Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-16 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES smr,n im mg; FALO ALTO CITY COUNC3L MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KYSU- FREOUENCY9O.i ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting May 16, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of April 18, 1988 1. Public Hearing: Historic Resources Board re Historic Building Inventory Update 2, Public Hearing: Ordinance re Interim Regulations for Town and Country Village, Stanford Shopping Center and the OR; CN, and CS Districts .3. 4. Resolution re Application to United States Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment for Rental Rehabilitation Funds Ordinance Amending Ordinance 3806 re Ex:eption to Certain Variance Applica- tion 5. Revised findings and Conditions of Approval: 855 Clara Drive Cottage Use Permit PAGE 60-64 60-64 60-64 60-69 60-69 6.i-69 60-70 6. Authority to Negotiate tor Long -Term 60-72 Disposal Capacity w'.th Waste Management Incorporated Adjournment to a Closed Session at 9:17 p.m. 60-78 Final Adjournment at 9:47 pcm. b0-78 60-63 5/16/88 Regular Meeting Monday, May 16, 1988 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:39 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein (arrived At 7:36 p.m.), Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Sutorius announced the need for a Closed Secion re Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) and (2) to be held at some point during or after the meeting, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding complaints against the Palo Alto Police Department, and the City's lack of responsiveness to his inquiries regarding disciplinary actions. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor and Winter Club. MINUTES or APRIL 18, 1988 MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Minutes of April 18, 1988, as submitted. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-0-1, Cobb abstaining. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. PUBLIC HEARING: HISTORIC RESOURCES FOARD RE HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY UPDATE CMR:278:8 (211-01) Council Member Woolley said there were many opportunities for the property owners to participate in the public hearing process. Mayor Sutorius said 1849 Webster Street was listed as an addition to the Historic Building Inventory for Category 3, but the minutes of April 28, 1988, indicated the property passes as a Category 4. He asked for clarification. Council Merck er Cobb announced that he had a potential con- flict of interest on the property at 232 Homer and he would not participate on the single piece of property. 60-64 5/16/80 Mr. Alsman said 1843 Webster Street should be designated as a Category 4 as indicated in the minutes. Council Member Levy asked whether individual property owners objected to the designations. Mr. Alsman said there was a fair amount of concern expressed about the property designations at the first meeting par- tially because people just received a legal notice rather than ,one other communication. Most of the owners were con- cerned about the level of the designations --Categories 1 and 2 having somewhat more restrictions than Categories 3 and 4. During the process members of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the public achieved a better understanding about what the designation meant, and there was an increasingly positive attitude toward the designations. Don Way, the owner of 320 Kellogg, opposed any designation of the prop- erty. Council Member Levy asked whether the only difference between designating a residential property Category 3 or 4 versus Category 1 rw 2 was that a Category 1 or 2 designa- tion went before the HRB for an advisory opinion on the exterior changes. Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman said yes. Categories 3 and 4 did not require that modification plans be submitted to the HRB. Mayor Sutorius clarified in the event of a demolition pro- posal, that the HRB could recommend to the City Council that the demolition be postponed up to a maximum of one year. Mr. Zimmerman said wit , regard to demolitions the answer was "yes." With regard to facade modifications, the HRB review was advisory only for Categories 1 and 2, single family structures. Council Member Cobb asks' about those instances where there were divided votes. Mr. Alsman said in many cases, guidelines were established in the ordinance and it was the HRB's responsibility to make a recommendation as to where they fell. One element of dis- cussion centered around a building's relative importance to the community versus more general criteria. There were dif- ferent views on the HRB asto the designations. 60-65 5/16/88 Vice Mayor '<leie asked where the dissenters on the split votes would have put the structures. Mr. Alsrnan said the designation on 624-640 Emerson would have been higher; 619 Emerson was deleted; 536 Emerson would have been lower; 1849 Webster would have been higher; and 668 Ramona would have been lower. Mayor Sutorius asked about the associated risks with the goals, objectives, and philosophies surrounding the Historic Preservation ordinances if i.tie owner of a single family residence preferred to decline going into a Category 1 or 2 designation. Mayo: Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Donald Way, 320 Kellogy, did not oppose the preservation of older homes but understood a Category 2 mandated an addi- tional review process before a residential remodel could be done. He was in the process of a residential remodel. He preferred that his property oe left off of the historic inventory; otherwise: he preferred a Category 3 or 4 desig- nation. Getting a permit to doa remodel already took five to eight weeks, and he was concerned about the addition of another several weeks and set of hearings and arguments to prepare. He resented more impediments. A substantial remodel was done to ti i s home about 20 or 30 years ago which included some substandard stucco which did not match the original exterior surface of the `some. The proposed remodel would remove the substandard stucco and attempt to restore the structure. The structure was referred to as an *Irish - Georgian" design and he had been unable to ascertain what that meant. The house was a *hodge-podge" of different architectural designs. