Klein that
it was a worthy objective to get the number to the minimum;
however, he also agreed with Council Member Fletcher that
the makeup encompassed in the 19-membersize was probably
more realistic. It also had the benefit of simplicity as
compared to the weighted voting concept. San Jose consti-
tuted half the population of the county, and the 19 member
Commission would ' give San Jose less than one -sixth of , the
vote. He assumed Council Member Fletcher's motion also
encompassed the paragraph that said if the San Jose Council
Member: or the County Supervi or voted against sometbing, it
would require a 2/3 vote of the Commission for passage.
Council Member Fletcher said yes.
Council Member •Renzel asked what procedure would follow;
whether the Council was simply expressing a political pref-
erence or whether what. they were saying was tantamount to a
veto of what\ someone else would say. She regarded it as
expressing their preference for what should happen ideally.
Someone. else was holding the political cards .to make the
ultimate decision and the Council might have to ratify it.
She agreed with Vice Mayor Klein that smaller was better and
Palo Alto might have propertionately greater representation
under that formula.
Vice Mayor Klein agreed with Council Member Renzel and said
they should recognize they were not alone in their emphasis
on regional cooperation. They ,weregoing into a negotiation
process, and it was about time they made Palo Alto's voice
heard more emphatically. Weighted voting was important and
worked both up and down. Palo Alto was approximately in the
middle of the 15 communities, and he did not believe it was
fair and democratic to give equal voting to some of the
really small communities. They could discuss, it if San Jose
had a problem serving on committees. That problem was not
solved by having extra people on the Commission when it came
time to vote. The Council should take a position to defend
its interests.
Council Member Fletcher explained the Transportation Com-
mission would meet the second Wednesday in May and would try
to reach a consensus to forward a recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors made the
final determination.
Council Member Woolley agreed with Council Member Renzel and
Vice. Mayor Kiein One point made by Dave Fadness was there
would be greater emphasis of the conduct of the Tranpor-
tation Commission business through the Standing Committees.
Her experience with IGC°which had 20 members was that orga-
nization was not effective until four Standing Committees
were set up. The question of enough members for committees
was addressed and it was proposed that committees could have
as their members people who were not actually elected offi-
ciale-on the Transportation Commission along with elected:
officials.- They would be able to vote in the committee but
'ould not be a part of the voting body in the Transportation
=Commission.
NAM AID sacOnD of SDBSTf' UTE Norio" #au== TO IHCOkPO-
RATS LANGUAGE THAT 3) THERE BE .A STREIIGTHEmING OF THE CON-
NI'TTB STS EN AND NON -ELECTED ortICIALS PARTICIPATING IN THE
:a umITT EE '
BUBSTITUTg BOTION", DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
R$CMENDATION 01 OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED on a vote of
7-2, Levy, Fletcher voting "no.!'
RECOMMENDATIONS 112 an4 43 PASSED unanimously.
\ ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
ATT EST :
APPROVED: