Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-21 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting January 20, 1986 CITY OF PALO ALTO ITEM PAGE Orel Communications 6 7 4 8 Approval of Minutes of November 18, 1985 and 6 7 4 8 November 25, 1985 Consent Calendar 6 7 4 8 Referral 6 7 4 9 Action 6 7 4 9 Item #1, Bill Crediting Contract 6 7 4 9 Item #2, Award of Consultant Contract for Midtown 6 7 4 9 Traffic Study Ite•:i #3, Street Tree Planting 6 7 4 9 Item #4, Haas -Kings River Hydroelectric Project 6 7 4 9 Item #5, Resolution of Appreciation to Senator 6 7 4 9 Rebecca Morgan Item #6, Resolution of Appreciation to Assemblyman 6 7 5 0 Byron Sher • Item #7, Ordinance re Substandard lots (2nd 6 7 5 0 Reading) Item #8, Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee 6 7 5 0 Recommendation re Consultant Selection for Civic Center Plaza Design Item #9, California Avenue Parking Assessment 6 7 5 1 District Item #i0, Water Quality Control Plant - Solids 6 7 5 3 Incineration Building Belt. Press Addition - COnstruction Contingency Item #11, Seismic Hazard Reduction Program Recess Item #12, Request of Cooncilmeraber Pletcher .re Traffic • School for Bicycle Traffic Violators Adjournment: ; x'12:00 avel. • 6 7 5 3 6 7 6 5 6 7 8 3 6 7 8 4_ 6 7 4 7 1/20/86 Regular Meeting January 20, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council ChambL s, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:35 p.m.),- Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Klein ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Nona APPROVAL OF:IINUTES OF NJVEMBER 18, 1985 AND NOVEMBER 25, 1985. Minutes of November 18, 1985 Vice Mayor Woolley submitted the following correction: Page 6539, paragraph 1, second to last line should read, "take care of pets on public access channel of the area's futuee cable TV system." Councilmember Renzel submitted the following correction: Page 6551, first complete paragraph, line 2, should read, "faced was the concerns of many dedicated people ..." Minutes of November 25 1985 Councilmember Bechtel submitted the following corrections: Page 6565, paragraph 2, line 2, change "sand" to "said." Page 6565, paragraph 4, 2nd sentence, delete "and about the safer poundage." Councilmember Fletcher submitted the following correction: Page 6582, last paragraph, second to last line, should read, y...and had not been recalled." Councilmember Renzel submitted the following corrections Page 6568, first paragraph after the ` Amendment, line 7, should read, *She also did not buy the idea that .,." Page 6587, last paragraph, line 10 the word "but" should read `and." MOTION: Ceesetlmo kor Levi? mewed, seec.s4ed by Fltarias, approval of the Niootes of 'il*va ehr 114 IlU aid Moveoher , 1l9S as corrected. 11011011 MISS aeaasleapesiJ, Pat1%acc1, x elo *Inset. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTION: Vice Mayor lisol l ey , neve , Aphcooded 4Y SOtecies. appreva l of the Commit Cpi peed r , 6 7 4 8 1/20/86 Referral None 1 Action ITEM #1, BILL CREDITING CONTRACT (UTI 3-6) (CMR:13F:6) Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution authorizing execution of the Bill. Crediting Contract with Customers of the Central Valley Project between the Western Area Power Administration and the City of Palo Alto. RESOLUTION 6481 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF P4i.0 ALTO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT N0. DE-MS65-•06WP59048, 'BILL CREDITING CONTRACT WITH CUSTOMERS OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT" AGREEMENT Western Area Power Administration ITEM #2, AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR MIDTOWN TRAFFIC STUDY PLR - MR: :6) Staff recommends Council: (1) Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with DKS Associates in the amount of $26,500 for consulting services for the Midtown Traffic Study; and (2) Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement of up to $3,500. AGREEMENT MIDTOWN TR;.FF IC STUDY DKS Associates ITEM #3, STREET TREE PLANTING (ENY 7) (CMR:130:6) Staff recommends Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Pied Piper Exterminators in the amount of $21.,819 for street tree planting, 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders not to exceed $3,300. AWARD OF CONTRACT Pied Piper Exterminators ITEM #4, HAAS -KINGS RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (UTI 3-1) ICMR:133:6) Staff recommends Council adopt ,the resolution which provides for the City of Palo .Alto's withdrawal from participation in the Haas -Kings River Hydroelectric Project. RESOLUTION 6482 entitled *RESOLUTION OF THE, C0WWC IL CF TIE .CII'7 OF FILO ALTO ACCEPTING AND APPROVING CITY'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE HAAS -KINGS PROJECT" ITEM #5 RESOLUTION OF _APPRECIATION:TO SENATOR _REBECCA MORGAN ;.f (LEG 3) RESOLUTION 6483 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TJIE CITY OF - PALO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO SENATOR REBECCA MORGAN FOR HER SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION" 6 7 4 9 1/20/86 ITEM #6, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ASSEMBLYMAN BYRON SHER (LEG 3) RESOLUTION 6484 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO ASSEMBLYMAN BYRON SHER FOR HIS SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION" ITEM #7, ORDINANCE RE SUBSTANDARD LOTS (2nd Reading) (PLA 3-8) ORDINANCE 3662 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY Or PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) TO REGULATE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS" (1st Reading 1/6/86, PASSED 8-1, Patitucci "no") OTIOM PASSED unanimously, Klein absent, Patitucci voting "no" on Item 17. ITEM #8, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS (F&PW) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR CIVIC CENTER PLAZA DrITCtr (P14k 7-2) FC PIR :10 2 : 6 ) Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Chairperson Bechtel said the issue was before the F&PW Committee at the meeting of October 8. 1985, and a contract was negotiated with the first choice recommended by a committee who had evaluated various applicants for the Civic Center Plaza redesign. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved to adopt staff recommendations: 1. Authorize Miyor to execute the agreement with Roberts Associates for $44,981. and 2. Authorize staff to execute changes to the agreement of up to $5,00U for reimbursable and additional costs. AGREEMENT PWOFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT SERVICE CIVIC CENTER PLAZA REDESIGN PROJECT 85-11 Chairperson Bechtel said the Plaza Design Committee spent a slot of time on the matter, and the members of the F&PW Committee appre- ciated the efforts put into it. The Plaza Design Committee would continue to be involved during the design phase, but would not be involved after that point. Naphtaii Knox, Chai man of the Design Committee, was present. Public Horks Senior Engineer Pat Stone made a correction to the recommendation where it presently read $45,000, it should read $44,98.. Councilrnember Levy knew there was an extensive presentation made to the F&PW Committee, but not to the .Council as a whole. He had one set of questions relating to the Plaza goals. He believed the primary shortcoming of the Plaza was it rejected the public rather than welcomed them. In looking at Exhibit "A," the Plaza Goals and Details, he saw that "A Place for the Public: informal, leisure, formal meetings, concerts, gatherings" was cited as a secondary geel in common with several .other goals, and the primary goal was the importance of a single, positive, visual ` theme. He was concerned because he believed the shortcoming of the present Plaza was it had a single, positive, visual theme which presumably said it was an important area a for Palo Alto, but as a matter of fact, the theme worked against making it a welcoming place to the public. Regarding the first two goals listed under Exhibit "A,* he wanted to see greater emphasis given to the second goal, i.e,., "A Place for the Public: Informal, leisure, formal meetings, concerts, gatherings.". /OM AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to revise the order of goals in Exhibit "A" entitled, "Plaza Goals and Details Table," The revised order would be: - 1. A Place for the Public Informal, leisure Formal meetings, concerts, gatherings 2. Single, positive, visual theme Most Important plaza of the City that says: "This is Palo Alto," "Welcome to Palo Alto" Naphtali Knox, 1025 Forest, chaired the Civic Center Plaza Committee, and said the Committee had seven or more members who always attended, so anything before Council was the result of com- promise. He could not recall the precise discussions, but did not believe the Committee would have any problems with the amendment. In fact, their discussions indicated the primary need was to draw people into the plaza. Primarily, Exhibit "A" served one of its purposes in terms of spelling out to the design consultants what the Committee believed the City was looking fok. He was sure it was no problem for the design consultant to follow the message that a place for the public was the primary goal. There was no problem from, his standpoint, and he hoped the Committee agreed. Councilmenber Patitucci asked what it meant operationally to reverse the priorities when it came to the work of a consultant. Having the order was one thing, but saying it was ten times more important than the second item might be something different. Mr. Knox said as a professional planner and a citizen, it was dif- ficult to work on a set of goals, objectives, policies, etc., and draw differences between the two. In fact, in the first place it said, the "Most important plaza of the City tn.t says: 'This is na10 Alto', and `Welcome to Palo Alto,'" which implied drawing people in. He did not believe operationally it made any iiffer- ence. In terms of what had to be done to change the two, it was Council's prerogative and a direction to the consultant to make sure the plaza did what they wanted --welcome people. It was an accent, an emphasis to the consultant to watch carefully. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. Councilmember Levy commended and thanked the Civic Center Plaza Committee and Mr. Knox for their work. Their deliberations were valuable, and he looked forward to a long-awaited change. Mayor Cobb agreed on behalf of the Council. MOTIDIa AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. ITEM #9,', CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-1 (PLT -- -. City Attorney Diane Lee introduced Steve Casaleggio, Bond Counsel with Jones, Hall, Hill & Wh!te, who assisted the City with the project. Terry Shuchat, 737 Northampton, was a member of the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA) Board of Directors and the local Parking Committee. They were all concerned about the purchase of the parking lot and believed it was necessary to the area. Some Councilmembers expressed concern there was plenty of parkin(' i_ n the area, but once the three large empty office build- ings were filled, he believed the lot would be crucial for additional parking. Along with the lot, they wanted to double deck it, plus Lot 3 which was located between the Keystone Lot and the Post Office and, along with the project if there was enough money, to also double -deck Lot 7 on Sherman Avenue. Bob Kavinoky, 2091 Cornell., said the Parking Committee sent out a lengthy letter discussing the parking, history, new formula, etc. The Committee worked har;d, together with staff to ensure they had a complete mailing list and intended to make several more mailings to ensure everyone interested in the area was aware of what they were doing and where they could learn about what it would cost either themselves as property owners, or their tenants, He thanked Council for their progress on the matter and hoped it continued smoothly. MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6486 entitled 'A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY DETEINTQAiIoN AND OF INTENTION TO MAKE ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS' CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-1 Vice Mayor Woolley commended staff on their thorough noticing process. Ste could not imagine anyone was left out. She believed staff thought of all the possibilities and did a good job. Councilmember Patitucci clarified operationally the procedure was after Council approval, and at some point, once the special Assessment District was established and they went through the process, bonds would be sold, money would be obtained, and the City would go out and buy the property. He asked what the Gity would pay for the property. Ms. Lee said it depended first on whether the Gity was able to acquire the property through negotiations or whether it had to go to court and perhaps acquire the property through a condemnatio►; proceeding. It was difficult to say not knowing how things would resolve themselves on the issue. Councilmember Patitucci clarified the property owner was well aware 'of the process and the City did not have a long, litigious situation facing it. Ms. Lee did not know if they were mutually exclusive. She believed the property owner was well aware of the situation, but in terms of ::hat the process would be, whether it would be liti- gious or not, she did not believe staff could say at that time. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the power of eminent domain went along with the action. Ms. Lee said no; it was a separate action Council would take at a subsequent time. Councilmember Sutorius congratulated -staff for taking to heart the noticing concern spoken to by CouncilmeMber Klein at the previous discussion. If the two resolutions passed, Council identified cost of acquisitions at approximately $825,000; cost of improve- ments at $30,000; contingencies S155,OQO; a.A incidental expenses $315,000. He asked at what juncture the. improvement potentially became a structure as opposed to what he believed was contemplated within the confines ofthe report to merely surfacing. • Chief Transportation Official Marvin-Overwey:said included in the particular bond issue assessment `was the provision for a .consultant study ; to determine the nature, type,. -and feasibility .of a -parking structure. if the decision made:_sense, later on there would- be an -.additional assessment. Provision for construdtf ng was not included in the figures. Councilmember Sutorius clarified the additional assessment would be set up with the same type of procedures followed to date on the particular set of resolutions. WOW Ms. .Lee said that was correct. Councilmember Sutorius said the same noticing, t•n_. would apply, Ms. Lee said is would be up to Council in terms of the optional notices --the ones to tenants and occupants. It vas not a legally mandated notice, but Council instructed staff to do it. With the one exception, which depended on Council, everything else was the same. Councilmember Levy was also pleased with the noticing procedure, but mildly criticized the Notice ',of Improvement, Attachment 6. He asked if staff had flexibility as to the language of the notice because he found it hard for people to understand. When people saw a Notice of Improvement posted on the street, they did not react the same as they would if the City was to tell them it was a Notice of Assessment, which was really more to the point. Ms. Lee said Mr. Casaleggio noted the language in the particular notice was one of their "legal" notices, mandated by the City's Municipal Code. Councilmember Levy asked if it included the headline, NOTICE OF IMPROVEMENT." Ms. Lee said yes. Mayor, Cobb believed the purchase of the lot was extremely impor- tant to the whole area and he was delighted with the work done, the support of the business community in the area, and to see Council get to that point because the parking situation there was critical. In a sense, the action was needed to cap some of the other actions Council look the previous year in the area with regard to the last structures allowed, etc. Perhaps Counci could see at least one part of town where it could eventually began to get the parking problem bk in equilibrium with the demand for parking. It was a positive stub and he was delighted to support it. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTIONS Vice Mayor Woolley seeds seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the Resolution. RasSOLuTIOM 6486 entitled *A RESOLUTION PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, APPOINTING TIMM AND PLACE OF SING PROTESTS AND DIRECTING NOTICE THEREOF. AND DESCRIBING PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF kSSESSJIENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTING FILING or BOUNDARY MAP'S CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARSING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-1 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. ITEM 11O, WATER QUALITY_ CONTROL PLANT - SOLIDS INCINERATION BUIL ID NG BELT PRESS - CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (UTI 7-4) (CMR t 132:6 ) MOTION; ° Covnci l member- eery moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council authorise a $25015 contingency for change orders on the belt press installation contract with E.B. Morrill Company. CHANGE ORDU T(,,CONTRACT E. H Morrill Company NOT/ON PASSED unanimously, Sutorius, Klein absent. ITEM 11.11 41C iiAZAkD RE©tJ PROGRAM (PLA 12-5) City Manager Bill Zaner introduced James Russell., t/30,8i Consultant Jim Russell said the staff recommendation (CMR:124:6) ireluded the ordinance and the attached Appendices A and 8. The reeson there was only a reference to Appendix A in the recommenda- tion was they were asking for a modification of the appendix regarding the edition of the Building Code used in the evaluation of the buildings from the 1973 edition to the 1985 edition. Councilmember Fletcher clarified Council passed the original ordinance, and asked whether Council was modifying it to bring it up to 1985 standards. Chief Building Office Fred Herman said no. An ordinance was never passed. In June 1984, Council directed staff to return with what was before Council that evening for adoption with one recommended change of a reference code for analysis. Vice Mayor Woolley was concerned about the ramifications of the ordinance for historic structures and believed it would be unfor- tunate and ironic if Councie precipitated the demolition of ,some of the structures at the same time it tried to limit growth in order to preserve the Downtown area. She believed -the ordinance addressed the problem mainly through the provision of the 18 -month delay for those structures in Categories I -IV, while the Historic Resources Board (HRB) undertook a study to identify some economic benefits to the property owners. She queried if Council added XYZ structure to the inventory in April, whether the building would get the benefit of the remainder of the 18 -month delay period, and also get benefits of any action Council took to provide economic benefits. City Attorney Diane Lee said yes to both questions. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the City was probably in good shape concerning historic structures. Ms. Lee said with the exception of the issue she and Vice Mayor Woolley discussed earlier that day having to do with the notice and when the notice went out to properties being considered for addition. Vice Mayor Woolley said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) in connection with the Downtown Study was considering adding more historic properties to the Downtown Historic Properties list. She had a conversation that afternoon with the Chairman of the HRB, and believed the situation was probably not firm enough to (3o ahead with it. She appreciated the tees were an attempt to cover costs, and asked if staff perceived any additional costs to the City not covered by the fees provided for in the ordinance. Mr. Herman said the only fees were in review of the submitted reports, which the'City would recover costs for and then credit to -future plan checks. Fees, in terms of private ownership buildings, should not increase beyond that. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if staff anticipated hiring a cur,sultant to do the evaluations of the engineering reports. Mr. Herman said yes. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the tee would cover the payment of the consultant. Mir. Herman said yes. The fee would be the actual rate charged by the consultant. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the cost of simply: administering the program fell back on staff. Mr. Herman said yes. 6 7 5 4 1/20/86 As corr 3/3i, g Vice Mayor Woolley asked if more staffing would be required. Mr. Herman did not anticipate asking foe more staff or an increase in the division's budget. Vice Mayor Woolley said on page 4 of CMR:124:6, staff started to discuss the 1973 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and why they pre- ferred to have the Appendix reference the 1985 UBC, and the com- ment was made the current Code --and she assumed it was the 1984 one --was more stringent, or the other way around, the 1973 one was less stringent by approximately 40 percent. It seemed to be a big change in 12 years. Staff must have learned a lot about seismic safety in that time. Council got a letter from WSJ Real Estate (on file in the City Clerk's office) which asked if the UBC 'was changed in 1990 with regard to seismic standards based on increased.knowledge, whether the City would ask for a new report and a new standard. Mr. Herman said the 1985 Building Code would be before Council for €ormai adoption City-wide, all construction use hopefully within the next month. The change was for a multitude of reasons: The 1985 Code was readily available. A copy could be purchased of the 1973 UBC, it currently consisted of the state-of-the-art engi- neering for life safety of buildings. Since staff was looking at an analysis -only program, not saying, "You roust retrofit to the 1985 Building Code," it pointed out the weak links in the building. It was a much safer and better gauge of how a building would react in an .earthquake. As far as changing for future codes, staff had no intention of adding the 1988. Code, which the City probably would not adopt uati1 at least 1989; for that method, but would stay where they were. It was a five-year pro- gram. The 1985 Building Code would cover staff all the way through and be a consistent tool to use. Mr. Russell said staff would not have any reason to change the standard during the program. When the program expired, it .might be prudent to use a more up-to-date version, but it had nothing to do with the ordinance proposed. Vice Mayor Woolley understood wanting to update the Code for buildings were not yet examined or upgraded, but if after the report, a brilding owner did undertake to modify the building so it met the Code, or at least satisfied what was felt to be needed, what happened to that person in eight years when they were in a new cycle and maybe adopted a new Code. Would the building have to be changed a :second time. Mr. Herman said no. If a person had. a report performed which showed his building had a potential to collapse due to a certain connection, i.e. a room/wall assembly, the design engineer as part of his report subaitted a solution. The solution was not based on the 1985, 1982, 1979, 1976, or 1973 Code; it was just what the owner could do to make the connection function so the building would not collapse, which was all staff asked for. There was nothing specified for a corrective measure other than a solution to hopefully prevent collapse of a structure. Vice Mayor Woolley said if Council ever got to Phase 2, or Step 2, it might be prudent to include somesort of provision which pre- vented property owners from having to upgrade their building mcee than once. Mr. Herman totally agreed. Vice Mayor Woolley said staff talked about 350 bxilding owners, but about 285 buildings, and she asked why. 6 7 5 5 1/20/86 Mr. Herman said staff first notified 350 building owners because they worked from a "draft" list= It was the large cidc of the final list of buildings in tho inventory so every owner received every piece of material mailed. There were also multiple owners on individual buildings, all of whom were notified. Vice Mayor Woolley said preventing collapse was the main purpose of life safety, and the concern was not so much with damage to the structure above and beyond preventing collapse. She referred again to the letter from WSJ Properties, and the comment about how a structural engineer would ever be able to evaluate buildings because the ordinance was not specific in terms of what the measurements were. She asked about the seeming lack of a standard although she appreciated it was probably impossible to provide. Mr. Russell said the question regarding the Richter magnitude was covered in the staff report. The standard used was a composite. Staff wanted to be able to compare a building to what was pres- ently considered to be a minimum standard for protection of life; basically, preventing the collapse of a building, and to look for `the weak links in a building. They used the 1985 Edition as a reference to evaluate the demand on the building and relate to the capacity of the building's structure. They also looked at spe- cific elements of the building which proved in past earthquakes to be the precursors of a collapsed failure. So, they used two sepa- rate methodologies: the Code as a tool to say a building might have a certain level of deficiency from what was presently con- sidered to be a minimum standard, and then went beyond to look at the configuration of the building and how it affected its ability to resist earthquake forces. Those were tools the engineer needed to come up with an evaluation of the building, not just based on code, but on the realities of how a building reacted in an earth- quake. Councilmember Sutorius was concerned about questions Vice Mayor Woolley pursued. A concern of his was to avoid a situation which might introduce an injustice or inequity in the case of a building already amortized, or might become amortized because of land use and zoning changes. Through the process an amortized building had a short life already associated with it, and it seemed wrong to impose the requirement for a building which potentially had a short life in the relative sense. He asked if it was reasonable to amend the materials to include an exemption dealing with amortized buildings. Mr. Herman said wording was prepared. City Attorney Diane Lee clarified buildings were not amortized. The City amortized uses. In some cases, it meant the buildings would be obsolete because of the kinds of uses taking place, and in others. they were not. She believed the reasonableness of an exception was tied to how to provide for a conversion of building from an amortized use to a non -amortized use. The language drafted accomplished that. The language was an amendment to Section 16.42.040 to add a new subsection (d): "(d) Exemption. Owners of buildings whose uses are subject to amortization urscer this code shall be exempt from compliance with Section 16.42.040(c) However, upon the termination of the non -conforming use, the owner shall be required to rehabilitate the building to the then current level lateral force requirements in the Uniform Building Code prior to occupancy by a conforming use." Councilmember Sutorius said with the foregoing wording and the caveat of not confusing uee with buildings, in the case of a non- conforming use subject to , termination, it was unnecessary to identify alternatives within the proposed ordinance, however( one of the options of a property owner was removal of the building itself, which did not change under the proposed language. 