HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-06 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
PALOAL TOCITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS/ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- EREQUENCY90.1 ON rM DIAL
Regular Meeting
June 6, 1988
ITEM
Oral Communications
Approval of Minutes
PAGL
60-93
60-93
1. Appointments to Historic Resources Board 60-93
Consent Calendar
60-95
2. Alma Street/Churchill Avenue Improvements, 60-95
CIP 84-71, Budget Amendment Ordinance,
Request for Authorization to Reimburse
Southern Pacific Transportation Company,
and Award of Contract to Fisk, Firenzi,
McLean: Incorporated
3. Ordinance 3814 Amending Ordinance No. 3806
to Provide and Exception from the
Moratorium's Application to Certain
Variance Applications
4. Ordinance 3815 Extending the Ordinances
Establishing Interim Regulations for Town
and Country Village, Stanford Shopping
Center, and the OR, CN, and CS District
5. Finance and Public 'Works Committee
Recommendation re Negotiations for a
Contract to Purchase and Install a Load
Research System with Mikro-Tel, Inc. In
the Event an Agreement is not: Reached,
Staff to Negotiate with Process Systems,
Inc.
60-96
60-96
60-96
60-91.
6/6/88
ITEM PAGE
6. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom-
mendation re City Auditor's Recommendation
to Negotiate an Extension to the City's
Current Contract with Coopers & Lybrand
13. Counil Members Renzel and Fletcher re
Endorsement: San Francisco Bay -Delta
Estuary Protections
60-96
60-96
7. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision to 60-97
Deny a Vafl: fiance for Property Located at 659
Melville
8. Amendments to the Santa Clara County Solid 60-100
Waste Management Plan
9. PUBLIC HEARING: 1988-89 Community Develop- 60-102
meat Block Grant Program
10. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- 60-104
mendation re Utility Undergrounding
Program
11. nolicy and Procedures Committee Recommenda-
tion re Sublease of Portions of the Jordan
Site
12. Amicus Brief in Natomas v. City of
Sacramento
Adjournment to a Closed Session to Discuss
Employer/Employee Relations matters at 8:55
p.m.
Final adjournment at 10:43 p.m.
60-106
60-106
60-107
60-107
60-92
6/6/88
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 6, 1988
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date
in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb (arrived at 7:50 p.m.),
Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius,
Woolley
ABSENT: Patitucci
Mayor Sutorius announced sometime during or after the
meeting there would be a Closed Session to discuss
Employer/Employee Relations matters.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke about the ratio of
complaints to disciplinary actions in the Palo Alto
Police Department, and the citizenry's right to know.
2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, said the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) neither
substantiated nor agreed that evicting the Palo Alto
Yacht Harbor's berth holders and destroying the marina
provided greater public access. He asked why it was
done.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Council Member Renzel submitted a correction to page 60-23
of the May 2, 1988 Minutes and page 60-53 of tie May 9, 1988
Minutes.
Council Member Fletcher submitted a correction to page 60-55
of the Minutes of May 9, 1988.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy,
approval of the Minutes of May 2 and 9, 1988, as corrected,
and May 12, 1988, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Ronzsl •abstaining' on the
Minutes of May 12, 1988, Cobb, Patitucci absent.
1. APPOINTMENTS TO HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (702-2)
Mayor Sutorius said the Council had interviewed the
candidates and indicated representation on the Historic
60-93
6/06/88
Resources Board (HRB) should include the appointment of at
least one person with professional design experience.
Council Member Woolley intended to support Noel Blase, David
Zink -Brody, and Essie Bahrampour. Noel Blase and her
husband renovated a house the Professorville Historic
District. She also had experience of working with the fed-
eral legislation that applied to historic structures, par-
ticularly tax credits. More recently, she was the member of
the Task Force for the Preservation Conference and demon-
strated the interest, dedication, ability, and time to make
a significant contribution. David Zink -Brody was an
architect, with the experience in historic preservation. It
was a real plus that Essie Bahrampour was also an architect,
and would bring a broad view to the ccmmunity.
Council Member Bechtel agreed with two of Council Member
Woolley's choices bet would substitute Karen Olson for Essie
Bahrampour because Karen knew the community issues, had been
a long-time resident and active volunteer in the City, and
had been actively involved with the Gamble Garden Center.
Mayor Sutorius acknowledged that Council did not have the
opportunity to directly interview Jane Ulrich. She was a
competitive candidate and her qualifications would have been
impressive to his colleagues. He woula support David
Zink -Brody, Noel Blase, and Katen Olson. He felt Mr.