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley sowed, seconded by Renzol, approval of the staff recommendations as modified to sake 320 Kellogg a Category 3 rather than Category 2, and with recommendations re 232 Homer Avenue being removed to be voted on separately. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS ADDITIONS TO TUE HISTORIC INVENTORY AND HISTORIC BUILDING CATEGORY CHANGES 60-66 5/16/88 8 MOTION CONr"D 1. Additions to the Historic Building Inventory Address 536 Emerson Street 624-640 Emerson Street 635 Emerson Street 800-818 Emerson Street. 212-214 Homer Avenue 230 Homer Avenue. 2510 Waverley Street 1849 Webster Street Zoning CD-C-(GF)(P) CD-C(P) CD-C(P) CD-S(P) CD-S(1)(P) CD-S(1)(P) R-1 R-1 2. Historic Building Category Changes Address Zoning Existing Category Recommended Category 2 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 Recommended Category 228 Byron Street R-2 3 2 423 Chaucer Street R-1(929) 3 1 2240 Cowper Street R-1 4 3 190 Island Drive R-1(929) 3 2 320 Kellogg R-7(929) 4 3 510 Lincoln Avenue R-1 4 3 2110 Park Bculevard R-1 4 2 628 Ramona Street CD-C(P) 3 2 630 Ramona Street CD-C(P) 3 2 668 Ramona Street CD-C(P) 3 2 (225-22i Forest Avenue) 456 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 3 Council Member Woolley said 320 Kellogg was originally con- sidered for a change to a Category 2 designation --a "major" contributor with "major" significance to the historic inven- tory. She did not believe it fit the criteria and agreed with a Category 3 designation. Council Member Cobb said even though there were no mandatory provisions per se for homes placed in Categories 1 and 2, some future City Council might decide to make the provisions mandatory. He understood the concerns of the property owners and believed the advisory system should be retained. Mr. Alsman believed it was important to make the judgments against the criteria. In terms of whether a building should be a Category 2 or 3, he understood the philosophy of a property owner, and believed the HRH's level of recommenda- tion was a useful and helpful tool to many property owners. In the past two Lnd one-half years, the HRB reviewed several 60-67 5/16/88 single family properties. There was an apprehension when people appeared before a public board to have their property reviewed; however, he knew of no one who left a meeting without feeling they had gained in terms of underst riding what some of the other potentials on the house were and what really would be beneficial. In most cases, he believed people made the changes discussed. The properties were private, but if a building gained the designation level of a Category 1 or 2, they were also important to the rest of the community. Mayor Sutorius agreed with Mr. Alsman, but opined the desig- nation into a Category 1 or 2 would be more appropriate if mutually agreed upon. When the City lacked the mutual agreement of the property owner, he was not convinced the category should be imposed. He believed such a situation merited follow-up so that as time, situations, and attitudes modified, a subject property could be moved up in its cate- gory. Council Member Woolley said when Palo Alto originally drafted its ordinance, the City of Los Altos was working on its ordinance and decided to insist that a property owner consent_ The Los Altos ordinance provided for mandatory compliance. Palo Alto preferred a weaker ordinance br't to have more structures covered. It decided on a mandatory review and voluntary compliance. As long as the ordinance was so structured, it was reasonable to put the properties under the ordinance without the concurrence of the property owner. MOTION PASSED unanimously, MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the staff roen .endation as follows: 1« &ddit.ions to the Historic Building Inventory Address 232 Homer Avenue Recommended Zoning Category CD-S(1)(P) 2 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb 'not participating.' 60-68 5/16/88 2. PUi C HEARING; ORDINANCE RE INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY VILLAGE, STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER AND THE OR, CN AND CS DISTRICTS (701-03/237-01) Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the tublic Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the ordinance for first reading. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXTENDING THE ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY VILLAGE, STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER, AND THE OR, CN AND CS DISTRICTS' MOTION PASSED unanismusly, Levy "not participating.' 3, RESOLUTION RE APPLICATION TO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR RENTAL REHABILITATION FUNDS (CMR:274:8) (701-04/412) MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6693 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR RENTAL REHABILI- TATION PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS' MOTION PASSED unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 3806 RE EXCEPTION TO CERTAIN VARIANCE APPLICATIONS (701-03/250/242) .� City Attorney Diane Northway advised that the proposed ordi- nance was not appropriate as an emergency. She suggested Council adopt the ordinance with three changes: 1) delete "AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY" from the title; with respect to the preamble of the ordinance, the final "WHEREAS" should be deleted; the present language of Section 4 should be deleted and the following language inserted: "This ordinance shall become ezfective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after its passage." Mayor Sutorius asked whether not approving the ordinance as an emergency would negatively affect the variance application. 