6 7 5 6 As co t Ms. Lee said that was correct. Councilmember Sutorius referred to applying the 1985 UBC, and asked when making the engineering inspections, evaluations, and developing the report, about the cost or time differences which fell upon the property owner in performing the task when using the 1985 UBC as opposed to the 1973 materials. Mr. Herman said there should be no differences in the time involved for the engineer to perform an analysis using either version. The only difference was in the numbers used to evaluate the demand an earthquake would place on a building. The time involved in invest .gating, evaluating, and preparing the report should not change. Councilmember Sutorius referred to judgments on the part of the property owners as to the type of plan they intended to pursue or evaluation or analyses staff might make upon receipt, and said in the last sentence of paragraph 16.42.030, on page 4, it indicated buildings structurally upgraded in substantial accordance with either the Los Angeles Division 88 Standard for URM buildings or the 1973 or later edition of the UBC need not comply with provi- sions of this ordinance. He asked if the intent was staff would make a predetermination of which buildings already undertook work substantially in accordance with the applicable standards, and therefore not initiate the notification. Mr. Herman said yes. Staff already removed several buildings from the draft inventory of buildings upgraded to higher standards. City Hall was a good example. Councilmember Sutorius said the potential existed where the owner might receive notification and believed work was already performed which qualified or desired to undertake work to. qualify, and asked how the criterion was established or what criterion existed against which substantial accordance was measured. Mr. Herman said the ordinance did not require upgrade. It only required an analysis of the structure. The owner could, if he desired to improve his building and upgrade the structure, use any standard he wanted. He could not imagine an engineer going less than 1973 UBC. He did not believe the ordinance required it. 'The report had to include a solution or what was necessary to resolve any difficulties encountered. The ; items would be upgraded to a l reel of standard to hopefully prevent a potential collapse of the structure. It might not be tied to a Code, and he was concerned they were getting hung up on Code. Councilmember Sutorius said Council, public, and property owners needed to understand. Staff indicated an evaluation might not necessarily tie to any precise code. It might be an element in one or more of the versions of the code which existed from time to time and it might not be the only thing necessary if someone were constructing a new building on the 1985 Code, but it fixed the problem, and could be acceptable. An example was having the roof tied into the wall. As was learned through the committee process and the prior Council processes, tilt -up construction which the layperson would think. should be reasonably safe because it was reasonably modern technique in fact had some serious problems.. When analyzed, the problem seemed not to be the wall fell out or in, but rather the wall and the roof separated allowing for the roof to fall in, which failing was the critical risk. He asked if that was an example of how an evaluation and an action might be appropriate end not,be upgrading to the entire 1985 or 1973 Code. Mr. Russell said as an example, the 1973 UBC was the first Code to require .a specific type of anchorage of a roof to a wall, and particularly i n a tilt -up type construction building. The sub- stantial accordance phrase was to allow the building official some latitude : in evaluating what procedures were used. It was not 6 7 5 7 1/20/86 necessarily based on a single code per se, but on the parameters which improved the buildings! performance in an earthquake. Councilmember Sutorius said information was previously shared which indicated part of the review process included contacts out into the insurance world. He recalled the feedback indicated insurance treatment was not a factor; that insurance brokers indi- cated they saw no change in their processes. A lot transpired in the insurance field, and he wondered how comfortable staff was, the non -changed status commentary was still applicable as it affected the subject of earthquake and general liability insur- ance. Mr. Herman believed it was probably the biggest unknown. Staff requested information from insurance carriers, but had received nothing. Many comments were heard from the private sector that it would have an affect. The City's Risk Manager was the last person to make the comment it was middle land; no change. He could not update the Council. Councilmember Levy asked about the difference between the 1973, 1979, and 1985 Codes in terms of the affect of what was being pro- posed- It seemed using the 1985 Code as the standard, when the engineer did the study, the report would not simply say there was or was not a problem, but rather there was a probem relative to a certain standard and would then use a stricter standard so more buildings would have problems insofar as the engineer's report was concerned. Mr. Russell said there would be in almost every building in the study because they were all cons:ructed prior to 1976 at a level of deficiency based on a comparison with the 1985 code. It was a tool for the engineer to use to compare the capacity of the building in an earthquake to present day's considered minimum standard for life safety. It was not the criterion the buildings collapse hazard would be based on, but rather it and the criteria listed in the appendix based on factors known to cause collapses in various types of structures. In terms of using a lesser stan- dard, they would be asking the engineer to give the owner a false sense of security regarding the capacity to demand ratio of the building's ability to resist an earthquake without collapsing. Using an up-to-date Code primarily allowed the engineer to use something with which he was familiar. The force levels in the 1985 code were unchanged since the 1976 Code. Councilmember Levy asked if the other factors referred to which would be used along side the 1985 code as standards were in the Code. Mr. Russell said the factors were based on the research done over the past ten years regarding buildings in other parts of the coun- try and in the world which suffered partial or complete collapse damage in earthquakes. They were a list of the weak links that buildings exhibit in earthquakes not necessarily addresseed by code design, but were known to be the precursors of the type of hazard being addressed. Councilmember Levy assumed they were codified somewhere --that some entity determined them to be proper standards. Mr. Russell said they were not codified per se, but were used by structure engineers to evaluate existing buildings and to design new buildings. Councilmember Levy asked where staff got them. 14r. Russell said from research documents published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and other research docu- ments froi Stanford University. Wohl Councilmember Levy asked if the standards were part of the Los , He asked who determined the standards were appro- priate. ea �uu�__ a. Mr. Russell said Appendix 8 referred to unreinforced masonry brick bearing wall buildings, and the standard used there was the Los Angeles standard for repair of unreinforced masonry buildings. The standards used for all other types of buildings were based on the research to which he earlier referred. Councilmember Levy was concerned about City and owner liability because he was unclear in terms of the affect of the ordinance on the various liabilities. Apparently, every building analyzed would fall short of the 1985 standard, and might fall short in other aspects. A report would be made and the City and owner would be aware of the shortcomings. He asked about the liabil- ity. Ms. Lee said the City would not be liable because of the ordinance because .it had no affirmative duty to do anything about the know- ledge it received from the reports. She believed it was a con- sideration discussed in June, 1984, when Council determined which approach to take. In terms of an individual owner's liability, it would largely be a factual question which a jury woul d have to determine and it would vary depending on the magnitude of the problem as disclosed by the report, the nature of the conditions which caused the earthquake and various other factors which she did not believe anyone could determine at that point. As a pu::lic agency, the City took steps to make its buildings safer. Councilmember Levy queried a building constrdcted in 1977 to the 1976 Code. An engineering study was made which found it to be in conformance with the 1976 Code, but short of the 1985 Code, which report was a public record. The owner did nothing, and in an earthquake there was damage. Ms. Lee said as she understood the,ordinance and based on what she heard from` Messrs. Herman and Russell, it attempted to ensure the building was structurally sound to the standard it would not col- lapse in an earthquake. It was not so much which code it was built to, but whether it was sound so it would not collapse in an earthquake. Councilmember Levy asked what if an earthquake occurred and a building collapsed. The building was satisfactorily built prior to the earthquake, and the City, with the report in hand, gave its vote of approval, but the owner did nothing further, and the building collapsed. it appeared to him the City would be clearly implicated. Ms. Lee said no. In order to have liability, there must be a duty to do something, and the duty must have been breached. The City had no duty to do anything with the information it received unless Council chose to impose one. The City was not liable. Councilmember Levy clarified Ms. Lee did not feel the court's would say the City knew which carried an implication the City should have dune something to protect the public. Ms. Lee believed the law was the City did not have a duty to do anything with the information, and so ling as„ it did not have a