Bahrampour offered special qualifications and encouraged him
to consider the Architectural Review Board (ARB) when a
vacancy occurred.
RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING
City Cierk Gloria Young announced the results of the first
round of voting:
VOTING FOR ZINK-BRODY: Fletcher, Woolley, Sutorius, Klein,
Bechtel, Levy
VOTING FOR WOLFE: Cobb
VOTING FOR BAHRAMPOUR: Renzel
Ms. Young announced that Mr. '.,ink -Brody received six votes
and was appointed.
60-94
6/06/88
RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING
VOTING FOR BLASE: Fletcher, Cobb,, Woolley, Sutorius,
Klein, Bechtel, L6vy
VOTING FOR WOLFE: Renzel
Ms. Young announced Ms. Blase
appointed.
received seven votes and
RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING
VOTING FOR WOLFE:
VOTING FOR OLSON:
VOTING FOR BAHRAMPOUR:
Fletcher
Cobb, Sutorius, Klein, Bechtel
Woolley, Renzel, Levy
was
Ms. Young announced none of the candidates received five
votes and another round of voting was in order.
RESULTS OF THE FOURTH ROUND OF VOTING
VOTING FOR OLSON:
VOTING FOR BAHRAMPOUR:
Ms. Young annouced Ms.
appointed.
Fletcher, Cobb, Sutorius,
Bechtel
Woolley, Levy, Renzel
Olson received five votes and was
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
2. ALMA STREET/CHURCHILL AVENUE •IMPROVEMENTS, CIP 84-71,
BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE/ RE2UEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO
REIMBURSE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, AND
AWARD OF CONTRACT.TO FISK FIRENZE/ MCLEAN, INCORPORATED
(CMR: 9 d % - /M -O 1)
ORDINANCE 3813 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 84-71,
'ALMA/CHURCHILL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS', AND TO
AUTHORIZE RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS"
60-95
6/06/88
CONSENT CALENDAR CONT'D
3. ORDINANCE 3814 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3806 TO PROVIDE
AN EXCEPTION FROM THE MORATORIUM'S APPLICATION TO
CERTAIN VARIANCE APPLICATIONS (1st Reading 5/ 6/88,
PASSED -
4. ORDINANCE 3815 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 (1st Reading 5/ 6/88, PASSED 8.0, Levy not
participating") (701-03)
5. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL
OF; THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATIONS
FOR A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL A LOAD RESEARCH
SYSTEM WITH MIKRO-TEL INC. IN THE EVENT AN AGREEMENT
IS NOT REACHED WITH THE FIRST -RANKED CONTRACTOR, STAFF
IS AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SECOND -
RANKED FIRM, PROCESS SYSTEMS, INC. STAFF TO RETURN TO
COUNCIL WITH THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT FOR APPROVAL
(801-,07 )
6. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORK.. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY AUDITORS RECOMMENDATION
TO NEGOTIATE AN EXTENSION TO THE CITY S CURRENT CONTRACT
WITH COOPERS & LYBRAND AT A COST NOT TO EXCEDED 79 969
AND TO ESTABLISH A CONTRACT CONTINGENT AMOUNT OF $8,000
( T -01/7 20--06) �w
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent
AGENDA CHANGES, ACD1TIONSt AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher
to move Item 13 forward for purposes of a continuance.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, `Patitucci absent.
13. COUNCIL MEMBERS RENZEL AND FLETCHER RE ENDORSEMENT:
SAN FRANCISCO BAY -DELTA ESTUARY PROTECTIONS (701-b4/
o /0a L
MOTION: Council Meter Rense1 moved, seconds(' by
Fletcher, to continue the item to the June 13, 1988, City
Council Meeting.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent.
6/8b/68
7. APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
ONE- AND TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY
DWELLING ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT, WHERE ADDITIONS AND NEW
CONSTRUCTION WOULD OTHERWISE BE LIMITED TO A SINGLE
STORY: AND WITH A PROPOSED COVERAGE OF 47.1 PERCENT
WHFRE 35 PERCENT IS OTHERWISE THE MAXIMUM; AND WITH _A
ONE -FOOT BAY WINDOW PROJECTION INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT
YARD, WHICH WOULD ,nTHEREISE NOT BE ALLOWED AT 659
MELVILLE (CMR:300:88) (300)
Mayor Sutorius said the item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission, and they recommended to overrule the Zoning
Administrator's denial and approve the variance with certain
conditions.
