Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-06 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting CITY OF Pill() ALTO January 6, 1985 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 6 6 8 4 Approval of Minutes of September 30, October 2, 6 6 8 4 October 3, and October 7, 1985 Item #1, Election of Mayor and Vice Mayor 6 6 8 5 Item #2, Resolution of Appreciation to Anne R. 6 6 8 7 Witherspoon Item #3, Resolution of Appreciation to Jack Taylor 6 6 8 9 Consent Calendar 6 6 9 0 Referral 6 6 9 0 Action 6 a 9 0 Item #4, Geothermal Generating Project No. 3 - 6 6 9 0 Resolution Authorizin:J Agreement - Turlock Irrigation; District Item #5, League. of California Cities = Proposed 6 6 9 0 Dues Increase Item #6; Art in Public Places Program a New Acqui- 6 6 9 0 sitions - Resolutions Accepting Art and Expressing Appreciation Item #7, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 6 6 9 1 Recommendation Re New Restrictions Limiting Maximum Height of New Construction on Substandart R-1 Lots to 20 Feet Item #8, Policy: and Procedures Committee Recom- mendation Re Proposed Sidewalk Encroachment and Pushcart Review Criteria and Procedures Recess Item #9, Appeal of Toufic Jisser from the Decision of the Archi tecturel Review Board and the director of Planning and Community Environment to Deny a Sign Exception for the Existing Freestanding Sign at All American Market, 3990 El Camino Real 6 7 0 2 6 7 " 4 6 7 0 6 Item #10, Accounting Services 6 7 0 6 Item #11, Report on City Financial Administration 6 7 0 8 Item #12, Yacht Harbor Closure 6 7 0 8 Item #13, Request of Councilmember Woolley Re His- 6 7 1 6 torical Site Application Adjournment: 11:00 p.m. 6 7 1 6 6 6 8 3 1/06/86 Regular Meeting. January 6, 1986 Tne City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Levy announced that prior to the meeting he called upon City Clerk Gloria Young to swear in Councilmembers Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, and Patitucci, who were elected in the November municipal election. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1985, OCTOBER 1, 1985, OCTOBER 2, 1985, OCTOBER 3, 1985x and OCTOBER 7, 1985 Councilmember Patitucci said he was not on the Council during that period of time so would not participate. Minutes of September 30, 1985 Staff submitted the following correction: Page 6314, fifth paragraph, first line, change "Donald" to "David. -- Page 6317, -last paragraph, line 12, change "meet" to "met"; line 13, should read, "what to review and parenthetically..." Minutes of October 1, 1985 Councilmember Renzel submitted the following corrections: Page 6337, third paragraph, delete the word "principal"; change awarded to "awarder"; and change "the obligations" to "our obli- gations." Pale 6347, second paragraph, second to last line, should read ...new things, they might have done some market studies, and asked if they had any results from that." Page 6355, first paragraph, second line, insert parentheses for phrase "(and there was certainly a 30 percent contingency for financing if needed) ," fourth line, delete "or the number of sub- scribers" and change "or- some oranges" to "or there were some changes." Minutes of October 2, 1985 Councilmember Renzel submitted the following corrections: Fame 6372, last paragraph, second line, change "negotiations" to negotiating." Fourth and fifth lines should read "those nego- tiations by not installing two -way -immediately, but rather the system that you had..." Page 6379, fifth paragraph, second line, "cross-substituty" should read "cross -subsidy." Sixth paragraph, sixth line, insert a period after the word "withdrew. " Next sentence should read "What had.; changed...?" 6 6 8 4 1/06/86 Councilmember Fletcher submitted the following correction: Paye 6374, last parayraph, last line should read "east of Flayshore in Menlo Park." Minutes of October 3, 1985 Councilmember Renzel submitted the following corrections: Page 6392, second to last paragraph, second line, change "begin" to "began"; and end of sentence should be question mark. Paye x;393, third paragraph, last line, change "their" to "your"; Page 6393, fifth paragraph, seventh line should read "parts of the agreements, whkch were legally possible,..." Pdge 6393, seventh paragraph, first sentence, add at the end of sentence "to develop." Page 6393, ninth paragraph, change "preview" to "purview." Page 6401, second paragraph, fourth line, change "commitment" to commitments." Mi nutes of October 7, 1985 Councilmember Renzel submitted the following corrections: Page 6421, first paragraph, 1 ine 21, change "bend" to "gun"; line 25 line should read "...as a result of the staff recommendations for Co-op"; line 28, insert "which had been" before "hammered." Staff submitted the folylowing correction: Page 6426, first paragraph under Oral Communications, line 5, add the word "not" after "did." MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher approval of the Minutes of September 30, 1985, October 1, 1985, October 2 1985, October 3, 1985, and October 7, 1985 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci snot participating." ITEM #1, ELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR (COO 1) Mayor Levy expressed gratitude to his :colleagues for having elected him to the position of Mayor for 1985, which was a transi- tion year for Palo Alto. It W3S a year where the City clearly recognized action was necessary throughout the community if they were to stop a significant change in character, and it led into 1986, where further actions were required of the Council. Previ- ous thinking defined Palo Alto as a community with the Downtown for offices, end other areas for light manufacturing, service, commercie) , etc., but in recent years the City awakened to the realization that Palo Alto was looked upon as an office center.. tor. the Silicon Valley es a whole and, thus, -office buildings- sprung up in al.1 parts of town threatening to overwhelm the careful planning they thought would ensure balance. lri 1985, Council made si yrai ficant strides to redefine the City's commercial and residen- tial holding capacity. They brought the Downtown Study to a cone clusion and would soon act on the. Planring Commisreion recommenda- tions; they were redefining what was .appropriate in terms of -resi- dential size; they completed a new parking structure in the Down- town, and realized the need for more parking to be provided by both the private and public sectors. Additional ly, during 1985, even . tho.ugh they lived in an era of fiscal restraint and had balanced their budgets every -year, Palo Alto was still able to add significantly to their recreational and cultural facilities. They 6 6 8 5 1/06/86 completed a $?,000,000 recreational construction project at Terman Park, and at a time when others were cutting back on library facilities, opened a new and well -received branch,.library. They opened Arastradero Preserve to the public. They approved the con- cept of a Garden Center on the Gamble property; and, under the aegis of the Visual Arts Jury, completed a municipal arts plan for the City, installed banners City-wide during the holiday season, and acquired many well executed and provocative works of art for the City's collection. The Visual Arts Jury tolerated controversy in its art acquisitions and worked with the community as a whole the result of which was stimulating art works to add a delightful, dimension to Palo Alto. In 1985 Council awarded a cable tel evi sion franchise; hosted the Super Bowl and received plaudits for the careful planning of it staff and police; and,, l ikewi se, the City's Fire Department was commended foe the excellent handling of the Arastradero fire. He thanked Mr. Zaner, Ms. Fleming, Ms. Lee, Mr. Northrup, -and Ms. Young for their help and work the past year and, through them, he reiterated his appreciation for the high level of service performed by all employees of the City. He espe- cially thanked those residents who served on volunteer City com- missions, boards, and committees during the year. It was said many times, and remained true, Palo -Alto was a special: place to live and work. He thanked Councilmembers Bechtel and Woolley who served as Chairpersons of the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Com- mittee and -the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee, the two most important committees, and Vice Mayor Cobb for his work during the past year. He intended to vote fur Vice Mayor Cobb for Mayor. RESULTS OF FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR MAYOR City Clerk Gloria Young announced the- results of the first round of voting: Voting,. for Cobb: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel , Sutori us , Woolley Ms. Young announced Vice Mayor Cobb received nine votes and wes unanimously elected Mayor. Mayor Cobh referred to Mayor Levy's remarks and agreed 1985 was a significant year for Palc Alto with some important and difficult issues. As Mayor, Le Levy worked hard and smoothly steered the City through some tough problems _with his usual good grace and humor. He asked all to join him in a round of applause for a job well done. Mayor Cobb grew up in town, and said it was a privilege and honor for anyone to serve as Mayor of Palo Alto. .It was an extra- ordi- nary City, and since he went back some 40 years in Palo Alto, he was particularly grateful to his colleagues for affording the privilege to him. He thanked his family who put up with all the time and energy that went into it, and was especially grateful to his mother. As he looked forward to 1986, he promised to-do his best to treat his colleagues and the public with complete fair- ness; and, as Mayor, he promised to remember he represented and spoke for nine Counc ilrnembers. He requested his col leagues coop- eration in making a concerted effort to be as businesslike and decisive as possible, to get to their decisions more quickly. to get home earlier An the evening, and to see how crisp and effi- cient they could?.. be in getting the public's business done. He believed the public, Council and stuff would appreciate it. To that end, he would make a real effort ;o keep the City Council meetings moving and preferred to fall in the direction of pushing Council -too hard rather than not enough. If he pushed any of his colleagues during the meeting, it was nothing personal because he respected- ail of them, but rather it was in an_effort -to get Council's business done in -the most efficient manner possible. The beginning of the year seemed to be relatively quiet in the sense there were no monster issues like cable television, and he 6 6 8 6 1/06186 hoped Council would take advantage of it by spending a little time thinking about what Palo Alto would be like in the next 10 or 20 years. The next century was only 14 years away and the actions Council took then would shape what the City looked like at the beginning of the century. Hn believed they would all ►benefit from taking time to' think of the long-term. Councilmember Sutorius commented on his choice for Vice Mayor. He had the privilege and pleasure of serving under two Vice Mayors, first Le Levy and then Mike Cobb, and he was in the audience over the years and watched Ellen Fletcher perform as Vice Mayor; Anne Witherspoon, who Council would honor later that evening; and Betsy Bechtel. He intended to vote for Gail Woolley for Vice Mayor and encouraged his colleagues to consider her qualifications: her performance as a Councilmember, her service on the F,&PW Committee, her service as Chair of the P&P Committee, the fact that she had the energy, ability, and the time to perform the role well ; and could keep Mayor Cobb in line. Councilmember Levy also supported Councilmember Woolley for Vice Mayor. She served in an outstanding fashion as Chairperson of the P&P Committee during the past year and had always been a thorough and thoughtful member of the Council. She was a capable Vice Mayor. RESULT OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR VICE MAYOR City Clerk Gloria Young announced the results of the first round of voti ny : Voting for Woolley: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitecci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Ms. Young said Councilmember Woolley received nine votes and was unanimously elected Vice Mayor. uce mayor Woolley said they all considered it an honor to be . able to serve on the Palo Alto City Council, and bring Vice Mayor made it a little more special. She thanked her colleagues for their support. ITEM i#2, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ANNE R. WITHERSPOON (COU 2-2-8) 1 Mayor Cobb said it was a special privilege for him because one of his first activities in Palo Alto many moons ago was to help in a very small way in one of Anne Witherspoon's campaigns "for Council. It was the the Council's privilege that evening to honor Anne Witherspoon for her ten years of service on the. Council. Anne Witherspoon served the City of Palo Alto as Councilmember from July 1, 1975 to November 20, 1985, and in 1983, she served as Vice Mayor, served seven terms on the Policy and Procedures Committee, four terms on the Finance and Public Works Committee, and was Chair of that Committee in 1982-83. During her service on the Palo Alto City Council, she represented the City of Palo Alto at numerous local, state, and regional agencies, including City/ School Liaison Committee, - Santa Clara Valley Water Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water District Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisor, Committee, Emergency Medical Care Committee, Senior Coordinating Council, and Palo Alto Community Child Care. In all aspects of her service, .Councilmember Witherspoon gave unselfishly of her tTime and talents and provided effective and dedicated lead- shi p on behalf of the total . community, and through her efforts and contributions the City enhanced its position of eminence in responding to the needs and desires .of its citizens. The City desired to .recognize Anne _Witherspoon's dedicated and meritorious service, and the Council recognized the outstanding, dedicated public service of Anne Witherspoon, and recorded its .appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the .citizens of the community for her many contributions during her term on the Council. 