duty, and did not breach the duty, a court could not, under pres- ent law, find the City liable In terms of what might happen in five or ten years, she could not say. The essence of the law was the separation of power between different branches of the govern- ment. It was Council's decision to make as to whether it wanted the City to have the responsibility. If Council chose not to have the responsibility, .it was a fundamental, discretionary decision, of a legislative body. If Council chose to act in that way, it should not be liable under the current system. /10,8g Councilmember Patitucci asked what was going on in other communi- ties In terms of the regulations. He was curicerried if the City regulated the matter, it would somewhat be an island in a sea where there were other standards, and he asked whether the City did anything to itself as a result. Was the issue more a County, State, or seismic region issue. Why was the City dealing with it. Ms.. Lee said there was a .Comprehensive Plan program to which the ordinance and its many permutations responded. It was before the Council as a City ordinance as opposed to the County because the County -would not have jurisdiction to pass •the ordinance in the City. In terms, of being a State ordinance, it was something where the City fought hard to have power at the local level and did not want the State intruding on the City's land use decisions. Mr. Herman said in terms of other cities' involvew:.t, the City of Los Angeles, Santa Rosa, Long Beach, Santa Ana, and the City of Odgen, Utah all adopted ordinances for seismic safety and all required analysis and correction. All were directed at unrein- forced masonry. He was involved in some State activities being pursued, and there was presently a bill pending for unreinforced masonry. Councilmember Patitucci asked if that meant the City would have eports on file with significant problems identified in terms of seismic safety for a building which happened to be on the Palo Alto side of San Antonio Road, and across the street in Mountain View, the same building would have probably the same kinds of problems, but no one knew about it. Ms. Lee said that might be true for then. The City found when it passed an ordinance, it was often used as a model throughout the County. Palo Alto was one of the first cities in the State and the first in the County to have a no smoking ordinance in the woekplace. Every city in the County used Palo Alto's ordinance as a model and cities throughout the State did the same. Councilmember Patitucci understood Palo Alto created its own impe- tus for an ordinance at the level of regulation the Council chose to regulate. Ms. Lee said yes. Councilmember Patitucci clarified there was no State mandate that cities shall adopt certain kinds of ordinances by a certain. date. He asked if any other cities limited their ordinance to unrein- forced masonry buildings. Ms. Lee said that was correct, but she believed they required more than reports. Palo Alto only required the report, and she under- stood some of the other cities required a report and a retrofitting after the reports were completed. If was previously discussed that insurance would be one of the incentives to get people to actually retrofit their buildings. The economic forces would influence the decision as opposed to having it mandated by the City. Councilmember Patitucci referred to the science of understanding what happened during earthquakes relative to other technology, and asked if the City could say it knew what was required to prevent collapse, Mr. Russell said Mexico City might not be a good example because their standards were not the same ones used in Palo Alto. Further, the standards chosen ,were ones staff believed were up-to- date, and which could be used to evaluate the City's buildings constructed under the .ULC used in California for; many years. 6 7 6 0 '1/20/86 Codncilmember_Patitucci was concerned about a moving target and did not totally understand answers to previous questions about what Code the City used. The City used some standards which were not in the Code. He clarified there were standards in the appen- dix not contained in the Code, which to staff's best judgment of the kinds of things the City wanted to see in buildings in Palo Alto because code and literature were researched and Palo Alto believed those things should be the standard. Mr. Herman said that was correct. Councilmember Patitucci said if the moving targets changed, what happened to people who wantesi to create safe structures, did the analysis, made the changes, and later found out three or four things were missed. He asked if ft was a continuous process. Mr. Herman did not believe they were looking to a continuous pro- cess. It would have been simple to specify a straight line as compliance. It would have been unflexible and expensive, and the City could require a dynamic analysis on every building structure. The City wanted to be flexible, and went through a committee proc- ess with the citizens. The City wanted some "grey" to allow flexibility for the design engineer. Any time there was a spe- cific requirement, it was difficult to meet with a multitude of buildings. They were all different. There had to be some range of compliance and a lot was being put into the faith of the engi- neer who did the analysis. The City tried to write a unique code. The final answer was it was impossible to put what staff wanted into writing, and so some standard had to be specified. The Code could be changed from 1979 to 1982, but staff was after what would keep the building from collapsing based on best knowledge. City Hall was jest rehabilitated and he believed it worked. Councilmember Patitucci referred to the buildings on either side of San Antonio Road, the insurance question and having the reports on file. The Mountain View side would get insurance, but the Palo Alto side would not. He asked to what extent the question could be researched to find out if there was any effect. The claim was the report scared away the insurance company. Mr. Herman said staff had no clear answer. While it attempted to receive such information, it was difficult. The only way the City would find out the information would be to write a policy. Mayor Cobb referred to the insurance question and believed Mr. Herman seid he went out and asked questions, but received no answers. It sounded like something the insurance companies were resisting giving the City an answer to. Mr. Herman said when staff pursued the matter, the question was "if I owned an unrei nforced masonry building, would 1 get insur- ance for earthquakes." The answer was it did not matter whether the City had an ordinance, it was based on the building, not what the City did. Mayor Cobb said what if staff went to the insurance industry with the ordinance and said the City would begin getting reports. Some of those reports would say a particular building was in danger in one degree or another, and the question would be whether the insurance carrier would change its view in terns of whether the building was insurable. He asked if the particular question was asked or whether it could be asked. Mr. Herman believed it was a relevant question, but did not believe it was asked. May=or Cobb asked if the 1973 rules were a workable, reasonably safe place to start. He understood staff attempted to provide language which was in effect the state-of-the-art as of 1986. 6 7 6 1 1/20/86 He clarified it could have a logical conclusion it would make the 1 argent possible number of buildings get a negative report bccau5e it set a higher standard than its pr•adecessors . Mr. Herman did not believe staff was after a negative report based on the 1985 UBC. He believed the 1985 UBC would help point out weak links in a structure. Mayor Cobb clarified his question was connected to how he under- stood the insurance companies views of the ordinance because the reports were something they would also have access to. Presumably every building built from 1973 to 1985 would be more at risk of getting a report rhich showed potential failure because of the state-of-the-art nature of the stEndards being proposed. Mr. Russell said the potential collapse failure was not just related to the force levels, but to the way the building was put together, the configuration, the soil it was on, and factors not included in the Code. Those were the weak links being emphasized in the analysis of the building. Whether the building had a 50 percent deficiency from the 1985 Code or a 20 percent deficiency from the 1985 Code would not make a substantial difference if the building was well put together, was redundant in terms of its capacities for resisting lateral forces. In the opposite sense, if it lacked redundancy, the 20 percent deficiency could be seri- ous enough to elicit a bad report. John Sweeney, 3030 Cowper, said there was no reference to a spe- cific earthquake magnitude. He was sure any building could be destroyed in an earthquake. He also noticed no, reference to the cost to the City of having the necessary inspections made. It celled for a "seismic qualified civil engineer" to inspect the buildings. There were many non-profit organizations such as churches and fraternal lodges for whom a $2,000 to $5,000 fee for the inspection of their premises would be a hardship. There should be some rrovis€on the City Engineering Department could review the drawings for a non-profit organization for a small or no fee. He understood once the report was made, it was almost mandatory for