Planning Commission Chairperson Ellen. Christensen said the
Planning Commission felt the house as designed suited the
neighborhood character on the block. Secondly, the granting
of the variance would respond to a Comprehensive Plan goal
to encourage young families to live and stay in Palo Alto.
A majority of the Commissioners felt it was unreasonable to
require the applicant to remove a small portion of the
existing garage --116 square feet --to bring the lot coverage
from 38 percent down to 35 percent. Commissioners Cullen
and Huber supported the view that the coverage, as recom-
menced it be conditioned, be brought to the 35 percent. The
Commission had a consensus that the second-Ztory restriction
would be difficult to enforce within the 20 -foot height
limit.
Council Member Woolley clarified the Commission was bothered
that the City had a 20 -foot height limit and a single -story
limit that did not appear to be consistent. She believed
when Council passed the regulation, the intent was not to
exclude the possibility of a second story but that a house
on a substandard lot would go through a variance process so
neighbors would have sufficient notification and the prop-
erty owner would be especially sensitive to the privacy
problem.
Mayor Sutorius said Council's action was specific. The then
Vice Mayor Woolley proposed a modification to the enabling
ordinance with that specific topic in mind. She added a
"whereas" in the recitals, which read, "The intent of the
Cou:acil is not to prohibit second habitable structures
completely but to provide a review process pursuant to other
provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to evaluate the
impact of a second floor on. neighboring properties." The
amendment passed unanimously and the overall ordinance
60-97
6/06/88
passed on an 8-1 vote, Council Member Patitucci voting "no."
The record clearly reflected that the consideration being
given by the Commissl.on in the subjectcase was compatible
with the Council's intent.
Council Member Renzel asked about the effect cn the opera-
tion of the City regarding the condition that the variance
be recorded to run with the land.
Zoning Administrator Nancy Maddox Lytle said the conditions
assisted in the City's operations in that if the property
changed hands, the preliminary title report would reflect a
special condition on the property over and above what the
standard zoning ordinance prescribed. It was not perfect in
that property owners generally did not look at their title
descriptions and documents prior to asking about expanding
their house, and they were generally told to get a copy of
the R-1 zoning handbook.
Council Member Renzel clarified the condition was basically
notice to a subsequent purchaser that a variance was granted
but did not prevent an application for further var*ances.
Ms. Lytle said that was correct.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open.
Hugh Fike, 659 Melville Avenue, said they were a family of
four, and it was in their interest to remodel the house and
bring it to current standards. The proposed design was
two -stories and within 18 inches of the 20 -foot height
limitation artd within the daylight plane. There had been no
dissenting neighbors and there were nine letters on record
supporting the project. Because of the mature trees, their
landscaping would be limited to color, flowers, aromatic
plants, and wisterie on the overhang in the back of the
house.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mayor Sutorius liked the plan and believed it was a good use
of the site. He asked about the chimney's turret
appearance.
Mr. Fike said they purposely strived for that effect. They
were looking for a nice, old-fashioned use of brick. They
planned to use a herringbone brick on the front porch and
sidewalk, and to do some elaborate, old-fashioned treatments
with the chimney. The widened cap at the top seemed exag-
gerated in the plans and, in reality, it would not b2 quite
as big.
60-98
6/06/88
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley,
to approve staff recommendation to adopt the Planning
Commission recommendation to approve the variance request at
659 Melville Avenue, :.sith the following conditions snd
findings:
Conditions
1. Site coverage on the ground floor, including the garage,
be permanently restricted to 38 percent of the parcel,
as shown on plans received April 1, 1988.
2. The variance shall be recorded to run with the land
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Findings
1. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or
' conditions applicable to the property iniolved that do
not generally apply to property in the same district, in
that the lot is substandard in terms of size and width;
and the existing residence is in need of improvements
and upgrading. The plan to retain the existing rear -
yard garage and side -yard driveway contribute to the
exceptional circumstances and are aspects of the plan
that should be encouraged in order to preserve neighbor-
hood character.
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable prop-
erty loss or ui° necessary hardship, in that there is
little potential for enlarging the existing 800 square -
foot home without building a second story. Reducing the
project to conform with the site coverage restrictions
would result in the modification of a two -car garage to
a single --car garage. Given the requirements of typical
single-family automobile use and associated storage, and
given the fact that the garage is an existing structure,
it is considered a substantial property right to retain
the garage end an unnecessary hardship to remove a
portion of it. 'she one -foot intrusion into the front
smtback is considered architecturally desirable and
creates no additional impact.