5 5 8 7 "1/06/86 MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Levy to approve the Resol ut i ou of -Appreciation to Anne R. Witherspoon. RESOLUTION 6456 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO COMMENDING THE OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE OF ANNE R. WITHERSPOON AS COUNCILMEMBER AND VICE MAYOR" MOTION PASSED unanimously. Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma Street, congratulated Mayor Cobb and Vice Mayor Woolley. He came to say a few words of tribute to Anne Witherspoon upon the presentation of the City's resolution of appreciation. She served Palo Alto with an indepth understanding of the City which carne from a diversified background. She was a long-time resident and homeowner, had three children in the local schools, was familiar with the electronic business through her nusban.i.' s work, had familiarity with Stanford through her work at the hos;ita.l , and was the owner of a small independent business in Downtown Palo Alto. She was active in City issues from the early 197O's, which. was when her time in politics evolved. Because of her varied background, she was astute in her decisions while serving ten and one-half years on the Council , which was the longest period of anyone on the Council then, and the City would lose a lot of expertise when she left. She served with five dif- ferent Councils, two City Managers, two City Clerks, and three City Attorneys. He always appreciated her expertise and thorough- ness in land use planning and financial issues. Anne always com- municated with the residents, staff, and the Council and was fair in her dealings. Some of the issues in which Anne had high interest and heavy impact included in the early 1970's a success- ful referendum of a mandatory housing rehabilitation ordinance; the closing of massage parlors, and if anyone remembered that far back, it was a big issue with the Council ; the development and completion of the City Comprehensive Plan, and she continued to work on updating it during her term on the Council; the trimming of the City budget prior to Proposition 13 which showed her aware- ness of the need to trim the fat even before the State` voters did; settlement of the Arastra case and the closing of other Foothill land use litigation; the successful hiring of competent Council - appointed officers; and, last but not least, she had a heavy impact on getting Gary Fazzino to run for the City Council . They would miss her expertise and remarkable ability to cut the foe from any issue. He thanked her fer her years of excellent service and wished her well in the future. Mayor Cobb presented Anne Witherspoon with the framing of her nameplate from the Council Chambers, the picture from the hall which she would have to put in her own hall, a framed resolution of appreciation, area a beautiful plaque, which said, "Presented to Anne litherspoon in recognition and appreciation of her. out- standing service as a City Councilmember," acid listed the dates, and Vice Mayor 1983, signed by Mayor Levy and dated December 23 for the Council. She did a wonderful job for the Council and they would miss her. Ms. Witherspoon said unaccustomed as she was to public speaking as a civilian, she would keep it brief because she heard what Mayor Cobb said about expediting business and did not want to break his perfect record so far as Mayor. She really looked on her plaque and resolution of appreciation as a diploma because her ten years on the Council were an incredible education. She learned a great deal from her fellow Councilmembers, probably learned even more from the staff, and, . most valuable of all. she learned from the community, which wa; aaemarkabl e. The people in Palo Alto were remarkable. She was struck as Mr. Eyerly reminded them of the massage parlors, and she thought of a few other controversial issues, and the striking difference between that evening and the Monday night they took office in 1975. They y were hung in effigy during the recess, and things were really pretty wild. She 6 6 8 8 1/06/86 conyratulated those elected in the November municipal election and said the ambiance of the Council and the City was much better than it was for many years. She hoped it would continue. Council would have a lot more,success resolving some of the issues coming down the road. She resisted the impulse to spend 20 minutes telling Council what not to forget, but did urge them to keep their eye on the sales tax. She thanked the Council for her priv- ilege as a retired City employee to have a free dump pass for the rest of her life. ITEM #3, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JACK TAYLOR (.PER 4-2) Mayor Cobb said Council had one more happy duty to perform which was a resolution of appreciation to Jack Taylor upon his retire- ment. Jack Taylor served the City of Palo Alto for 37 years pri- marily as the Chief Electrical Engineer for the Utilities Depart- ment; pursued his duties with enthusiasm, diligence, competence, thoroughness, and an excellent sense of diplomacy and willingness to respond to public need. He had a major role in the growth of the Electric Uepartment while the electric . demand grew from 8 megawatts in 1949 to 181 megawatts in 1985, a growth of 2,300 percent while the City's population only doubled. He was active as the City's representative -of the Western Utility Electric Service Standardization Committee, was a member of the Western Underground Committee, a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, and an active pilot in the business of the City. Through his admirable efforts, the City grew from the "bare -bulb" street light to the present lighting system, instituted develop- ment of loop detectors for traffic signals, and implemented its underyrounding program. Chief Electrical Engineer Jack Taylor retired on December 30. 1985, and the Council of the City of Palo Alto gratefully recorded its appreciation and that of the citizens of the community for the laudable services rendered to the City and extended to Jack Taylor its sincere appreciation and best wi shes for a healthy and ful fi 11 ing future, POTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the resolution of appreciation to Jack Taylor. RESOLUTION 6457 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JACK TAYLOR UPON HIS RETIREMENT" MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor Cobb noted Jack Taylor was the pilot in whose hands he and Councilmember Sutorius put ;;heir lives many times, and Mr. Taylor let hint ride copilot many times which he thoroughly enjoyed. He presented the framed resolution to Mr. Taylor. Chief Electrical Engineer Jack Taylor said he enjoyed the posi- tion and working for the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto was good to him and he considered the Council as friends. The Council was also good to staff. He believed an electric utility existed for the purpose of serving. They tried to do that, and he was sure his successor -would carry on the tr adi.t on in good shape. Mayor Cobb thanked Jack's wife, and thanked her on behalf of the Council for allowing the City to make use .of his services for all ..those years. City Manager Bill Zaner said it would be a tragedy if the City did not publicly acknowledge the service Jack Taylor gave to the City. To yive an example of the awe in which the City held nim, his replacement was hied almost a year in advance. They believed it would take that lony working along with Jack to figure out what the system looked like, how it worked, and to get all the informa- tion possible from Jack's background. He knew Councilmembers had an opportunity to work with him, but did not think the public realized the valuable asset he was to the City. They would miss 6 6 8 9 1/06/86 nim sorely. The City was going to have an extra celebration for him the following week, and he hoped all the counc ilmemembers would be able to attend. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Counciluember Klein "oved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM #4, GEOTHERMAL GENERATING PROJECT NO. 3 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT - TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT (UTI 3-1) (CMR:115:6) Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution approving and authorizing execution of the agreement between Turlock Irrigation District and the City of Palo Alto. RESOLUTION -6458 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF M( AGREEMENT WITH TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT REGARDING TRANSFER OF THE CITY'S REMAINING SHARE OF NCPA GEOTHERMAL GENERATING PROJECT NO. 3" ITEM #5, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - PROPOSED DOES INCREASE LEG 3-2) (CMR:114:6) Staff recommends the Council authorize the City's representative at the Peninsula Division meeting to cast a . vote in favor of ratifying the six percent dues increase authorized by the League Board of Directors. ITEM #6, ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM - NEW ACgUISITIUNS RESOLUTIONS ACCEPTING ART AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION (HCA 2-3-1) (CMR' 116:6) Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolutions which accept each named work of art and expresses appreciation to the artists and gallery owners for their contributions of art to the City of Palo Alto's Visual Art Permanent Collection. RESOLUTION 6459 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 1HE E TY dF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM NATHAN Oi. I VE IRA" RESOLUTION 6460 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF H LO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM ARNALDO POW, -.IRO" RESOLUTION 6461 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE at, OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM MARGUERITE SAEGESSER" RESOLUTION 6462 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Tile CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM MR. AND MILS. PHILLIP N. KIRKEGY" RESOLUTION 6463 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF nrimnrimr-nte ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM SEA WAX" RESOLUTION 6464 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Tia CITY OF. PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM RAFFAELLO DVORAK' 6 6 9 0 1/06/86 MOTION CONTINUED RESOLUTION 6465 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THt CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM RICHARD SHAFFER* RESOLUTION 6466 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 6F PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM CAROLYN HOFSTETTER" RESOLUTION 6467 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM DAVID IZU" RESOLUTION 6468 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM GERTRUDE BLEIBER6" RESOLUTION 6469 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ,CITY Of PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM MARY CHOMENKO" RESOLUTION 6470 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM LYNN POLLOCK MARSH" - RESOLUTION 6471 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM ADELE SELTZER` RESOLUTION 6472 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TKE CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM KEITH BOYLE" RESOLUTION 6473 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF far CITY O!PAiO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM LEE MICHAEL ALTMAN" RESOLUTION 6474 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM KATHERINE S. BAZAK" RESOLUTION 6475 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE 1TY Of PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A WORK OF ART FROM MR. AND MRS. BYRON SHER" Mayor Cobb noted the last-named piece of art was displayed in the back of the Council Chambers. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #7, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION •RECOMMENDATION NEW RESTRICTIONS LIMITING MAX M M H I E N W NS RU H SUBSfANDARi? It- L T TO 20 FEET (PIA 3-B1 (CMR: 110:6) Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh said the Planning Commission reviewed the recommended ordinance regarding development of homes on substandard lots in December, and voted unanimously to recom- mend a height limitation of 20 feet for homes on those lots. The Commission believed the limitation was in the best interests of the developer, .the homeowner of the suo t ndard lot, and the adjoining neighbors in terms Of privacy. The Commission al so recommended a change in the City Council recommended ordinance to exclude the portion of the ordinance which limited construction of those homes to one floor- of habitable area. The Commission made the particular recommendation to Council- -for three reasons. First, the Commission believed the 20 -foot height_ i imitation alone placed a severe restriction on construction on substandard lots. A — family 1y building a home on such a lot wouid be confined to a RL 6 6 9 1 1/06/86 contained building volume precisely define; by setbacks, the day- light pl aoe which was particularly effective on such lots, height, and site coverage. A further limitation on habitable floor space within the already defined volume was unnecessary. It also sug- gested a oew building restriction upon substandard lots which was not imposed in any similar manner on any_other single family lot. Second, the portion of the ordinance might inhibit imaginative use of substandard lots. The restrictions already suggested made home construction difficult. The options available to an architect and suggested by the 20 -foot height limit, such as lofts and mezza- nines, should be encouraged and not prohibited. Finally, the por- tion of the ordinance might be particularly difficult to enforce and probably encouraged homeowners to renovate their homes in an underground, illegal manner. The Commission preferred to insti- tute an ordinance with a more reasonable possibility of compliance and believed the\`20-foot height limit satisfied it. Co unc i l member Levy understood, based on all the zoning elements appl icabl e to the envelope for substandard lots, a second story on a substandard lot was no closer to its neighbor than a second story on a regular lot. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said that was true. Councilmember Fletcher referred to the Planning Commission minutes and said there was a comment from staff that if the structures were not limited to one story, the City would get a box -like, flat roof building. She asked if there was something Council could do to put a daylight plane, or maybe it could be called something else, to require tapering off or the roof. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said Council could institute a more stringent daylight plane requirement than what it presently had for the R-1 zone. He suggested making the ordinance as simple and uniform as possible so staff would not have a wide variety of day- light plane ordinances to describe for R-1 zones. Councilmcmber Fletcher asked if the the present dayl ight plane prevented flat roofs. Mr. Brown said no. The present dayl ight plane ordinance with a standard six-foot setback allowed a building wall height of 18 feet at the setback 1 ine; so, with the 20 -foot height limit, it could be achieved by being eight -feet away from the property line. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to the grandfather clause, find clari- fied the way the ordinance was presented, an existing building which burned, but did not conform could not be rebuilt. Mr. Brown said that was correct, and he believed City Attorney Diane Lee had broader language for a grandfather clause which allowed for reconstruction if destroyed by natural cauises. Counciimember Bechtel queried if one had a one-story house each tioor could take 10 ti3 12 feet, and so one could reasonably get'a two—story with 20 feet if it were flat.. Mr. Brown said yes. C;uncilmember Renzel referred to the permits which went through the Planning Department, and asked if Council allowed a second story within the 20 feet, whether they were apt to see more boxy - type buildings with an unlimited 20 feet. Mr. Brown believed the answer was yes. Based on plans seen for new single-family homes and additions, the tendency was towards maximizing the development potential in the building envelope. 1/06/86 Ascorrected 2/10/86 Mayor Cobb decl ared the public hearing open. Colin Mick, 2130 Hanover Street, lived .n College Terrace, which neighborhood °,ras a strong advocate of restricting development of substandard lots. He favored the ori.yinal, resolution essentially limiting development to one story on substandard lots. The logic behind the one-story limitation was not to stop people from building two stories, but rather to buck two-story developments over to a variance process to ensure more neighborhood input into the process and to allow the builder and neighborhood essentially to reach some kind of agreement ovete what the house might look like. College Terrace had many lots which could be subdividek into 25 -foot wide lots, and the issue was not the development of a single lot, but rather two substandard lots next to each other., or three or four. Setting a 20 -foot height limit was not a bad solu- tion if faced with only a single substandard lot on a block, but Col l ege -Terrace did not have that luxury. Something like 30 per- cent of the lots were comprised of assembled 25 -foot lots; and, therefore, they were vulnerable to a sea of two-story, blocky -type houses with people trying to get the maximum amount of money out of the dwelling. He stronyly recommended a one-story height lim- itation on substandard lots and for a more aggressive variance notification process including posting on the lot thee -fact there would be a variance hearing , on it so people who walked. by and were offended could see what happened. He believed the current vari- ance notification process was primarily mailing to people, and mailings went ascray, but a notification posted 'on the lot one to two weeks in advance and maintained there was probably more effec- tive in developing neighborhood input than the mailings. Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, said for the past two to three years they were in contact with the owner of the substandard lot behind his lot as wel? as four or five other neighbors directly, and three other lots across the creek from the substandard lot about which they had talked to the City and the past owners. All of therm; went through a lot of agony and grief of about what would happen with the lot, . He encourayed Council to pin down the ordi- nance such that everyone knew exactly what could happen on a sub- s::andard lot and there would be no doubt. In the past, they never quite knew what would happen. There might be a variance, but they had to talk to the Planning Commission or City Council and it got confusing. He pointed out substandard lots were, in effect, a form of variance in themselves; they were smaller than standard lots and, as such, should be treated differently, A substandard flag lot had more impact than a eiubstandard lot whi_h faced a street. It had the potential of impacting twice the number of homes or lots than a regular substandard let facing the street. He urged on at least substandard flay lots, the ordinance be writ- ten as originally voted on by the City Council ; that construction be ,l imited in new construction to one-story in height, one-story habitable space 20 feet in height, and that no variances be granted. Councilmember Sutorius noted in Mr. Kohl er' s commentary before the Planning Commission, he made no comment on the suggestion re- garding approaching the dayl ght plane a little differently than at present. He asked why. Mr. Kohler believed he was a little . confused at the time. He bel ieved the comments about the daylight plane, or the building of continuous two-story walls was pretty much settled. If it was not the case, he still advocated some form of limiting two-story con- struction in all lots everywhere whether 'substandard or standard. Two-story walls and a variation of the roof lines should be built into a zoniny ordinance. In fact, the 1,000 foot floor area ratio (FAR) had no bearing on the impact of the bulk of a home. He believed the City would soon see many barn -like structures built out to the daylight plane with the back half - a loft and the front hall two-story spaces. Therefore, the bulk of a new house was not affected at all by the FAR of 1,000 square feet. 6 6 9 3 1/06/86 Counci1membcr Sutorius asked if Mr. Kohler still advocated processes that investiyated the dayl iyht plane in some fashion. Bi 1 1 Armstrong, 363 Whi tcl em Place, said his house backed up to the lot next to Mr. Kohl er' s house. He supported the ordinance, but did not support allowiny variances for the second story. Variences bothered him, particularly on substandard lots. In the Case of 4293 Wilkie Way, the variance procedure in 1984 was only a formality to give the builder exactly what he wanted. The unani- mous opposition of the. surrounding 28 neighbors seemed to mean nothing until they appealed and the Planning Commission agreed with them. What prevented_ it from happening again. They .would be back to square one. After all they went through for three years, he wanted to believe he heard wrong, but within the last month Mr. Fleming and Mr. Kohler told him under the proposed ordinance, the Zoning Administrator would have no difficulty granting Mr. Fleming a variance. What was the point of even sending out notices if the outcome was decided before the variance was even appl ied for. If all the restrictions they strove for on substandard lots could be overturned arbitrarily by one individual just as before, the new restrictions were as meaningless as the old restrictions. He urged Council to vote to keep the original one-story concept and not allow variances at least on sr'.bstandard flay lots. Michael Fleming, b76 Maybeil, was a builder in Palo Alto and the owner of 4293 Wi l kie Way. He clarified Mr. Brown told him if his property met the grounds set forth for variances, there was a basis for granting the variance. The issue before Council was the massiveness of developments on single-family parcels deemed. to be substandard in relation to surrounding neighborhoods. The same issoe was before Council reyarding school properties soon to be offered for sale. In that case, it was deemed necessary to alter the size of the building envelope to reduce the size of the houses. The solution, which Council approved, reduced the size of the mass of the houses. The recommendations before Council that evening were meant to accomplish the same goal for Substandard lots. He hoped the City Council accomplished the goal without making inequitabEe property rights for owners of substandard or standard lots. The privacy issue to support a iimitat=on on second stories of substandard lots held no merit. The impact of a second's story built on,a substandard lot was exactly the same on a neighbor as a second story bu 1 t on a standard lot. If it was true, all neighbors of those properties should have the -right to have a say in what the structure looked like on their neighbor's property, and there had to be equity for both owners. If Council wanted to reduce the massiveness of the houses on substandard lots, they needed to deal with the building envelope. .,These should not be a design review ir: place for it; or if there was, it should be just a design review, and he questioned whether the variance process was set up to do that. It was a process where a standard was set and there were exceptions to it. He queried the standard in terms of substandard lots. What was the exception to the standard. If there was an ordinance such that all substandard lots could not have second stories and he owned a substandard lot, what was his exception. In the case of his own property, the limitation of not being able to have a second story on, the lot limited the building .space because of parking and setbacks to 300 to 400 square feet. How many could find room in their house with 300 to 400. square feet to have themselves, their children, a spouse, and other living quarters. With a 20 -foot height limita- tion, he believed there was a possibility, if they used the same FAR concepts, they would influe,tce the massiveness of the house. Through a combination of those with A daylight plane, they could do it, but the variance process as suggest_=d. in the staff recom- mendation was inequitable. dob Moss, 4010 ©rme, congratulated Mayor Cobb and Vice Mayor Woolley. He . spoke as Chairman of the Land Use and Zoning Committee for the Barron Park Association (BPA). The BPA believed substandard lots were different in nature and character from 6 6 9 4 1/06/86 t-,4aridard lots and presented a different ci ass of problems in terms of the building envelope and their impact on the neiyhbors, anti requi red different treatment in developing the 1 ots. The BPA urged Council adopt regulations similar, if not identical, to those in the proposed ordinance. Until Council was willing to apply an FAR to all residential lots in the City not just multi - lot subdivisions, they would have the same problems. One possible approach to limiting the bulk of the building without excessive limitation on living space was to limit it to one habitable floor above the natural grade. For example, if one took the maximum substandard lots in an R-1 neighborhood, 6,000 square feet, -83 percent was a 4,980 square foot lot, which allowed a house of 1,743 square feet to be built at the 0.35 lot coverage, currently allowed by the ordinance, which was one habitable floor. Allowing below -grade development permitted development of over 3,400 square feet, which was a substantial house. It was expensive, but if people wanted to build a bi-level, part of it below grade, they could do so. In terms of other limitations, he believed it was too difficult and time consuming for the Council and staff to come, up with adjustments to the daylight p1 ane and setbacks for every conceivable type of zone or substandard type of lot within zones. He agreed with staff to keep it simple; and, therefore, the type of ordinance before Council was the best approach and he urged Counc i 1 support. Larick Hill , 780 Palo Alto Avenue, said his neighborhood was entirely substandard lots. The neighborhood was one and two-story residences and density was never a problem. Being an architect and having dealt with the variance process, when one appl ied for a variance, it could always be appealed. It was a huge cycle that seemed to be never ending. It was unfair to the City staff, Council , and the property owners to put ;everybody through the pro- cess. The issue was not one or two stories, it, was bulk.' He believed the ordinance adopted earlier concerning the new school sites limiting the FAR was a reasonable way to look at the prob- lem, basing the Si ze of the house proportion to the si ze of the lot. As the lot got smal 1 e, , the house proportional ly got smaller. It made sense to him and solved much of the problem. On substandard lots perhaps the exception for 400 square feet for a garage was too great, and perhaps an exception area of only 200 square feet should be allowed. He bel ieved the 20 -foot 1 id would backfire. He saw 20 -foot flat boxes and, as a designer, it was what they tried to get away from for a long time. Slope roofs tended to minimize the impact of the house. They softened the effect for the neighbors, and by putting a 20 -foot lid on it, it took slope roofs away. He bel ieved it would be a disaster. Council could lower the dayl ight plane on substandard lots from the starting point of 12 feet for a standard lot down to 10 feet on a substandard lot, which also minimized the envelope and accom- plished what Council was trying to achieve. He hoped I Council would consider the alternatives and end up with a direct,. under- standable process appl i.ed City-wide, so people knew what they were getting when they stepped in, and it achieved the goal of reducing the visual impact of the h:luses to the street and the neighbors. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmeaber Reniel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt tl a staff recommendation taeposing d 20 -foot height limit and limiting construction to single story unless a variance is o:- ta.ined. + IDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled _sORDINANC: OF THE tallai777-11417—Mir—OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) TO RZGULATE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS" 6 6 9 5 1/06/86 Councilmember Kenzel was not sanguine about the 20 feet. She did not know if staff could estimate how tall the dr=aper=ies were in the Counc 11 Chambers, but she bel ieved they were probably about 2.4 feet. With a two- story house, they were talking about eight feet from the property line, which was permitted under the dayl fight plane, so it was still a big pi ace. She was not- thrilled with it, but it was thrashed through and it was what the public seemed to he satisfied with. Unless Council put the second story 1 imitation in the ordinance, she bel ieved architects would maximize their space by building two-story boxes, which was not what Council or the neighbors wanted to see. With the one-story limitation, the same box could still be built, but habitable space in the second part of the box would not be allowed without a variance. She bel ieved the regul atlon would result in a single -story with a peaked -roof or appl ication for a variance to build habitable space on a second story, which then allowed a public process whereby there was some fairness to adjacent neighbors where there were substandard lots. She urged her colleagues to support the staff recommendation. Counc i lmember Klein intended to support the motion. He knew Vice Mayor Wool 1 ey had some additional language to propose in due course which was helpful to show Council's intent was to regard it as a flexible process whereby if it worked out and the second habitabl a floor made sense under the variance process, then it would be allowed. He wanted to preserve the flexibility and did not want to have an absolute rule as proposed by the PI anning Commission. He appreciated Pam Marsh's cogent remarks, but it seemed to him the Planning Commission spoke as if the alternative was a fl at -out prohibition of second floors with no possibility of a variance, which was not what he intended. He wanted to look at the possibility of second floors. He did not want an absolute prohi biti on because he bel ieved Counc i1 wanted to encourage peopl e to build on those lots. Substandard lots presented unique prob- lems. The parallel between substandard lots and the school dis- trict's surplus school sites which Council had discussed the past two months, were different situations. The difference to him was substandard lots came in a variety and had more problems by the fact they were suthstL ndard. They coul d be substandard in a variety of different ways aee degrees, and because of the variety, Council had to treat them in a different way and with a lot of flexibility. One possibility for fl exibil ity was for staff to hear the issue with regard to a variance. He knew people always complained the variance process did not give people enough notice, One of the prices of a system such as theirs was people had to pay attention. The City presently had an elaborate notification pro- cess, and if people did not read their mail or look when a lot was posted, etc,, there were problems, but the City could only do as well as they could. The variance process would be a fair one. On behalf of Mr. Brown, he did not believe for a moment Mr. Brown prejudged any case which eight go before him. It was just not the way the ' City staff handled things. He did not know whether a variance would succeed, it depended on how it worked out. He intended to support the motion, and when Vice Mayor Woolley intro- duced the amendment, he al so intended to support it.. Council member Bechtel said after reading the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission minutes, she was persuaded to support the staff recommendation, She commented about the member of the publ is who asked about the Difference between a second story on a standard lot as opposed to a substandard lot in terms of impact on the neighbors. There was definitely a difference because on a substandard lot, the builder or homeowner was more likely to build to the max imuni allowed because they had a smaller amount to play with. On a standard lot;, one was more 1 ikely ,.to have a greater setback than required, and it made sense to have the one-story l irritation as proposed by staff a al so allowing the opportunity for review and possibi1 ity of a variance. 6 6 9-6 1/06/80 i 1 Vice Mayor Woolley said when she read the staff report, she was pleased with the idea of can opportunity for d var idnce process because she believed design was always the key. It was not usually possible with R-1 to have a review process,= ►o it was left to a matter of dirnensicas. -On the other hand, whe- she read the ordinance, it sounded dS if the intent was to prohibit second stories. She called staff for clarification, and was assured the intent was to provide a review process before a second story was approved. AMENDMENT. Vice Mayor Woolley eoved,\seconded by Klein, to add a fourth Whereas to read, "Whereas the intent of the City Council is not to prohibit second stories, but to provide for a review process pursuant to other provisions of the Code to evaluate the impact of the second story on neighboring properties.4 Councilmember Levy asked for clarification on what it meant to "evaluate the impact." Vice Mayor Woolley referred to the Planning Commission minutes. She said there was no blanket opposition to second stories; there was simply a belief that with a 25- or 30 -foot lot, they needed to be more sensitive to the placement of the windows and gables, etc. What she meant by "impact" was both from the standpoint of bulk and of privacy. She deliberately used a vague word because she did not want to tie it down to any one factor to be evaluated. Councilmember Levy said there were two elements by which Council evaluated "impact." One was architecture so the variance became an architectural review, and the second was privacy. Would the privacy standard be the same standard as used for a standard lot or would there be a more rigorous standard of privacy from the substandard lot. Vice Mayor Woolley said it was not clearly stated, and she be- lieved it was the point of having the review because if Council could set up some clear standards, then it was the preferable way to go. Since substandard lots varied so much, see bel ieved staff's idea was for Council to provide a review process rather than set parameters. Councilmember Levy appreciated the extra ':Whereas" because he sympathized more with the Planning Commission recommendation than with the staff recommendation for the reasons Commissioner Marsh indicated. Regarding the impact on privacy, it was the first time the question was raised since the restrictions on a substandard lot which were developed by a 20 -foot height limitation and pro- vided the same level of privacy on a substandard lot as `the City had on a standard lot. Therefore, if Council evaluated the impact, it appeared they were going to have a more rigorous stand- ard for the substandard _ lot than the standard lot, which seemed unfair. The next question was the impact in terms of architec- tural standard, which was the fundamental reason Councilmember Fenzel stated when she'originally made the motion. As she pointed out, Council was concerned they would have boxes on substandard lots; and, from an architectural standpoint, Council was uncom- fortable with it, He asked for staff's input in terms of the variance procedure as a way of evaluating the architecture or the boxiness of the substandard lot. Mr. Brown would not characterize the opportunity of a -_variance process as having an architectural review of structures. The third finding in the variance process was one of detriment to surrounding properties, which finding allowed the City to have a design review. At that point, staff looked at the impacts of mass and bulk of a home, and al so privacy impacts on adjoining resi- dences, but not so much an architectural review where the specific design and style of a home was under discretionary review. 6 6 9 7 1/06/86 Cuurrcilmernber Levy asked if staff's standard for privacy would be more rigorous for the sutistandard lot than the standard lot. Mr. Brown said it was difficult to answer. Even in the case of standard lots where there was an application for a variance, staff performed a design review function which looked at privacy impacts on adjoining properties. Councilmember Sutorius believed Council was dealing with a vari- ance to which there were three conditions associated, and it did not matter whether it was a substandard or a standard lot. The rules did not change because they did not have the authority to do so in terms ,of how variances were administered. He wrestled with the subject and found merit in several conflicting points raised by the Planning Commission, staff, individual members of the pub- lic who spoke, and from his colleagues. He favored approaches which utilized FAR, dayl ight plane, and setbacks in addition to the site area coverage and other constraints involved in any zoning. He believed it was possible to come up with a matrix approach which improved how to deal with some of the problem sit- uations increasingly encountered, but did not believe it was Council's job to design it. He respected the del iberation the Plannincy Commission gave to the issue but supported the motion as made and amended. It did not shut the door on further review of how to approach the subject, and rather that all Councilmembers, members of the public, and: interested parties had the opportunity to recommend zoning changes for consideration during the current year review. He supported what was being oroposed and accepted the fact he had an opportunity to propose other changes in an orderly process. Councilmember Renzel also supported the amendment, and assumed it did not preclude the Loniny Administrator from nut granting a variance if he could not make th'e findings with respect to a second story. Just because Council did not intend to preclude then. did not mean the Zoning Administrator might not preclude therm if the appropriate fi nd ices could not be made. She asked if that was staff's understanding of the amendment. Mr. Brown said it was the case in all variance procedures. Councilmember Renzel said years ago the City had a single story rule at six feet from the property line, and the second story could only go up nine feet from the property line. As a result of some variance requests and the daylight plane, Council changed it and presently, because the dayl ight plane was raised, people could built; two full stories six feet from the property line, which was a tall building to have six feet from your property line. Historically people had not built as such, but were starting to do so. Economics of land use meant if people bel ieved they could do it, they paid a high price and expected to be able to do it. Therefore_ , Council might end up having to address the issue again as more cases and problems occurred, but in the mean- time, the amendment was probably the best Council could do. She supported the amendment. Councilmember Fletcher believed she scenario Councilmember Renzel raised was more likely to happen on substandard lots because of the confined area. She was comfortable with the variance feature of the main motion because it allowed for flexibility, and as men- tione .. by a member of the public, flag lots deserved extra special sensitive treatment. The variance procedure took care of any spe- cial problems in specific cases. Councilmember Patitucci said. it appeared Council was unclear about what it was trying to accomplish. He did not agree with Council- member-Sutorius that because it was on the agenda Council had to vote on it. If Council was unable to embrace a solution to the fairly difficult problem, they should not go ahead with the solu- tion. He asked staff how many properties in that category might be expected to request a variance. 6 6 g 8 1/06/86 i 1 Mr. Brown said it was difficult to say, but probably 60 to 75 percent of the variances issued were for substandard lots in one way or another. Councilmember Patitucci said there was a high probability given the economics of owning the lots and what people wanted to ao on them, every single one to be developed would go before the Zoning Administrator and there would basically be an administrative/ political procedure in approving each one. He asked if that was where they were headed. It seemed to him a variance, by its defi- nition, was an exception process which one preferred to encounter rarely if people followe' the rules, and building it in as a man- agement process was a mistake. Council was basically saying every substandard property would end up on the Zoning Administrator's desk and probably eventually at the City Council, and he could not see approving that process. If Council was unhappy with the 20 - foot limit, it should be referred back to the Planning Commission. Council should be more clear on what it was trying to accomplish and let the Planning Commission deal with the issue in more depth than they could at the Council level. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to refer back to the Planning Commission for further study. Councilmember Levy seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. It was a little too vague as it presently stood, but the direction was appropriate. Council was 1Qokin9 for the Planning Commission to review three elements: FAR; setbacks; and height restriction. He believed the height restriction was essentially appropriate; there should be a 20 -foot or some kind of height restriction more restrictive than in a standard lot. If they had a combination of side lot setback, FAR, and height restriction, then there was far less need for the variance pro ess. If the maker of the referral motion consented, he wanted the -Planning Commission to consider an appropriate combination of setback, FAR, and height restriction for substandard lots. MAKER AND SECOND OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AN APPROPRIATE COMBINATION OF SETBACK, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND HEIGHT RESTRICTION Councilmember Patitucci asked for clarification. He recalled it was not within the purview of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to review single-family residential properties, so they were talking about zoniny kinds of restrictions as opposed to adminis- trative or committee review procedures. It was not part of the process to have ARB involved, so he queried whether Council should also consider the possibility of a different type of review process than the variance. Mayor Cobb believed Councilmember Patitucci's interpretation was correct. He asked whether he wanted to include ARB review as part of the substitute motion. Councilmember Patitucci .asked whether the ARB, by its charter, was reste4 rted from looking at aingle-fancily residential properties. If Council involved the ARB, would it be a major change in the administrative procedure. City Attorney Diane Lee clarified the current ARB ordinance did not provide for review by the ARB of single-family developments. Councilmember Patitucci clarified the ordinance could be modi- fied. Ms. Lee said yes. 6 6 9 9 1/06/86 Council. member Levy said he ran some of the numbers through to see what size house they would have, and assuming the substandard lot was 4,000 square feet --he understood the maximum substandard lot was 5,000 --and if they were limited to single -story coverage, it was 1,400 square feet. A tiro -car garage was 400 square feet, so they were limiting themselves to a house of 1,000 square feet, which was a small house. The house would probably not be condu- cive to a family with children, which was something he wanted to encourage in all construction. Therefore, the 1,000 square foot limitation automatically provided an incentive to the builder to try to yet a variance. The builder was then into the variance process which had the unintended circumstance of adding signifi- cantly to the cost because the builder had to ask his architect to develop alternative sets of plans and to appeal those plans to the variance procedure, and possibly, to see an appeal of the vari- ance. It was a significant number of hours for an architect, and in talking about a small house, it was a significant percentage appreciation in the cost of the house. Rather than being able to provide a modest-si zed house which still housed a family, they would e.in stead have a modest-si zed house of high expense which probably served as a house for people without chi 1 dren where there were two fairly high incomes for the household. He encouraged -his colleagues to let the P1 a,niny Commission have one more try to find a way out of the d i1 emma Councilmembers Patitucc i and Sutorius cl early del ineated. Councilmember Fletcher opposed the substitute motion. The mora- torium on buiidiny on substandard lots expired March 1, although it could be extended. Mr. Brown pointed out virtually all sub- standard lot builders went for a variance in any event, so the process would not be cut by sending it back to the Planning Commission and returning with a different. formula because sub- standard lots presented many constraints. If the P1 anniny Commission and Council came up with an FAR, judging by what they did to the school site FAR situation, she believed the City would probably have buildings far too big for the lots. Finally, she had no problem with what Council was after, which was to reduce the impact of buildings on the neighbc:#rs from substandard lots, and she was comfortable with the original motion. Councilmember Bechtel concurred with the comments of Councilmember Fl etcher and reminded her colleagues the issue was before the Planning Commission for months, and the Commission would probably just as soon not yet it back. Vice Mayor Woolley did not imagine staff would ask Council to impose an administrative burden on them. She asked how staff envisioned administering the ordinance they proposed. Mr. Brown did not believe it was an administrative burden. The numbers of substandard lots as defined by the ordinance were rela- tively few in the community so would not amount to a great in- crease in variance appl #cations. He clarified the question was how staff imayined administering related to how the applicant would deal with the new reyul ations, Vice Mayor Woolley cl Srified she meant 1n tens of work lo.ad.. Mr. Brown dousated the variances would increase more than four or five a year. Vice Mayor Woolley had qualms about it or would ;not have moved the amendment, but with the answer from staff she opposed -the substi- tute motion. Councilmember Klein did not bel ieve Councilmember Levy was correct the largest substandard lot was 5,000 square feet. They were tal king about 83 percent, and he clarified 83 percent produced the 5,000 square feet only in the 6,000 square foot neighborhoods, and there could be larger substandard lots in other neighborhoods. 6 7 0 0 1/06/86 yi#i said Mr. Uu± 13o r { that Wd:i [.,1J►`I'@1,t• The basic R-1, which was 6,000 square feet standard lot size, would be 4,980. Councilmember Klein clarified if there was one of the neighbor- hoods with an 8.000 minimum, a substandard lot would be 83 percent of 8,000, or approximately 6,500. Mr. Brown said right. Councilmember Klein shared the views of Councilmembers Fletcher and Bechtel. Council was seeing a classic confrontation between desire for certainty versus desire for flexibility. He understood, it and was usually for certainty so people knew -where they were yoing on such things, but he believed the search for a mathemati- cal formula when talking about substandard lots was a search for something not achievable. The problem was substandard lots, almost by definition, did not lend themselves to it. There were too many variations. They presented too many problems; they were too sensitive, particularly in developed neighborhoods; they created all types of problems which did not lend themselves to the mathmatical formula. Thus, he believed Council was better off opting for flexibility, which meant the variance process. It was helpful for Vice Mayor Woolley's questions to point out Council was talking about a problem really not that statistically signifi- cant. Councilmember Renzel opposed the referral to the Planning Commission. If Council had better dealt With the overall R-1 zones, they probably would not have so many individual items with which to deal. The economics of land use depended on the zoning. If Council allowed the economics to shape what they did as the zoning, they would lose any aesthetic consideration whatsoever. Council should hope the Planning Commission, in its review of the zoning ordinance, did an on -the -ground review of exactly how the City's zoning ordinance played in reality, and perhaps review the standards the City -had for aesthetics first. M ybe then Council would be able to develop a comprehensive ordinance for the City nd satisfactory to people. In the meantime, Council had to deal with those individual issues and should yet on with it. SUBSTITUTE M0TIOH FAILED by a vote of 2-7, P,atitucci, Levy voting "aye.` - AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Vice Mayor Woolley had another amendment concerning the "grand- father" clause. When it was at the Council level, the intent was to allow an existing structure which burned down, but was not conforming, to be rebuilt. She proposed the way the amendment was written be changed so an existing structure could be rebuilt even if it was not conforming. AMENDMENT; Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to revise the ord i ntnce to add the following language to the end of Section 18.12.055(d), "except that any structures that are damaged or destroyed by natural disaster {such as fl'Oes. flood, or earth- quake) may be -replaced as they existed without regard to 6.1 meter 20 -Moot height limitation or (IiMitation respecting habitable floor .area)." Counc iimember Renzel knew the City ba(le that type -of condition on other zoniny. changes. and asked how staff treasured what was there before --what was used as a basis. She asked if it had to be there with a building permit or somebody's say-so. Chief Pl arming Official Bruce Freeland said if there were plans an file, the City would use them. For many of the neighborhoods with substandard lets, they often dealt with old structures and oftene did not have adequate records. It was fairly rare for a house to be so utterly demolished it was impossible to determine what was 6 7 0 1 1/06/86 there, but it was possible to nave a house blow up, etc. It could be a matter of fact staff had a herd time, but it would have to be dealt with when it arose. Vice Mayor Woolley made the amendment because she believed Council was really finding objection in the community to change, and an existing structure was not- something the neighbors felt impacted by. They lived with it, were used to it, accepted it, and there- fore, it was not unreasonable to allow existing structures to be rebuilt. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a rote of 8-1, Patitucci voting "no." ITEM #8, POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE PRO- POSED SIDEWALKeetNCROACHMeNT Mb PUSHCART REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES PWK 2-4) (CMR:I01:6) - Vice Mayor Woolley, Chair of the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee, said the item was heard in August it was held in Committee so some of the public's concerns could be accommodated. It returned in November, and the revised criteria passed with two chanyes. The first modification w -.s in No. 11 of Attachment 1 to CMR:101:6, and increased the minimum distance from 50 feet to 10.0 feet, which change was made in response to merchants concerned about competition from vendors. The second change was to except Lytton Plaza. Vendors would only have to be 50 feet from a simi- lar business if they were located around Lytton Plaza, The belief was Lytton Plaza was unique and a place where people could enjoy what they purchased and stay put. Councilmemb,er Fletcher added there was more space in Lytton Plaza to accommodate vendors so it was not inappropriate to have vendors close. together in that location. Most of the discussion centered around Items 7 and 8 of Attachment 1 to CMR:l01 :6, both of which dealt with clearance, either- for an encroachment or a pushcart between fixed objet*s. Staff said at eight feet there was some disagreement from the pub- lic, but staff believed strongly the heavy -usage of sidewalks Downtown required there be an eight -foot clearance between a vendor and, a fixed object. Further, the Sr. Assistant City Attorney believed it was important to not make any exceptions, although the Committee was asked to make some, because it would be card to defend the ordinance if it were not uniform. There We some concern over proliferation of pushcarts. The Committee liked the Downtown presently, but did not want to see the number of pushcarts doubled. She referred to the maps attached to CMR:l01:6, and said there were many areas in Downtown, especially along University, where there were 12 -foot sidewalks so there was enough for an eight -foot clearance plus a three-foot pushcart. Mr. Zimmerman provided a long list of problems in the Downtwn area which ;jade the number of possible locations relatively few. NOTION: Councilmeober Woolley moved, seconded by Sechtel, to adopt the P&P Committee recommendation re Proposed Sidewalk Encroachment mad Pushcart Review Criteria and Procedures, that the City Council adopt the a3ende`.,. criteria aed procedures for ulti- mately incorporation within appropriate sections 'of the Municipal Code, with the exception that in Attachment 1 , Mo 11, the 50 .feet be changed to. 100 feet Mi th the further exception that Lytton Plaza remain at 50 feet, a►nd direct staff to prepare the .necessary ordinances to implement the criteria and procedures in processing encroachment permits and pushcart vendor license applications. Mike McHugh, 494 Los Robos, said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) wanted to add some :requi renients, and he. asked if they would be in the new ordinance. Principal_ Planner George Zimmerman- said as the motion presently read, the ARB recommendations would not'be incorporated. 6 7 0 2 1/06/86 ARB Chairperson Jon Schink said the ARB bel ieved the design of pushcarts should be evaluated on its own merits. If a pushcart was to be placed in Lytton Plaza in front of the new 'post modern Burger King, the design should not necessarily take on a post modern character, but should be looked at on its own design. The ARB further believed after reviewing many sign and store front applications in the Downtown area specifically, it was important to limit the height of pushcarts to five feet and the length to eight feet. It would be inappropriate to have a pushcart higher than five feet because it would then begin to conflict with the actual design of store fronts and in many cases conflict with the pedestrian oriented siynage of the store fronts. Finally, the ARB believed the siynaye of pushcarts was an important element of the design in that the ARB always worked for an economy of si gnage in the Downtown area. If there were a proliferation of pushcarts covered with signs, it would be inappropriate. Mr. McHugh said he had the pushcart flower vendors in Downtown and on Cal iforoia Avenue, and their concern was the carts would be chopped in half. He understood they would be able to put umbrel- las on them, but they were difficult to work with. The only peopl e who had umbrel l as presently were the hot dog vendors and they were unable to go out on rainy days because they did not provide enough protection. There would be a problem protecting the flowers without at least three round umbrellas, and he be- lieved that would cause more of a problem than the present cano- pies. He also referred to a constant problem of the umbrellas fall my over, Councilmember '',loin said the ARB recommendations never went to the P&€' Committee, and he did not bel ieve it was appropriate for Council to discuss those considerations without them having first gone through by tine P&P Committee. He suggested the ARB recom- mendations he referred to the P&P Committee for consideration to be returned to Counc i 1 at a later time. Councilmember Levy asked to what degree a vendor controlled the rights to a location. Poi ice Department Or.!inance Coup1 lance Inspector Pete Hazarian said a vendor submitted an application, and he reviewed the site to ensure it did not impede the flow of pedestrian traffic. Councilmember Levy asked if once a vendor had a location, he had a right to that location in the sense that anyone el se requesting the same location would be automati cal l v excluded because someone else was there first. Mr.• Hazarian said that was correct. Counej.elember Levy asked if the vendor then essentially had a right to pass the location on to a successor vendor. Mr. Hazarian said no. Councilmember Levy said as long as it was the particular vendor•, they had a right to the particular location. He assumed it was not a problem. Mr. Hazarian said that was correct. The permits issued were v11 id for three months. After three months, the permit had to he renewed. If they were not, it was opened to a waiting list. but to that point, there had never been a waiting list for a loca- tion. NOTION PASSED uneniioesly. MOTION T4 REFER: Councilmember Klein moved, .