the repairs to be made. All buildings in the City would be found deficient under the 1985 Code. It seemed a stan- dard should be established. Dwight Gabbard, 109 Coleridge Avenue, owned an unrelnforced masonry building, and there were no plans or anything a:iich would facilitate the study by a civil engineer, which he understood increased the cost. The cost to him would be about $4,000 to $5,000 to do the study, and it would be a hardship to try and come up with the money. He understood an unrelnforced masonry building was basically one entire stress point. It seemed unnec- essary for him to have the building studied when everyone knew it was unsafe. It would be cheaper to just tear down the building, but he did not have the money to rebuild or reinforce. Joe Yarkin, 152 Homer Avenue, owned the property at 945-949 Emerson, the SOS Market. The property was tenant occupied, and the tenant lived in a small house in back of the property. The SOS Market was one of the last remaining foodstor,es in downtown Palo Alto, and he wanted to see it continue. The building was unrelnforced masonry. The building itself was small with approxi- mately 800 square feet of unrelnforced masonry concrete and. approximately 250 square feet in back which was a wood addition to the property. If the ordinance passed as submitted, he would have to do some some major remodeling. He spoke with a Contractor mho estimated the cost of remodeling the small building would be some- where between $60,000 and $100,000. If he had to do the work, the tenant would have to pay a much higher rent in order to do the improvements. The net effect might be the tenant could not afford to stay, which meant another downtown grocery store would dis- appear. He urged some exception so the use could continue in Palo Alto. 6 7 6 2 1/20/86 Wallace Leung, 3304 Cowper' Street, spoke on behalf of his mother and uncle regerriing the property at 544 Emerson Street, Maggdalena's. His mother could not come up with the money for the study or the cost to redo the engineering work. He was concerned the Council was developing a ghost town because the businesses would leave and get cheaper products ': ,u i u to bought elsewhere. Councilmember Bechtel asked if the building was unreinforced masonry. Mr. Leung said yes. Councilmember Bechtel asked about the capacity of the restaurant. Mr. Leung said 90 people. Vice Mayor Woolley asked staff for a rough estimate about how much the C i ty put into its own structures to get then up to a relative seismic safety to date. City Manager Bill Zaner said $5,000,000 was put in\City Hall, and all the libraries, community center, theatres and other. City facilities would be done, the total cost of which would be some- where around $8,000,000. Councilmember Patitucci asked about the cost on a square footage basis. Mr. Zaner deferred response. Don Klages, 281 University Avenue, spoke as a property owner and not as President of the Chamber of Commerce. The fact that a study was being done ir:plied something needed to be done, and it did bring up the question of 'deep pocket" liability. He believed Councilmember Levy's question was essential to some of the studies. If one took the total costs for all the studies and con- struction, they were talking hundreds of millions of dollars in construction. It was a big problem, and was not just located in downtown Palo Alto. His question was how much did they pay to legislate safety. If they were truly interested in safety, he queried the number of people killed in cars, by the SP station, and earthquakes. In reality, there were problems of safety every- where. He questioned the validity of getting into the area, but suspected Council could legislate forward better than it could legislate backward. Jim Patrick, 270 University Avenue, was concerned about investiga- tion, defining the problem, the penalties involved, and possible alternatives. In terms of investigation, he referred Council back to its June, 1984 minutes, where Tom Harrison said, "At the first meeting of the seismic committee, he asked for a determination of the problem, and was yet to see a definition in terms of risk to Palo Alto of future earthquakes." He had still not seen the ques- tion answered. They were asking the Building Code to be 40 per- cent more stringent than it was, the result of which was that vir- tually every building in downtown Palo Alto would be declared unsafe. It was an undue burden and the gain was pretty small. One could not build a building which could not, collapse. It sounded as if they were proposing to invent the wheel, and to be a leader was expensive and high risk. If one . remodeled to the tune of 50 percent of the value of the building, that was the time .to. upgrade. Over the 1 ong haul, they would meet the goals of the particular ordinance. Everyone wanted a safe Palo Alto, and he suggested it be done effectively. Bob Kavinoky, 2091 Cornell, supported using the current code for good administrative reasons having nothing to do .with the lateral force requirements. He worked i n the City's Building Department many years ago, and when Palo Alto adopted a special code because it was not satisfied with the standards set by the then UBC, he t/i098i tried to enforce it for several years after the UBC went past, and it, was a n1ahtmar-e: Pccpie w'clu paid 3.50 for a 116E every tine it cane out did not like to pay $7.50 to Palo Alto for its special Building Code. Palo Alto's had higher standards. Whatever the hazards elsewhere, they were less in Palo Alto since the City Council and staff maintained higher standards. Former Chief Building Official John Swaffel once said in answer to why so much money went into Palo Alto for building that did not go into Menlo Park or Mountain View, "Palo Alto was an island of excellence in a sea of mediocrity." A building could fall down, but his own sur- vey of earthquakes back in the 1950's in Kern County suggested one and two-story buildings built to the then current code survived well. Good erforcement was needed even with the best codes, and Palo Alto's was good for many years. The hazard was not as big as some thought. Council's energies would be better directed at doing something about the precarious unreinforced masonry buildings because generally the ones built in the late 1940's and 1950's forward were much safer by orders of magnitude. Philip Lehot, 407 California Avenue, was one owner of the building at the corner California and Ash, which used to be the City Hall and jail of the City of Mayfield. It was completely remodeled in 1945; however, it was classified as unreinforced masonry because some portions of the walls were unreinforced, even though the remodeling increased the total square footage by more than 100 percent. He requested a list from staff of affected properties and the mailing list of owners many times, and was told he would receive them before that evening's meeting. He finally received copies of the microfiche permits relative to their building. He realized staff was overburdened with work, but the information was requested two years ago, again last year, again in December pub- licly, and again on the phone. They Just received it last ,leek. The owners did not have time for a structural engineer to provide an estimate. Their structural engineer was Albert Alexanyon, Chairman of the Committee of the Building Code of the Association of Structural Engineers in California, who said in no event could he give a fixed bid for the work. No answer was received to their request the City pay for the blueprints and drawings to be recreated as a result of their deliberate destruction by the City in 1964, as a result of a fire on Mr. Clay's property which was public knowledge and recorded. Recreating the blueprints and drawings for the building would cost tens of thousands of dollars, according to Mr. Alexanyon. They also had not received a response to numerous suggestions there be a financial help program set up by the City for the owners whose building specifications and drawings were destroyed by the City. He assumed no answer meant, "Tough luck, buddy." Refusal by staff to give access to the mailing list of building owners hindered efforts to organize and obtain financial help from each other and from different political entities and levels of government, which prejudiced the owners interests as well as those of the public. Knowledge of old buildings and owners affected by the proposed ordinance should be given in order to evaluate the situation. He also asked the proposed ordinance not be considered until after a minimum of three months from the time the owners had the list. Generally, distribution of information relative to the proposed ordinance was soreiy lacking, which was even more true as to the effects of such an ordinance. .The material described in procedures A and B was technical, and owners needed more time for feedback from experts. He still awaited an explanation of what the procedures meant and encompassed. Copies were received barely a month previously. The public deserved to know everythirg beforehand. He opposed the ordinance. Carl Clem, 611 Hansen Way, Director of Corporate Facilities for Varian Associates. If the staff- report was correct, Varian repre- sented 11 percent of the property in question. Long before the earthquakes in Mexico City and Coalinga, Varian recognized the need for seismic -safe facilities. In .1973, Varian hired a local reputable structural engineering firm to survey its buildings and 6 7 6 4 1/20/86 make recommendations. _Following the recommendations, Varian com- pleted an ambitious multi -year program to improve the structural safety of all its buildings. Those .structural improvements included adding structural shear brecing, upgrading of roof dia- phragms, and tying tiller panels to second floors and roof struc- tures. In addition to t;:e structural improvements, Varian anchored critical facilities equipment, such as electric trans- formers and switch gear, air compressors, cooling towers, boilers, and air-conditioning chillers. As Councilmember Sutorius pointed out, the proposed ordinance had a provision to exempt buildings structurally upgraded in substantial accordance with the Los Angeles law for unrei nrorced masonry buildings, or the 1973 /IBC. Varian believed it already complied with those requirements. However, the proposed language did not make it clear how it could be demonstrated. Varian believed it was not the City's intent to require Varian an estimated $400,000 to have its buildings resur- veyed merely to submit the report to the City in required format. Therefore, Varian respectfully recommended the proposed language be modified to clarify the exemption for building owners like Varian which demonstrated they had already met those require- ments. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether Varian's insurance company was involved in the process of going through the matter, and was its insurance rating affected by any of the activity. Mr. Gleam was unaware of any past insurance requirements or involvement. Varian recognized the need to upgrade its facilities for the ,safety of its employees during an earthquake and continued production following. He believed insurance rates might be affected one way or the other, but could not speak to it. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:40 p.m. William Alhouse, 2450 El Camino Real, through a partnership, owned and operated one of the most significant buildings in Palo Al to affected by the earthquake ordinance which was 261 Hamilton, whose major tenant was University Art Supply. Regarding Councilmember Levy's comments concerning insurance, he talked to his insurance man, a long-time tenant in the building, regarding liability. His answer was the liability almost tripled that year, and if the ordinance impugned the building in any way, he did not even know if he could get liability insurance. He advocated safety, but was concerned any negative report on the building impugned it. Any earthquake was no longer an act of God, but was a liability thrust upon the owners, and in the City of Palo Alto, in spite of the comments that evening, there was a real liability involved in any negative report and an eventual disaster as far as earthquake was concerned. He had a special problem; If he had a negative impact as far as earthquake safety was concerned, he could not get lia- bility insurance and was out of business. He would not have a building with tenants without liability insurance. He was recently approached by the Historic Society to put the building in the Historic Calendar and agreed to do so. He could not tear down a historic building, and believed no one in Palo Alto wanted to see a ball thrust against the beautiful building. It was a mar- velous building and should be preserved in every category. Some attention should be given to the tenants who were the ones most at risk and who spent most of the time in the buildings unless an owner occupied an office, and he took the liberty of surveying their tenants and made an interesting proposal. Because he was interested in safety, he asked the tenants if the owners paid one-half the price, whatever the cost, to bring the building up to standard as far as earthquake ordinances were concerned, would the tenant be willing to pay the other half on either a cash or increased rent .basis. There was . nothing fairer than 50/50, and the tenants appreciated its:,' The owners had a preliminary survey. done by a well -respected engineer in Palo Alto who said nothing much could be done to the building as far as rebar was concerned; there was rebar in the building although not as much as there 6 7 6 5 1/2,0/66 should be.' Other reports said the cost of rehabing the buildings might be anywhere from ;1u to $30 a square foot, but no one knew until the building was finally surveyed. The building was 30-,00.0 square feet which, at $10 per square foot was $300,000; and at $30 a square foot, it would cost close to a million dollars. The tenants' second question was what assurance they had the City of Palo Alto would guarantee the building would not fall down. He replied nothing. One of the tenants said it was like paying the premium on an insurance policy and then not knowing what amount you would receive if the building burned down. Five people responded to his survey, four people said it depended upon the cost, and 30 people said no, they would take their chances. The tenants in Palo Alto should be surveyed to find out how serious they were about paying for the cost, spreading the risk and finan- cial liability. He was interested in the response and assured Council he did not make the inquiry in a negative fashion. He appreciated the work the Building Department, the Planning Commission, and Council did. He believed it was a worthwhile project, but not feasible 4er the present circumstances. James Bacigalupi, 1693 Miller Avenue, Los Altos, spoke for his wife who owned the property at 380 University. They agreed whole- heartedly with the previous speakers who eloquently objected to the ordinance as being unreasonable. It was nice for the City to be a trend-setter, but it was an excessive expense for property owners. They realized the work was voluntary, although they would go to jail if they did not do it. They wanted to know more clearly what the timing was. They realized as a Category I building, they had 18 months to do the analysis, how much time did they have then to do the work. Also, what was the property owners' liability. Was it increased in the eyes of a jury because of the analysis than it was otherwise. Greg Osborn, 1450 Greenwood Avenue, spoke as a homeowner and tax- payer, regarding cost versus benefit. He spoke to insurance companies, and was told losses and deaths from fire were about 50 tines the deaths from earth uake. In the history of building development and operation, the Fire Codes were upgraded over the years and he understood if a building did not meet current Fire Codes, and if more than 50 percent of the value of the building was spent to rehabilitate it, the entire building needed to be brought up,to the current code. Basically, all the cities in the country approached fire risk in that manner because it was their most pressing problem. He saw no reason for an earthquake ordi- nance to require anything beyond what the Fire Codes required. If they rehabilitated a building ih. the city of Palo Alto, and the cost of rehabilitation was more than 50 percent of the value of the building, the building should then be brought up to current earthquake and fire codes. The proposal went far beyond. From the staff report, he calculated the square footage. of buildings to be included in the ordinance, ever 7,000,000 square feet times the cost range just for the analysis of $.25 to $1050 a square foot. From staff's numbers, it looked like the cost of analysis was $1.8 million to $10.8 million. He wondered if the money was well spent knowing 50 times the deaths were caused by fire than earthquakes. Maybe an ordinance should be passed which addressed fire _more than earthquakes. Two and one-half years ago he remodeled his home and added a second story. It was a masonry block, one-story, flat -roofed house He was then required by 'the City to hire a structural engineer to X-ray all the walls in his house to find reinforcing bars, and make a yellow chalk work where every single piece of steel was in the whole house _ before he was grainted .a building permit Also, the structural engineer had to sign on the plans to say his house was safe for occupancy_-. He did not know whether the Code presently only addressed commercial buildings, but- from his experience as a homeowner, the feeling from staff crept into his residential situation. He did not object to the ahalysise nor to the requirements, but it was -an experience to say a rest dents el structure had to be reviewed from an earthquake seismic standpoint. 