3. The granting of the application 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 design is complementary to the existing architec-
tural styles in the area, considerate of the neighbors'
privacy and all setbacks are proposed to be observed.
60-99
6/06/88
Council Member Renzel said wzile the lot was small and the
house was relatively large, she appreciated that the appli-
cants subjected their plans to the view of the neighborhood
in a a process which allowed the neighbors to determine if
they were appropriate for the neighborhood. She would sup-
port the motion even though the house might be generally too
large for the lot.
Council Member Woolley concurred. In addition to the neigh-
bors having approved the privacy aspect on the project, the
Ad Hoc Committee presented to the Council the ideas that
neighborhood pattern and the replacement of the garage in
the rear was important. One suggestion was that a detached
garage at the rear not count, in which case the FAR would,be
0.43 which was within the current moratorium. She supported
the motion.
Council Member Fletcher was bothered by the applicant':,;
argument that the variances should all be approved because
even though the proposed expansion did not conform with the
zoning regulations, a staff member had said they would
probably get the variances approved. Variances were not
automatic. In all cases a careful review was given to the
individual situation and the neighbors had some say. The
Planning Commission and the Council made independent deci-
sions. She approved of the expansion on its merits.
Council Member Cobb seconded Council Member Renzel's
comments about the effort made by the applicant to involve
the neighbors. He clarified the motion included the two
conditions regarding the site coverage and the recording of
the variance.
Mayor Sutorius said the site coverage condition was an
unusual expression. The Council believed the 38 percent was
accurate as shown on the plans. There was considerable
discussion at the Planning Commission meeting on the first -
floor footprint and the Council trusted that would be within
reason when the plan was checked and construction underway.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent.
8. AMENDMENTS TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WACTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMR:283:8) (701-04/1072/1113)
Mayor Sutorius said there would be a separate public hearing
for each of the two amendments, and there were resolutions
and findings associated with each amendment.
60-100
6/06/88
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open on the 1988
Amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management
Plan to Include the Recyclery as a Designated Transfer/
Processing Facility for Municipal Solid Waste. He noted the
Negative Declaration adopted by the County of Santa Clara.
Receiving ro requests from the public to speak, he declared
the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein,
approval of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 6695 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE 1988
AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO INCLUDE THE RECYCLERY AS A
DESIGNATED TRANSFER/PROCESSING FACILITY FOR
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent.
Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open on the 1988
Amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management
Plan to Establish a Procedure for Review and Approval of
Requests to Dispose of Nonhazardous Solid Waste Generated
Outside Santa Clara County at Solid Waste Facilities Located
in Santa Clara County, Receiving no requests from the
public to speak, he declar,A the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member Levy asked about the existing procedure if
someone outside the County wanted to dispose of solid waste
within the County.
Public Works Superintendent Mike Miller said it would
require an an amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan
similar to the action that evening. Previously the plan
amendment application did not request the level of detail on
Attachment A to the staff report (CMR:283:8).
Council Member Levy asked about the basis for approval or
denial.
Mr. Miller said any amendments to the Solid Waste Plan would
have to meet the criteria established in the application
process, would be reviewed by the County planning staff,
and would require approval by a majority of the cities
within the County.
Council Member Levy clarified there would be no LThange in
the approval process.
60-101
6/06/88
Mr. Miller said that was correct.
MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Klein,
approval of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 6696 entitled 'RESOLUTION OLD THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROv ING THE 1988
AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISP A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW
AND APPROVAL OF REQUESTS TO DISPOSE OF NONHAZARDOUS
SOLID WASTE GENERATED OUTSIDE SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES LOCATED IN SANTA CLARA
COUNTY"
LOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: 1988-39 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM (CMR:301:8) (701-04/412-02)
Council Member Woolley said the discussion in Finance and
Public Works (F&PW) Committee was brief because the Citizens
Advisory Committee end staff presented the same recommenda-
tion. The FE-PW Committee accepted the recommendation.
MOTION: Council Member Woolley for the Finance and Public
Works Committee moved that the Council make the following
findings:
1. The proposed 198'3-89 Community Development Block Grant
L
/1TlT r�� — Mme— J4 •1 �. !►A♦ ha'�l.A ..4/N�A\S4AmRa.