►d, seconded by Woolley, to refer to the P&P Committee the recommendationsmade to the Council by the ARB in their letter• of December 30, 1985. b 7 0 3 1/06/86 Councilmember Bcchtel was persuaded by the coifimeni s of one of the speakers regarding the height problem. She hoped the P&P Com- mittee would consider omitting the height recommendation. Councilmember Sutorius hoped the P&P Committee could promptly con- sider the matter in order . to not have the ordinance retu-'n to Council and then have to make revisions a few months later if necessary. MOTION PASSED unanlmously. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:45 p.m. ITEM, #9 APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMUNITY ENVIRONMNT FREESTANDING SIGN AT (LA 3-1) (CMR: 1 1 3. 6) TOUFIC JISSER FROM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD AND 7HTC DIRECTOR 6r PLANNING AND TO DENY A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE EXISTING ALL AMERICAN MARKEi`, 3990 EL CAMINO REAL Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland introduced Jim Gilliland who was part of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) staff. ARB Chairperson Jon Schink said the ARB tried to work coopera- tively with an applicant to make an application work. The ARB agonized over the application and recognized the applicant pro- vided a valuable community s'rvice, but no matter how hard they tried, it could not make the necessary findings and had to deny the application. Councilmember Levy clarified the item before the Council was the freestanding sign, not the sign on the building. Mr. Freeland said that was correct. Councilmember Levy said the size reflected both the "AAM" logo and the board below. Mr. Gill it and said that was correct. Councilmember Levy asked if the si ze of the sign was determined. Mr. Gi'1 iland said the two signs together measured approximately 145 square feet. In the sign ordinance and measuring signs, there needed to be a space of one and one-half times the size of any element before the open space between the signs could be d i s- reyarded. Councilmember Levy asked about the maximum allowed. Mr. Gil l iland said 64 square feet. Councilmember Levy said five other supermarkets were mentioned in the sign exception drawings, and he asked if any of them had signs larger than the ordinance allowed. Were exceptions giver) or applied for. Mr. Gilliland was aware of none, and said none were given excep- tions. Vice Mayor Woolley said next to the All American Market was a Chevron Station, and she asked about the height of the Chevron sign. It appeared to be noncoeforming. Mr. Freeland did not know the height of tt:e Chevron sign. arir k Hill, 780 Palo Alto Avenue, spoke on behalf of Mr. Ji sser because of his sympathies for his cause and not profess) onai l y. The., height limitation in the neighborhood was 25 efeet if properly set back, to which the sign complied. _ The other grocery stores referred to were all chain stores, and the applicant could not 6 7 0 4 1/06/86 1 1 Afford t h ► kinds of recommendations made by the ARB ; He under- stood economics were not supposed to be taken into consideration, but it was a consideration regardless of whether it was taken into account. The applicant proposed to reduce the size of the reader board to approximately two feet by nine feet. If one took out all the triangles and inside parts of it, it came out to about 70 square feet, and the ordinance required 64 feet. He liked the sign. The option was to reduce the sign height and area to make a rectangular sign which resembled the "7-11" sign on Webster, which he considered to be more objectionable. Another problem with the site was the store was set way back. Most of the buildings along the street were set right up on the sidewalk, and he believed the applicant was being penalized because they took the opportunity to set the store back where it was not as visible from the street. The applicant estimated about 50 percent of his business to be from street traffic. He queried what was gained by complying with the ordinance, and he believed by reducing the sign of the reader board and putting in some landscaping around the base of the sign, theywould achieve what the ordinance was trying to accomplish. Considering that and the economic realities of having an indepen- dent market in Palo Alto, the "AAM" represented the only market on the particular corner of town. He knew the Barron Park Associa- tion (BPA) was against the market, but it was the one they had to use. He hoped Council would consider the appeal. He believed the proposal was a good compromise between what presently existed and what the sign ordinance allowed. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said the BPA supported the staff recommenda- tion a4,.d opposed the rI$ tention of the alret dy-amorized sign. It was BPA's goal for decades to clean up El Camino, and one way to do so was to get rid of the oversized and obtrusive signs. There were many grocery stores in Palo Alto, and every one was set back at least 75 to 150 feet from the \.street because they all had parking lots between the street and the store. None had signs of the character and size of tne AAM, and they all seemed to do well. In terms of the reader bog rd which was the major contributor to the excess size, the readei boards were not normally allowed. The ARB would not allow reader board on new signs. The main reason the applicant wanted a reader board was to tell people the hours of operation of the store, but the information was also posted on a sign on the wall of the store, which was not an item in ques- tion. There was a question of whether one could find the store without the reader board. Whenever he told someone how to find his house, he said to turn at the All American Market, and every- one found it. In order to support the appeal, Council had to make a finding of some unusual or particularly compelling reason to retain the sign. The ARB could not make the finding, the Barron Park Association Board could not make the £finding, and he believed it would be difficult for the Council to make the finding. H: believed there was nothing unique or particularly compelling which required.a sign of such size in the subject location. The logo could be retained and the name underneath could be retained and more than meet tne requirements of the zoning ordinance. The BPA believed it was appropriate to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB. fOTIO s Cou:acilmember Bechtel rased, seconded by Rensel, to adopt the staff recommendation to uphold the decision of the Architectural Review: Board and Director of planning and Community Enwironmr,ert, and deny the . sign exception request based on the following findings: I. The conditions applicable to this property, such. as setbacks, street frontage, street trees, etc., are not exceptional or extraordinary es compared to other properties on Bl Camino and the COI Bonet.: 2. The denial of the sign exception does not deprive the appli- cant of substantial property right or create an unnecessary hardship because: 6-7 0 5 1/06/86 MOTIG ' CONTINUED (a) The applicant would retain significant wall signage if the freestanding sign is removed; (b) a conforming replacement freestanding sign and/or unique landscaping that draws attention to the site might pro- vide more visible identify than the existing sign; and (c) , The applicant has had approximately ten years to bring the sign into conformance; and 3. 'The granting of the sign exception would-be detrimental to the adjacent property owners and the City, in that they would not have received like, benefit from such an extraordinary exception. Councilmember Bechtel used El Camino daily and was reminded to look at the All American Market. The sign on the wall of the .building was adequate. It was a large, obtrusive sign and not the direction Council wanted to continue. It needed to be changed. Councilmember Levy endorsed the comments made by the ARB and Councilmember Bechtel. The building itself was of significant size and called attention to itself as a market. He believed there was a need for Palo Alto, as indicated by the Barron Park community, to do its best to clean up El Camino and bring it with- in the intrusion constraints being developed for the community. In order to do so, it was necessary to uphold the ARB decision and support the motion before the Council. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #10, ACCOUNTING SERVICES (Fl 16) (CMR:106 :6 ) Vice Mayor Woolley referred to page 2 and the paragraph immedi- ately preceding the heading "Utility Revenue Bond Issue, and said tha .last sentence was worded such that she was led to believe something different should have happened in November. She asked for comment. Director of Finance Mark Harris said staff believed at that time if they got the services, they would haee completed statements by March. They were actually needed earlier because it was not until two or three weeks later they found out they were not in compli- ance with some of the covenants of the previous bond issue which was what caused them to accelerate the preparation of the annual financial report. Vice Mayor Woolley previously understood Deloitte, Haskins & Sells (DH&S) would be ;she best firm to work with because they were familiar with the City's system. There was then a change in the employees of DU&S and it did not work out that way and there was a cost overrun. She assumed staff intended to keep the same people on the job. Mr. `Harris said absoiute1/. The people wonting on the audit would continue with the financial portion. Mayor Cobb referred to the discussionas it related -to the com- ments about operating with an inherited, archaic and undocumented system, and asked how long it would take to get the system cleared up to where the system was something Mr. Harris felt good about. 6 7 0 6 1/06/86 r Mr. Harris said the plan was to go through one more; audit with the existing system because for it not to occur they would need a new system presently on-line After the 1985--86 audit, for the 1986- 87 audit, there should be a new financial system in place that would be totally documented and would allow staff to pt_'epare_ an annual financial report by December 1 each year. Mayor Cobb clarified the an_wer was one more budget cycle. Mr. Harris said yes. NOTION: Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt the staff recommendation to award an accounting services contract to Deloitte Haskins & Sells in the amount of $90,000. CONTRACT Deloitte Haskins & Sells Councilmembel' Bechtel said staff brought the problems to the attention of the r inance and public Works (F&PW) Committee in November,\and said they would have to return for some additional contracting. She was glad to see the contract before the Council although it was a little more money than they would have liked to see. Councilmember Levy said they were tal king about 1,000 hours and $90,000 or approximately $90 an hour. It seemed like a high rate for lesser people. He asked if staff looked at having City -hired people work under the direction of DH&S supervisory personnel in order to possibly bring down the cost of the item. He assumed a fair amount of the work could be done by non- or para- professionals. Mr. Harris said the 1,200 hours was an error. It was more like 1 ,500 hours so the average cost per hour was about $60 per hour. In terms of City staff working for DH&S, it had and would take place where staff was available to dedicate. Staff did not want to mortgage the future by not keeping day-to-Jaie operations going. Councilmember Levy asked to what degree staff could satisfy Council that something similar would not happen in the approaching fiscal year. Mr. Harris said staff would take all steps to avoid it. He could say nothing, of the same magnitude would occur, but until staff had a handle on the system and hired some additional staff and got them trained, he would not say with 100 percent certainty there would be no problems next year. Councilmember Levy asked why it happened. Mr Harris said the system was totally undocumented, and there were no staff members who worked under the current system. It was a .combination of those two elements over the past 15 years which lead to the current situation. Councilmember Levy asked if it was something which built over 15 years and OH&S was the City's auditors for the past couple of years, why DH&5 did not bring it to the City's attention -,early on. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Partner Michael Beer believed it was mentioned about two years ago. The City started over a year ago to replace its existing system, but it was a long lead time item... NOTION PASSED unanimously. 6 7 0 7 1/06/86 ITEM #i1, REPORT ON CITY FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION (FIN 16) (CMR: 11_`):6) Mayor Cobb clarified the item was for a referral to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee. City Manager tii l l Zaner said such an item would normally be on the Consent Calendar, but it was tied to the item Mr. Harris just reviewed, and staff wanted to ensure the two items fit together. Staff also wanted Council to know there were some important needs in the Finance Department. As Mr. Harris indicated, they were discovering parts of the system they did not know existed and it would take some additional work and staff to get the system organ- ized properly to move ahead into the new financial system planned. Staff recommended the item go to F&PW Committee for review and recommendation to Council. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to refer the item to the Finance and Public Works Committee. Councilmember Levy hoped when the item went to the F&PW Committee, it be accompanied with sufficient documentation indicating how many people presently worked on accounting, the change in employ- ment over the last couple of years, and how the City's accounting personnel compared to the needs of other communities involved in similar enterprises. He was concerned with the substantial growth in the City's financial management operations., It was significant and important and the City did not want to let itself open to the kinds of probl ems other nearby communities had, but he bel ieved the needs should be closely documented. Mayor Cobb would be interested in whether a net increase in staff was needed or a different mix of staff; i.e. more CPA's and fewer of whatever was currently there. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #12, YACHT HARBOR CLOSURE (CMR: 100: b) (PWK 7-6) Vice Mayor Woolley referred to the staff recommendation, "Close the harbor effective July 1," and asked whether staff meant the entire harbor or whether it was more appropriate to say, "Close the berthing area effective July 1." Mr. Adams said to close the berthin more accurate. area effective July 1 was Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the second recommendation could read, "Arrange for removal of berthing facilities." instead of "appro- priate facilities by December 31." Mr. Adams said yes, but it aright include removal of fencing, and a few things in addition to the berths themselves. Councilmember Patitucci said the last paragraph on the first page of CMH:100:b said City staff word attempt to keep the launch ramp open for public use. He understood the launch ramp was supposed to be continuously available and he was not sure how to interpret what the word "attempt.". He .asked whether it was temporarily closed from time to time, _ or whether there was some fee.flng it would be closed permanently. Mr. Adams said it was presently usable, but staff might have. to do some dredging to keep it open. If it could be dredged with a clam shell , put in o truck and haul ed away, they could probably get permits from San Feancisco Bay Conservation and Development (BCDC) to do so. Staff would do its best t' keep it open, ')ut it would take some type of maintenance effort. 6 7 0 M 1/06/86 Patitucci l asked 4 was r n U was �.iiiiiiGilii#�i3#b%r #-�titucci it that intended. ##� trying to yet suune idea of the long -teem prospect fur keeping it open. Mr. Adams said the City intended to keep it open if possible. Staff did not know how fast it would silt up or how effective they could be removing the silt from the shore. Couecilmember Patitucci clarified the determination was one of nature. If someone went out there and the ramp was closed, he asked if the City would shrug its shoulders and say it silted up faster and it had no avaiabl a resources to keep it open. If they wanted to keep it open, what had to be done to ensure it stayed open. Mr. Adams said it was a function of cost and the permit process, but staff would do their best to keep it open on an economical basis end to get the necessary permits to do so. Council member Patitucci asked if it was reasonable to assume before it was closed, Council would be apprised of what it would take to keep it open. Mr. Adams said yes. Coyne lmember Patitucci said if there was something Council could do, and if they had the option to entertain choices to determine whether to keep the launch ramp open, he would be interested in having enough notice prior to its closing to do so. Mr. Adams said staff would do that. Mayor Cobb said staff had a few reports sc,hedul ed to go to Council, and he assumed Councilmernber• Patitucci's questior-is could be answered as part of those reports. He asked when staff antici- pated Council might expect the reports. Mr. Adams said the next report would be on the disposition of the` buildings and was scheduled either for the January 20 or January 27. City Manager Bill Zaner said as Mr. Adams indicated, staff anti- cipated the first report on the disposition of the buildings would be in a natter of weeks. Council received a request to install a sailing station, and staff would bring the report on that subject at the same time. Mayor Cobb asked about the launch ramp. Mr. Adams said staff would not have an special report on the 1 aunch ramp, but would do their best to keep it open and keep'. Counc i l apprised of any special needs. Councilmernber Sutorius said the recommendation was to close effec- tive July 1, and the dismantling activity would be .umpl eted by December 31, 1986, which was a six-month period. In practical terms, he asked about the work effort involved in the dismantling and how much of the six-month period would be true di.smantl ing in order to meet the BCOC permit requirements. How much time would be encompassed. Mr. Adams said it depended on the contractor's plans. They might be able to .salvage and sel i the good berths, and if that was part,. of the plan, it might take longer to dismantle. The City's intent was to give as much time as was reasonable. to get the best pos- sible price. It involved bringing irr floating equipment, removing the pil ing with a crane -type apparatus, which was time- consuming. 6 7 0 9 1/06/86 Councilmcmber Sutorius, clarified staff did not believe it would take any 1 onyer than six calendar months fur the effor=t, and might be less time to do the dismantl iny. Mr. Adams said that was correct; availability of equipment was probably the key factor. Counc ilmember Sutorius queried if the effort was not undertaken until four to six months prior to the required end date, which was February of 1988, how much revenue would be associated with con- tinued berthing fees that would accrue to the City. Mr. Zaner said theoretically the present berthing fees would main- tain the harbor. If the City collected berthing fees, he did not see it receiving a substantial amount of revenue. Staff had not done any kind of calculation es to how much it might be, but he did not believe they were talking about a substantial amount of money. Councilmember Sutorius clarified staff did not have a ballpark idea of the potential revenue in maintaining the harbor until an appropriate period of time before the required closing under the present permit situations, but it was not considered to be sub- stantial . Mr. Adams said that was correct. There would be utilities, fees, or costs, trash collection, and other costs associated with keepiny the harbor open. Councilmernber Sutorius asked about the rationale behind the sched- uliny and the plan because wherever there were revenue opportun- ities, he believed they were all anxious to see it not be fore- closed upon any earlier than necessary. Mr. Zaner said the present berthing did. not "make money" for the harbor-. It covered the costs of _the harbor as the County operated it. The City's option, if it allowed the harbor to continue under its jurisdiction, meant Mr. Adams' staff had to run the harbor. The City was not presently in the harbor business. Counc ilmember Sutorius understood that, but beginning July, a ranger would be there associated with running the harbor on an ongoing basis. He did not understand what was evaluated in terms of how appropriate or necessary it was.to_ accelerate the closing. It might yell be a "push," or there might be revenue to be gained to the City. It did not seem unreasonable to him to have the use sustained for a slightly longer period of time if there was the opportunity for a push situation, or a net gair. in revenue. Mr. Zaner said that was precisely the policy question before the Council. He was persuaded the City could gear up and operate the harbor at probably close to push. It meant additional costs for the City in Mr. Adams' department, i.e., insurance, 1 iabil lty, etc., but there would be revenues. They would probably come •out close to breaki ng even, just as the County did . The policy ques- tion was whether Council wanted staff to do that', or whether staff should dismantle the harbor under the present SCDC .permit regula- tions. Staff recommended Council proceed under: the present permit regulations rather than gear up to run an . operation tRey knew would close in 18 to 20 months, which did not make a lot of sense fro a staff's point of view._ If it was an operation the City was not yoiny to maintain, staff would just as soon not get in the business and shut it down. Uick Trainer, 3423 Cork Oak Way, said it did not seem necessary to be in a hurry to cl cse a harbor. The BCDC permit allowed for up to 30 months before removal of harbor facilities. He suggested the City explore al ternativ es to complete harbor removal. A del ay of 24 months would not hurt the City because.: it would provide 6 7 1 0 1/06/86 income to the City tic the berth rentals. The revenue from the harbor was in the neighborhood of $80,000 a year, which funds were used to -de the harbor dredging. If those funds were not used for dredging, they were available for other purposes. The funds would be available for harbor removal if that was a final disposition, and would also be available for marsh inversion if that was to be accomplished. The recent major City election turned into a ques- tion of harbor maintenance by dredging or not dredging. It now seemed the dredging was no longer available to maintain the harbor, but he queried whether .all possible alternatives were explored to continue the harbor. Presently, approximately 45 percent of the voters were willing to continue the harbor bI dredging, and a queried whether they should be denied the oppor- tunity to continue the harbor by alternative methods. He queried how many voters who would not keep the harbor by dredging would keep the harbor without dreding. Other studies did not indicate alternatives to dredging, but he preferred to believe there were technical advances in alternatives not yet considered, which may allow the City to keep the significant recreational facility. The question was no longer a harbor by dredging, but a harbor at all using other maintenance techniques. The harbor was a Palo Alto landmark for 58 years, and it made sense to give it a few more months. He recommended the harbor revenues not be arbitrarily curtailed by precipitous harbor closure. James M. Early, 740 Center Drive, said the South Bay was one of the finest small boat sailing areas around. The Palo Alto Harbor was the best access in the Santa Clara County park system to a large tract to the thousands of acres of recreational water in the Bay. Nearly half the people wanted to keep the harbor despite the use of dredging. One possibility was stirring the water during the ebb tide and letting the ebb tide carry the mud out into the Bay. He submitted a letter (which is on file in the City Clerk's office) discussing some of the possibilities. He requested Council delay removal, of anything pending more technical explora- tion. Douglas McConnell, 4174 Oak Hill Avenue, commoaoreu the Sea Scout Program in Palo Alto, which was part of the Stanford Area -Council Boy Scouts of America. The Stanford Area Council believed it was premature to close the harbor on July 1, 1986. The Palo Alto community was closely divided on the issue of keeping the harbor open with the decisive issue being dredging. The 55 -year Sea Scout Prbgiam was based at the harbor since its inception and time was needed to look at alternatives. The present BCDC permit pro- vided the harbor could remain open for 30 month, rather than the six months proposed by staff, and he was advised BCDC would prob- ably approve permits for continued operation as long as dredging was not involved, or the spoils were used on uplands and not become part of the Bay issue. One option was the use of the sewage effluent and taking it from the treatment plant, letting it fluch out through and keeping the channel open and seeing what effect it had. Immediate closing of the harbor might force hur- ried decisions which further reflection and the use of the addi- tional 24 months might prove to be unwise in the long run. The Sea Scouts might . not have sufficient time to find ways to remain viable and their program could die. It would prematurely cut off berth revenues -which would be available to the City for a variety of uses including paying the salary of the ranger. As mentioned by Councilmember Sutorius, Council- should seek ways to find addi- tional revenues and prolong present revenues rather than cut them oft prematurely. As an individual and as representative of the scouting rraternity,:he urged Council to refer the present staff report back to staff and request a later closing of the harbor. MOTION) Vice Piayor Woolley moved, to close the berthing . arses effective September 1, 14$7, uitb staff to arrange for appropriate facilities in a timely manner. tia MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff be directed to close the berthing area effective July 1, 1986, and to arrange for removal of the appropriate facilities by December 31, 1986. Councilmember Renzel clarified by "appropriate facilities" she meant those connected with removal of the berthing area. Mayor Cobb asked if the wording could be changed to reflect berthing "facilities" as opposed to areas. Councilmember Renzel said no because stags indicated there were ancillary facilities such as fencing, etc., which were not .tech- nically berthing facilities. She believed appropriate facilities related to the berthing area. Even though r_evenues would come from keeping the harbor open, Council was advised it would likely be a wash with a, the costs and gearing up staff would need to operate the harbor. It cost at least $50,000 a year for the County to operate the harbor, and it was not recompensed with berthing fees because it all went for dredging_and other costs. Virtually all revenues would be used to operate the harbor and there was no potential to make money. Gearing up for a . one-year operation did not make sense, particularly since the voters spoke twice on the issue. Part l of the motion specified the berthing area and meant just the berthing area. Staff indicated there would be additional reports and decisions for Council to make with respect to many other issues so it should not impact the Sea e. Scouts in any way. Councilmember Bechtel referred to keeping the harbor open until 1988, and reminded her colleagues -the *sue „f ether d __s __ _ .., _.. v r �.a�:L VL Y 1�..CJ VL mechanisms for keeping the harbor open were explored for as long as she could remember. She remembered studies in the early 1970's of different kinds of engineering mechanisms to increase flow through the harbor and none appeared to work. Much as Council wanted to find a way to keep the harbor open without dredging, she did not believe one existed. She believed Council needed to get on with it and not gear up for additional costs. Councilmember Sutorius understood the concerns expressed about finding other ways and means because while he advocated looking for those means and held out high hopes for some practical and low cost means of improving the flushing actions, to date, nothing