60-69 5/16/88 Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the ordinance as changed did not change its impact on the property owner who raised the concern with the Council. MOTION: Council Member Renzei moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the ordinance for first reading as amended to remove the wording °Declaring ate Ei.ergency" from the title; deleting the fourth Whereas; and revising Section 4 to make the ordinance effective 31 days after the date of its passage. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE 3806 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FROM THE MORATORIUM'S APPLICATION TO CERTAIN VARIANCE APPLICATIONS' MOTION PASSED unanimously. 5. REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 855 CLARA DEIVE COTTAGE USE PERMIT (CMR:275:8) (300) Joan Schneider, 855 Clara Drive, thanked the Council for its thoughtfulness. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the staff recommendation as follows? FINDINGS Use Permit 87 -UP -31 is hereby issued for the location and construction of an 885 square foot second dwelling unit (cottage) as per attached plans (Alternative 2) at 855 Clara Drive, Zone District R-1, Palo Alto, California, subject to the conditions below. 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the addition of a second dwelling unit and required parking on the subject property will not have a signifi- cant effect on local traffic, on -street parking or privacy of adjoining residences; the driveway to the rear cottage will provide a separation from the house of the adjoining neighbor; and the slightly substandard lot width (57.5) feet where 60 feet is the standard) presents no land use problems. 60-70 5/16/88 MOTION CONTINUED The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan mad the purposes of Title 18 of the Palms Alto Municipal Code, in that development of two residential dwellings on the subject property is consistent witi" the provi- sions of Ordinance 3378, which allows detached second dwelling units on parcels w s._e the lot size is !!tft�.•-s_s,n- tially greater than the minimum standard for the par- ticular zone district; and the proposal is in compliance with Comprehensive Plan Housing Program 3, to "continue the cottage provision in the R-1 zones insuring that new development fits in with existing single-family properties." This project meats the minimum criteria for lot size, is under the maximum permitted cottage size, and provides the required parking. CONDITIONS The following conditions are reasonably necessary to secure the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Cc a and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vie-inity, in that the conditions will ensure that the impact on the site and the property in the vicinity resulting from the construction of the cottage and the con- dition of the site will be kept at a minimum, and the privacy of the adjoining residences will be maintained. 1. Expansion of the cottage unit shall not be permitted under this use permit approval. 2. All existing exterior storage on the site must be removed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to issuance of a building permit for the cottage. 3. Solid wood fencing in good condition, and of consistent design, in compliance with the provisions of the City's Fence Ordinance, shall be provided along the parcel's rear and side property linos prior to approval of final building inspection and connection of utilities for the cottage. 4. Landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to approval of final building inspection and connection of utilities for the cottage. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Cobb, Fletcher, Patitucci, Sutorius voting "no.' 60-71 5/16/88 6. AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE FOR ,LONG-TERM DISPOSAL CAPACITY WITH, WASTE MANAUEMLNT INCORPORATED (CMR:279:8) (1072) City Manager Bill Zaner said Palo Alto had been trying to i ind long-term disposal. capacity tor its solid waste for about nine or ten years. In September, 1937, he was autho- rized to ,enter into an aareement with _his colleagues from the cities in northern Santa Clara County to commence a series of negotiations and discussions with providers of disposal space for the north county cities. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent all solid waste disposal pro- viders. Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) and Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) were determined to be the -two companies that could best provide the required services. The question was which company could do the best job for which city. The Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Sunnyvale had some common interests and problems best solved by the proposal put forth by WMI. He believed Palo Alto was best served by the ability to keep its landfill open and joining with Mountain View and Sunnyvale in a system that would make use of waste management rather than the BFI alternative. Each City Manager signed a Letter of intent that if concepts could be agreed upon, respective City Councils would receive recommendations to authorize the commencement of negotia- tions for a precise contract. He recommended Council autho- rize staff to enter into the negotiations with WMI and to return to Council with a proposed contract. Council MembeL Bechtel asked about the extra benefits which warranted the $10 difference in per ton charge. Mr. Zaner said proposals could be postured in many different ways to be under or over the competition. There were many costs the City of Palo Alto analyzed; such as, hauling costs of PASCO which would be passed back to the customers. When considering all of the costs, waste management was a better position for Palo Alto for the long term. There were also environmental concerns. While any landfill site had poten- tial environmental problems, he believed the environmental problems at the WMI site were potentially less than at BFI. lie emphasized the BFI propo€el was a good one, but given the particular circumstances, it would not work as well for Palo Alto. Council Member Cobb asked whether the cost estimates were close enough to where a reasonable ceiling coulee be kept on them in the future. 