%�.asav a , r gs.. ".. •acv r v� w.i+.irra��
impact;
en iaonwra (tell
2. The 16 proposals and related funding as recommended by
staff in this report are to be included in the 1988-89
CDC program; and
3. That staff be authorized to submit an application to HUD
to include the Palo Alto 1988-89 program certified to be
consistent with the City's three-year Community
Development Block Grant Plan.
RESOLUTION 6697 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO A=.TO APPROVING THE USE OF THE
1988-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS'
Council Member Fletcher asked how the administrative costs
of $49,].00 were allocated within the City.
Administrator, Human Services; Margo Dutton said it
accounted for one-half of the clerical support in Human
Services and one-half of the Administrator's salary.
6%6/88
Council Member Fletcher queried whether the allocation would
allow for extra staffing in the Human Services Department.
Ms. Dutton said no.
City Manager Bill Zaner said at one time the CDBG Program
was operated in another department. In the process of
transferring the program over to the Human Services
Department, a portion of the Administrator's salary was
funded from CDBG, which was legitimate. Historically, the
full salary of the Administrator was funded from the General
Fund.
Council Member Cobb said the administrative burdens of the
CDBG program made it more difficult for the Human Services
Department to do other things. The Human Relations
Commission expressed concern that it lost staff help as a
result of the CDBG process and it needed help to leverage
the volunteers available throughout the City. He queried
whether the grant might pay a little more of the administra-
tive costs to free up more of the resources represented by
the Human Services Department to be applied to the other
human programs..
Ms. Dutton said the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) allowed for a 20 percent cap on the
administrative budget for CDBG and the City was at the cap.
If Council desired to redirect any of the money, it would
need to come from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, (PAHC)
component. There was no way to move the moneys around
without taking_ away from some of the nthwr ariminisf•rative
moneys.
Council Member Cobb was concerned about the loss of the
o th.r human programs in the City.
Council Member Woolley queried whether the PAHC could draw
in part from any other source of funding for its administra-
tive expenses. When she was liaison to the PAHC, it was
expected that CDBG funds would dramatically decrease and
discussions commenced about what to in that event.
Assistant City Manager June Fleming said the decrease in
CDBG .Funds never materialized. There would have to be a
sig:.ificant decrease in the amount of administration
required for the CDBG program to see any regligible reduc-
tion of needed staff.
Mayor Sutorius said the PAHC would not look favorably at a
reduction in its CDBG allocation tower° its expenses. With
60-103
6/06/88
respect to the 1987-88 audit performed on behalf of HUD, the
City Manager received a letter commending the City of Palo
Alto's commitment toward affordable hosing and the quality,
depth and range of the PAHC program.
Council Member Cobb queried whether the CDBG administration
activity coul6 be done with other like administrative
activities in the City's organization so that more of the
Human Services Administrator's time could be focused on the
human programs.
Mr. Zaner said the CDBG program was transferred to the Human
Services Department in order to be with other like adminis-
trative activities. The only other solution was to take
moneys from the General Fund, which was what staff tried to
get away from. When the program was transferred to Human
Services, half of the cost was paid with CDBG funds and the
General Fund was held out of the picture. In all of the
budget maneuvering, reductions were not attempted in the
Human Services Department because reductions were already
made by moving the CDBG program to that department.
Council Member Fletcher said the letter from HUD referred to
by Mayor Sutorius also commended the high level of perform-
ance on the part of the Human Services Administrator.
Council Member Renzel said the CDBG funds were supposed to
supply one-half the salary of the Human Services
Administrator and staff. Such an allocation suggested a 50
percent workload addition. Either the Department was doing
150 percent of its previous workload or some of the
functions should have been shifter= Council needed to look
at the issue.
Vice Mayor Klein agreed with Council Member Renzel, but
believed the trend would continue in a variety of areas and
would not be reversed except in extraordinary circumstances.
To the extent the trend was reversed, there would be similar
cuts elsewhere.
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent.
10. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE
UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM (1101)
Mayor Sutorius did not participate in the item.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb for the finance and Public
Works Committee moved that the City continue the under -
grounding program at the current level of one district each
60-104
6/06/88
NOTION CONTINUED
year in areas where Pacific Bell's participation will be
available and continue working with Pacific Bell to
incorporate residential areas in the future. Staff is
father directed to continue to monitor the California Public
Utilities Commission's (CPUC) policies to try to get more
priorities in line with the City's.