occurred. However, he did not support the motion because he was not satisfied the information Council received in the written report and in the dialogue provided the ability to evaluate and understand the costs, revenues, and operational implications of closing the harbor effective July 1, 1986 versus closing it September ' 1, 1987. SUBSTITUTE NOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, that staff evaluate and report to Council on the costs, the revenues, the operational implications of a harbor closure date July 1, 1986. versus September 1, 1987. Councilmember Patitucci supported the substitute motion. He was a "numbers' person and did not see the nusibers to verify what people said. If one took the average cost to the County and the average revenue it showed, they made a couple of thousand dollars a month keeping it open. If Council decided to keep the harbor open to the later date, he did not believe it meant there should be any City expenditures if it proved to be - economi' ally feasible or a wash to keep it open.. If the numbers cure back and showed they should keep it open, it would make for a, smoother- tra ,t4on and they would be able to consider the other aspects of the`; lan for the whole harbor area.. The only thing he would be interested in considering was July 1, 1986 versus September 1, 1987. He did not know if it needed to be included. As coWt3ti Councilmember Sutorius said Council was asking staff to report Uii the revenue, the cost. and operational impl #cations of closing July 1, 198 versus September 1987. Mayor Cobb asked staff if that was basically their understanding. City Manager Bill Zaner understood. By "the operational implica- tions of closing," he assumed Council included the implications of continuing to run the harbor until those dates, so he could include things like insurance, 1 iabil ity, and the fact Mr. Harris wanted to ,gear his operation up to bil 1 col 1 ect, the attorney would have to go after bad debts, etc., which was part of operating. Councilmember Sutorius said yes. It was part of the laundry 1 ist regardless of how emotional\it might be 1 isted. Councilmember Patitucci clarified staff would not include in their studies of alternative methods, costs of consultants to examine alternative flushing methods, etc. Councilmember Fletcher opposed the motion because she did not see how staff could give Council an accurate projection of revenues because it was unknown how soon the people who berthed there would move out since they would all have to move out eventually. She asked how much longer the Bay would be sailable without dredging. It could silt up in six months and they would lose all the boats. She did not know whether the Council assignment was realistic. Councilmember Klein was al so a "numbers" person, but, more importantly, he was a 'democracy" person. He regarded the motion before Council as contrary to the will of the voters and it upset him. Council was obliged to keep faith with the voters. The voters of the City twice indicated' ,the ir desires. In 1980 and 1985, the votee s rejected positions they heard advocated that evening, and it was, with all clue respect, disingenuous at best to talk to Council about what 45 percent of the people felt. They worked on a democratic basis in their society, and 55 percent rejected the position, and Council needed to honor it. Councilmember Bechtel correctly pointed out it was not a new issue, It was said that in Palo Alto pol iti cal issues were never over because even when they were over, they were not over. It was time for Council to prove that was not correct. The issue was studied to death. As Councilmember Bechtel correctly pointed out, it was studied all throughout the 1970's; the harbor advocates had 15 years to come forward with an appropriate alternative. The talk about the date was sort of a Trojan horse issue. He did not believe the issue before Council was the date; it was a way of keeping the issue al ive. The City Council o. the late 1970's passed. the present pol icy which was ratified by the voters in 1980 and in 1985. Council was obliged to move forward expeditiously and not get involved in the business which seemed crazy at best, and inconsistent with what the voters passed. Council should move forward to implement the will of the voters and start closing the harbor as of July 1, 1986. Vice Mayor Woolley agreed with Councilmember Klein, but the issue before Council was not dredging , but rather when to close the harbor. She questioned what was meant , by the staff effort to maintain the harbor and the ongoing liability. The ranger would be added in the spring and probably two rangers would be added to the i3aylands area, so it would not be an additional expense. It was there regardless of whether the berths were. there. Regarding 1 iabil it y, when the .City took over the harbor from the County, it assumed an incredible 1 iabil ity, and it would not make that much difference regaod l ess of whether the berths were there. The 1 iabil ity referred to what happened if . someone fell in the water and had trouble setting out, which could happen whether they had berths or docks for the launching ramp. She agreed the City did not expect to do any repairs because the facility would close. 6 7 1 3 1/06/86 Uti 1 sties and trash collection would yo on and would be expenses, and fee collection and keepiny track of the accounting would al so oe expenses. She wanted to see an estimate of what the expenses would be as against the fees because it seemed to her the expenses were fairly minor and the fees, at least in the beginning, would be considerabl e. She bel ieved it might be possible to, at least, break even over the next year. Councilmember Bechtel believed they were arguing about a fairly small number of boats and asked for some information about how many boats were presently berthed at the facility. Mr. Adams guestimated about 80 boats out of 108 berths. Councilmember Bechtel said anyone who . had a large boat was al - ready on a waiting list or trying to move the boat out, and if it was delayed a year, it meant the revenue decreased. Staff could not figure out how quickly it would decrease, and meanwhile, geared up to maintain the collection and so forth for the facil- ity. ,Council was fool my itself if it bel ieved a referral to staff would provide accurate, exact dollar figures so they could say, "Yes, in fact we're going to make a profit of such and so amount of money and, therefore, we can justify this for another year." She agreed with Councilmember Klein; the voters had spoken on the issue. They were talking about moving out perhaps 80 boats that year as opposed to over the next year, and the large boaters knew the inevitable for sometime and looked for facil (ties. There was ample warning for them to make the final move. Councilmember Levy said there seemed to be two issues: 1) ex- tendiny the harbor berthing area for an extra year, or at least asking staff to .give a date; and 2) fredging the harbor. The voters spoke on dredging the harbor. He did not believe the voters spoke on keeping the harbor open without dredging. He voted to close the harbor and not allow the harbor to stay open for dredging. `if it were just a matter of keeping the harbor open without any impacts on the environment, it was clear to him the public would vote to keep the harbor open, but they did not want the dredging and all that went with it, The next question was whether to leave the harbor open one extra year, and he agreed with Councilmember Patitucci in terms of knowing the data. He understood Councilmember BQrhtel , and it might well be when they got the data, they would find there were so many holes in the information and question marks they would `not be able to make any better judgment thaii They wuurd right then. He wanted to see the information and did not bel ieve the community would suffer by keeping the facil ity open one extra year. He was willing to give the advocates of the harbor the extra time. The key issue to him was the final due date, which was 1988, and to ensure everything necessary was done to close the harbor at that point. He sup- ported the substitute motion. Councilmember Renzel urged her colleagues to oppuse the substitute motion and support the main motion. it was apparent from looking at last year's data and the previous year's data of the Palo Alto Harbor Association their revenues declined during those couple of years. She believed they had about $61,000 revenue in the last reported year, and Council knew there were a lot of vaunt berths now and would be more. Few peopl e ,,ere apt to move in knowing it would shortly close, The economics were fairly clear. Council knew the County had_ to spend on the order of $50,000 a year which was documented, and probably more was more., spent that was not pulled out. Everyone in the harbor was on notice for five years, since the 1980 election, they would be moving. Most of the people presently there were not there five years ago, but came in knowing they would have to move. Most of them were there because it was one of the cheapest berthing fees in the Bay, and as best she 6 7 1 4 1/06/86 could tell, few moved their boats in and out. It was time for Council to bite the bullet and deal with the issue. She did not believe they would find anything magical; the proposal s for new engineering solutions were pie in the sky. Stirring up the bottom mud on the waniny tide had the same environmental probl ems as dredging --it killed all the benthic fauna, and it would happen with each waning tide, which meant there .were no opportunities for recovery. She did not believe it would fly with any of the Fish and Wildlife agencies, or l3CDC, or anyone el se. Mayor Cobb asked how long it would take to raspond to Council - member Sutori us' questions. Mr. Adams ensured Council understood he would have to make a lot of assumptions. Mayor Cobb assumed it was the only way to do it. Mr. Adams said staff could probably report back at the same time they gave Council the report on the buildings, on approximately December 27. The data would be hard to collect with any accuracy. Roughly it would take about one-half of a ranger's time, and staff would have to compensate for the loss of that tirnc by contracting other work in park maintenance, but he could not now, or in two weeks, tell Council how much that would be. Mayor Cobb asked if it was correct staff would not take any longer than that to do it since there were so many assumptions involved. Mr. Adams said that was correct. Mr. Zaner said even if the City mace a few th usand dollars in the harbor, whicf he doubted, it did nothing to offset the increased work load to staff. When the City took on a new function, Mr. Adams had to gear up and give some of his people additional work, and the same thing would be required in Mark:. Harris' department. They would not add a person in Finance jest"because they billed and collected for 80 boats, it would be absorbed in Finance, and the additional funds that would flow, even if it was a few thou -- sand doll ars profit, would go into the General Fund. The Finance Department; would still have the additional work load, Mr. Adams would still have the additional work load, and the Attorney's Office would have some additional work load. The organization would take on a new function; it would -do more work with the same people who were already extremely tight. For the sake of re- ceiving a few extra dollars into. the General Fund, the City would pick up a function not now provided, which would be dismantled in a period of 18 months. Staff made its recommendation to Council because even if they made money, they increased the amount of work staff had to do and there was no w;.y to transfer the money made into bodies in those departments because no. one body would pick up the whole load. Mayor Cobb was willing to look at a report as long as staff did not take any longer than three weeks to do it and did not invest an enormous amount of time doing it because he did not believe it was worth it. Unless he could see some substantial benefit to the City, he would be anti ined to go back and vote for the main motion, which was to get on wite it, because he did not believe a push was worth their while to do all tie things Mr. Zaner talked about. Counc ilaaeaaber Bechtel cl ari fled for Counc ilmember Levy they were not voting on closing the harbor; .the facilities would be avail- abl a for tnose who went out with windsurf boards, or canoes, etc. They were talking about closing the berthing facilities, and she bel ieved it was time to get on with it now, Mayor Cobb said the sibstitut_e motion was to instruct staff to prepare an evaluation report as to the costs, .potential income, 6 7 1 5 1/06/86 and operational consequences of two closure dates: either duly 1, 198v or September 1, 1987. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Bechtel. Fletcher, Klein, Renzel voting "no." ITEM #13, REqUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER WOOLLEY APPLICATION (HCA 3-2) Vice Mayor Woolley said her memo (which is on file in the City Clerk's office) explained the request of the Women's History Museum group. RE HISTORICAL SITE MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, that Council write a letter of support to accompany its application for Ji 4te r i bLu is Landmark Status for the site of the home of Sarah Wallis in Barron Park. Councilmember Levy asked if there were any implications for the owners of the property or the community, in general, in terms of responsibilities or restrictions on the use of the property. Vice Mayor Woolley said no, it was only a site marker not a building so there were no restrictions on the use of the property. The only possible problem was where the marker was actually placed. NOTION PASSED unanimously. MAYOR COBB RE POLICY AND PROCEDURES P&P) COMMITTEE Mayor Cobb said the Policy and Procedures '(P&P) Committee was scheduled to meet the following evening to discuss the Gamble House. He asked the currently constituted Committee from 1985 to continue in their efforts and handle the meeting. If anyone had trouble, Council would get someone else to attend. MAYOR COBB RE COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Cobb asked that Council assignment forms be turned in so Council could move quickly to get the assignments taken care of. AUJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 5 7 1 b 1/06/86