60-72 5/16/88 Mr. Zaner said staff believed any kind of additional land- fill capacity and the hauling costs would come close to doubling or a little better than doubling the rates for the City's customers. He was comfortable with the degree to which the figures could be relied upon over a period of time. There were always unforeseen circumstances. Council Member Cobb was concerned that the City build in appropriate protections during the negotiation process so that a company could not "buy" their way in and inappropriately escalate the costs. Mr. Zaner said the Letter of Intent served as the framework for the negotiations and it set forth the kind of escalator steps which could take place. Council Member Fletcher asked whether there was any separa- tion of recyclable materials at a *Transfer station. Public Works Superintendent Mike Miller said the proposed design of the waste management facility in Sunnyvale was to accept approximately 1,500 tons_ per day of refuse and recycle up to 25 percent. There was an on -shore processing system for separation of materials. Council Met:ber. Fletcher clarified the feature in the Getter of Intent stating that the guaranteed rate of recycling for Palo Alto would be in the range of 15 to 25 percent of the total garbage delivered to the tr :Asfer station --not what the City separated out in the City itself. Mr. Miller said it was from the total garbage delivered to the transfer station., Council Member Fletcher asked about a "recycling buy back" process and whether WMI would buy the materials and dispose of it to the users of recyclable materials. Mr. Miller 'said the City could receive the average door price or the highest price in the Bay Area at the time. The City cowl( also find its own contract. The "bu: back" is for public buy back of materials in addition to those recycling programs that used the facility. The public could actually take their own recyclables and be paid a fair market value at the transfer station. Council Member; Fletcher asked what would happen with floating debris boxes. 60-73 5/16/83 Mr. Miller said staff did not anticipate sending random debris boxes, which consisted of home remodels, yard clean ups, etc., to Sunnyvale because the trucks serviced 12 to 1" debris boxes p3r day and they would nct be able to serve half that many if they had to take them so far. Mayor Sutorius asked about the City's compost program. Mr. Miller said the curbside compost debris pilot program was completed and the project was put on hold due to the solid waste negotiations because there was not sufficient staff to work on both projects. About 24 percent of the total wastes stream in the residential area was compost material. Staff intended to return with a report on the alternatives and was not precluded by the terms of the Letter of Intent from starting a source separation program to defer the compost material from the waste stream. Mayor Sutorius clarified the City could continue its compost process including a curbside separation by the resident in which case compost material would stream to the City's facility and the balance would stream to the Sunnyvale transfer station. Mr. Miller said that was correct. Vice Mayor Klein asked about numbers to justify that the WMI proposal was the lowest cost operation. Given the potential major financial expenditure, he was concerned why the matter did not first go to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee. Mr. Miller said staff analyzed the number of trips per day transporting veilicles to Sunnyvale and Newby Island; the average time per trip; and the mileage per trip to both facilities. Using those factors, they analyzed costs over the last three years for things that could be directly attributed to mileage and time, i.e., labor, fuel, vehicle maintenance, tires and tubes. Those costs were applied to the additional miles per year and hours of labor required. The difference was a range of $2.07 to $2.40 per ton between the two proposals--WMI being the higher. In terms of a monthly bill, the difference on the per ton under the current rate of two cans at $8.15 per month, would be an increase of about $.23 per month on the two can rate for the higher proposal of WMI. Council Member Bechtel clarified even though ,BFI said there was a *10 per ton difference, staff calculated -the mileage from Palo Alto to the transfer station in Sunnyvale --not 60-74 5/16/88 Palo Alto to Kirby Canyon. Therefore, it was farther. from Palo Alto to Newby Island which was the BFI proposal. Mr. Miller said that was correct. Ccuncil Member Bechtel asked about the environmental concerns. Mr. Miller said the environmental concerns did not come into play for one site any more than at another. Benefits '.,included; 1) Less exposure time cn the road per vehicle. There would be about 21 additional minutes per trip that vehicles would be exposed to delays on the roadways; 2) There would be a closer haul distance for business and resi- dence after the City ultimately closed its landfill; and 3) The City had the option of an additional five-year term to the 30 -year disposal capacity with WMI. Council Member Patitucci said the City's current landfill capacity would carry the City through until 1999. He asked whether the subject agreement