Council Member Fletcher queried whether Pacific Bell con-
tributed to the cost of tree trimming and pole maintenance
and replacement.
Director of Utilities Richard Young said pole replacement
was on a -pint pole agreement, but PacBell did not share in
the cost of tree trimming which partially explained the
discrepancy in how each entity evaluated projects.
Council Member Fletcher asked about allocating fees to
FacEsell since if it agreed to the undergrounding, the City
would not incur the tree trimming costs.
Mr. Young said tree trimming was a problem for open wires
and Pa,:Bell's were insulated. PacBell was not concerned
about the trees.
-Council Member Renzel said the first alternative suggested
continuing undergrounding at the present level and letting
PacBell take care of the tree trimming when the only wires
left on the poles were theirs. She queried the City's costs
in setting up a district.
Mr. Young said it depended on how far the City went with
engineering. If the project was actually engineered and the
homeowner was told the costs involved, he estimated $100,000
to $200,000. The City would be at risk for that amount if
it had to back out of the project.
Council Member Renzel asked whether there should be a
ranking process whereby public opinion was sought in high
priority districts to determine whether residents would
support undergrounding if PacBell did not participate.
Mr. Young said in makinn the choice, people in the area
woulo have to accept a considerably larger financial burden
than if the project was done at the utility's needs. It
boiled down to a 50 percent share of the cost of the work
done on the street rather than having the work paid for
entirely by the utilities. If the City funded the entire
60-105
6/06/88
project, PacBell would pick up the substructures free and
might go along with the game further. PacF3ell did not have
to lay its own channel in the undergrounding.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius *not participating,"
Patitucci absent.
11. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE
SUBLEASE OF PORTIONS OF THE JORDAN SITE (CMR:n7:$
020-05/300)
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel on behalf of the Policy
and Procedures Committee moved as follows:
1. Staff be directed to sublease the *R" and *K" wing
portion of the Jordan site on a break-even maintenance
and utility basis with charges of 33-1/3 cents per
square foot for *!3" wing and 55 cents per square foot
for *R" wing.
2. Staff solicit applications in accordance with documents
attached to the staff report (CMR:259:8) and that a
staff committee of three make the firpal determination of
subleases.
3. Staff be directed to revise the documents so that the
proposed use of "K" wing not be lifaited to office use.
4. The City Manager be authorized to execute subleases for
the Jordan site of up to 13 months in duration but in no
instance beyond September 30, 1989.
Council Member Cobb and Mayor Sutorius commerf led the Policy
and Procedures Committee for s �,s o
and t L VV.�4�/4 is i7' for its work on the matter.
MOTION PASSED unanimously,r Patitucci absent.
12. AMICUS BRIEF IN NATOMASy, CITY OF SACRAMENTO (720)
City Attorney Diane Northway made a correction to her report
in the last line of the second paragraph to reflect "one_
quarter of their attorneys fees" rather than "one-third."
She clarified the one -quarter figure assumed equal time was
spent on each cause of action.
Council Member Renzel clarified the thrust of the City's
position would be as iL was in federal court where attorneys
were required to keep track of their causes of action in
order to recover fees.
60-106
6/06/88
Ms. Northway assumed if the rule was not as it was in
federal court, the rule would be that the court would assume
equal time was spent on each cause of action. It more time
was spent on the cause of action for which the attorney was
successful, the attorney would run the risk of not getting
the fees unless there was a record of the time spent.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by
Fletcher, to authorize the City Attorney to add the City of
Palo Alto to the Amicus Brief in Natomas v. Cit of
Sacramento, w?tii the proviso that the p a nti wou d on y
be entitled to recover one -quarter of their attorneys fees
assuming Equal time is spent on the action.
Council Member Renzel reluctantly supported the motion with
the clarifications made by the City Attorney. She was con-
cerned about the additional burdens placed on members of the
public who had to file lawsuits it order to get government
to operate properly. The court system was an important
safeguard when government did not follow the rules. People
generally had to plead all plausible causes of action for
their particular concern. The proposed action suggested
that people might have to gamble about which causes of
action were pursued because of the implication that there
would be some division with the denominator being the number
of causes of action. People might not use causes of action
which could be successful. She also understood that munici-
palities needed to protect themselves from frivolous causes
of action.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjcurned to a Closed Session to discuss Employer/
Employee Relations matters at 8:55 p.m.
Final adjournment at 10:43 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
60-107
6/06/88