would cause. the City -to relook at its present 60 -foot height limit for the landfill. Mr. Zaner said tt' . City would revise its landfill plan. The landfill would bL open. The Council established the 60 -foot policy and could revise it. NOTION TO RLFERx Vice Mayor Klein moved. seconded by Cobb, to refer the item to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee. Vice Mayor Klein believed it was a major financial decision and Council needed to follow the general policy of having major financial matters considered in Committee before being considered by the Council. He also believed the F&PW Committee was a more appropriate forum to hear discuss?on by WPII and BFI. ,If BFI believed theirs was the better proposal, they should be able to make the argument. Council was obliged to its citizens to be absolutely sure that the WMI proposal was the better choice. Council Member Patitucci supported the referral and believed the role of the F&a'W Committee would be to evaluate the staff's analysis of how they arrived at the recommendation. He aid not want .he Committee meeting to be seen as are opportunity to re-evaluate both proposals and try and make a decision on such a complicated matter. If Council was not satisfied witt, the financial justification from staff on the proposal, it should be returners to staff with guidelines. 60-75 5/16/88 Council Member Renzel asked about time constraints with respect to the other communities who were parties to the negotiations. Mr. Zaner believed there was time to refer the item to Committee. The negotiations were characterized by all the people who submitted an REP trying to 'outdo the other side." Staff tried very hard to hold the "bidders" to a firm deadline. He cautioned against being put in a position of reopening the bidding process and having the matter become a negotiated discussion where one company tried to undercut the other by $.20 or $.30. Council Member Renzel preferred to refer the final document to the F&PW Committee. She did .not believe Vice Mayor Kiein's concern was different from staff's concern. Having been on the Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority and dealt with the issueof garbage, it was difficult to deal with the various parties involved. and she believed staff was in a better position to assess what was going on. Devid Gavrich, Director, of Resource Recovery and Recycling, BFI, 55 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose, believed Council had two competitive proposals which represented aggressive recycling, backed by fully permitted and environmentally sound landfills for the disposal of nonrecyclables, and both were guaranteed by companies with average sales of about $2 billion. The only difference was that BFI's proposal would cost about $40 million less than the competitive proposal over the life of the contract. BFI was at a loss to under- stand why its was not the recommended proposal. John Slocum. 6955 Cote Antonio, Pleasanton, spoke on behalf of ('ail, and its benefits to the City. He believed WMI had a state-of-the-art landfill available to the City. Mayor Sutorius believed both BFI and WMI demorfitrated a professionalism aid commitment in their responses to the RFP. Council Member Levy associated himself with the comments of Vice Mayor Klein and supported the referr&1. The staff proposal was acceptable, but Council did not know ttik-4her it was the best. without seeing the competitive bid. He wanted to ensure that Council would see the competitive bid at the F4PW Committee. He requested that a side -by -side comparison be presented at the Committee meeting. 60-76 5/16/88 AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Sutorius, that the review of the scope of the evaluation by the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee shall be restricted to the staff's analysis of comparisons of the bids and not involve a hearing from the biddere. Council Member Patitucci believed it was appropriate for Council to look at the next level of detail in the process but did not believe Council could duplicate the time, effort, and expertise provided by staff. He did not want to see the process turned into a political game rather than one strictly based on facts and analysis. He wanted to -eview the process staff went through and if Council was still uncomfortable, he envisioned returning the matter to staff. Vice Mayor Klein opposed the amendment. He believed the matter was more complex than just going with the lowest responsible bidder. Council needed to exercise its best judgment based on all the information it could get. If both companies had valuable information to contribute, he believed they should be heard. He agreed that the F&PW Committee hearing should not he turned into a bidding process and he would regard it as a negative element in any proposal. Council Member Levy agreed with Vice Mayor Klein. He urged that -any oral assertions made in front of the F&PW Committee be considered as binding and as if made in writing. He believed the companies had a right to answer questions and clarify their positions. Council Member Renzel supported th4G amendment. She did not object to hearing from people with respect to their comments on the staff analysis but did not believe new ground should be opened. Mayor Sutorius supported the amendment. He believed the comparative analysis will be useful in confirming the time, effort and skill applied by staff. He believed staff was capable of making the evaluation and providing further dis- cussion for the F&PW Committee. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Bechtel, Klein, Levy voting "no.' MOTION AS AMENDS PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting uno.' 60-77 5/16/88 ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned to a Closed Session re litigation at 9:17 p.m. Final adjournment at 9:47 p.m. ATTEST: C`ity/lerk APPROVED: 0 4 60-78 5/16/88