6 7 6 6 1/20/86 Co uncilmember Levy confirmed Mr, Osborn was President _of a coii.iier- c i al real estate development company. Mr. Osborn said a management company. Boyd Smith, 301 Coleridge Avenue, was concerned about the lia- bility issue. He clarified it was the first seismic ordinance in the State which dealt with buildings other than nonreinforced masonry. Mr. Herrman replied the Ci t.vof Santa Rosa had buildings that went up through 1956. Mr. Smith believed the ordinance clearly broke new ground, and from a liability standpoint, needed to be carefully reviewed. He contacted a few large insurance brokers who issued hundreds of millions of dollars worth of policies a year. Those people told him once a report was prepared which identified defects in the building, it- was virtually impossible to obtain liability cov- erage. There would be a period of time after the report was filed, and even if he went as fast as possible, tenants had to be relocated, things had to be done in the building before major structural changes could be made, which took time during which time the insurance brokers did not feel he was safe to count on liability insurance. The same thing would take place in Palo Alto over virtually the same period of time. The ordinance could pos- sibly precipitate a liability insurance crisis in the entire City. There were several good questions asked of staff about the whole insurance issue, and all he heard was the insurance companies had not responded and there was nothing definite on their position. The answers were needed before the matter went ahead. No building owner or anyone in City wanted large segments of the City uncovered liability -wise. It was not true the ordinance was voluntary as it related to construction changes. In actual 1 ty, " i t blocked a building owner's ability to obtain insurance and, there- fore, refinance, sell, and perhaps even lease. He also reminded Coencii of the great changes in the insurance business in the past year. He read during the past summer almost every day another city had difficulty obtaining liability insurance. He was not an attorney, but in that atmosphere, it was interesting the insurance companies he talked with quickly saw the possibility the City could be liable in the situation. The legal opinion was impor- tant, but it was also important to ask the insurance people them- selves at a time when the City had a hard time getting insurance what happened if the ordinance passed. It was so-called voluntary, and if a property owner did not comply with the chances outlined in the report, the City had 'enowledge there were defi- ciencies in the building, there was an earthquake and someone was killed, who was liable. The insurance companies needed to be asked how they would interprete the question, particularly in the present climate. He still did not understand the relationship between the 1985 UBC and the fact buildings had to be inspected with that code in mind, and yet the work to be done had to comply with another code, or related to other ties of the building. He would appreciate more specification in writing. Councilmrember Levy asked Mr. Smith if unreinforced masonry buildings presently got liability insurance. Mr. Smith said yes. Councilmember Levy said an unreinforced masonry building was in great danger in an earthquake. Data indicated during an earth- quake over 80 percent of unreinforced buildings in the path of an earthquake suffered life -threatening damage. If the buildings got liability insurance presently, then why would other buildings not be able;_ to get liability insurance after those studies were made because all the studies would do was either "yes or no" indicate what the whole world knew about an unreinforced masonry building without a study. Mr. Smith could not answer the question and was not there pretending to have the answers. He did not believe the question of liability was dealt with in the ordinance in light of the present insurance climate. Councilmember Levy's question needed to be answered. His comments did not relate to unreinforced masonry. They had such a building and took voluntary steps to do some corrective action. Mayor Cobb asked since Mr. Smith had discussed the matter with some insurance people, if he perceived from those conversations any difference between implementing the ordinance staff recom- mended with the 1985 Code and implementing it with the 1973 Code as it related to the issue of liability insurance. Mr. Smith said he did not differentiate between the two codes with the people he talked to. He knew there was a vast difference between what was required in both Codes. Barney Dahl, 1095 Valley Forge Drive, co -owned the Cardinal Hotel in Palo Alto. He studied the proposal and believed it was an expensive exercise being added to the owners. To have a survey of uncertain measure, the owners were being negatively stacked against because no engineer in his right mind would put any pas- sing mark on any building short of complete teardown, or prohibi- tive restoration or upgrading. Even then, the engineer would be sticking his neck out because of the liabilities involved if some- thing happened. The Cardinal Hotel was a historic structure built by one of the leading citizens, Birge Clark, who would not appre- ciate having to see his building torn down. At the same Ririe, since the previous upgrading ordinance was turned down, and it was decided then to let the market decide concerning building rehab- i citations restructuring, etc. the building's stability should be the concern of insurance factors, the owners, and God. Since the. City could not be attacked legally from what he understood that evening, why stick its neck out. If such a program were mandated, it should be State-wide. If anybody saw the program the previous evening, "The Making of California," Palo Alto was prominently mentioned and City Hall was shown in full glory as being in jeopardy of coming down instantly. The issue was adding a terrible expense. For his part, he had 30,000 square feet and it would cost about $25,000 to $30,000 for a survey even though he had plans. He opposed the ordinance. Phyllis Munsey, 2361 Santa Ana, owned two buildings on Ramona Street. She concurred with most of the statements, and was cur- rently undergoing a voluntary rehab of a historic unreinforced masonry building. She hoped the ordinance did not pass. She felt vulnerable because it was a scary financial burden when an indi- vidual took it on both from the initial report phase, which they went through, and it ended up they had a building which was fairly intricate. The report alone cost between $10,000 and $12,000. Once they got into the planning stage, they were given an estimate for their 5,000 square foot building of about $300,000 to rehab it; and were presently at $500,000. Her concern was what happened during the process where the owner was in an "over the barrel' type situation. The building got pulled apart, everything was exposed, and e.uddenly there were a lot of problems no one antici- pated. Things were worse, the soil was worse, they had to go another 12 feet underground. At that point, the owner could no:t say, "Okay, let's forget it. Bulldoze it." The process was started, the building was opened up,.the tenants were in temporary quarters; there was a commitment t.o follow through, and then you went for additional financing. .Luckily she had an honorable structural engineer whom she trusted, but the people who made the financial decisions when you went through the process were not the same people paying the bills. The structural engineer obviously had a liability he could not sign off on unless he believed the building was the way it should be so he could sleep well at night. The City did not want to say tenants could be put in a building when it knew a little more should be done. 6 7 6 8 1/20/86 She believed their building was structurally secure, but ques- tioned if they really needed to spend that much money. She could not make the determination. There were some conflicts of interest that should be seriously looked into so the owner who paid the bills had either some determination as to the ultimate cost before getting into a position of total bankruptcy. Jack Wheatley, 2240 Cowper, said Mountain View started on a simi- lar project and abandoned it; decided to tear down the building and build a new City Hall part way through as ,the last speaker had said. A lot of good came out of those studies, but there was not a lot of good if the ordinance passed in its present form. The good so far was many owners looked at their buildings pretty hard and had work going on. All owners, particularly those of unrein- forced masonry structures, should look at them on a voluntary basis because they had some liability by the knowledge picked up, which problem was spoken to. He reminded Council of the old police station, presently the Senior Citizens' Center. The building did not comply with any of the codes in its final form, but was heavily studied and reengineered and put together in such a fashion he believed was safe. It would still have a cloud hanging over it and he did not believe any engineer would say it met the 1985 Code, or any other code, so it was an example. Yet it was a safe building and was not going to come down and was going to ride out an earthquake as well as any building including the new ones. He urged Council not pass the ordinance to the 1985 Code. It was like saying a 1973 car had to get off the road because it was no longer safe, which was not necessarily true. Many were safe, but would not be able to say it was adequate. As testified to by a former building inspector, the City had require- ments for many years and the buildings were fairly safe, so the real questions were those built either a long time ago, and the exterior \aspects which might fall off were certainly to be addressed. Other cities only went to their unreinforced masonry, which was a concern to all owners with those buildings, and he hoped those owners would do something about it. He asked Council to take note of what was, said that evening in terms of additional information, and back the issue off so business could be done in the City without jeopardizing insurance and a lot of other things needing to be done unnecessarily. Tom Harrison, 230-232 Homer, believed it was the same plan as when he first spoke a couple of years before, and saw nothing really changed other than the entire City would be involved. If Council passed the ordinance, the City would have to enforce it and he did not see .how it could. He did not believe it would particularly help public safety in Palo Alto. His own building had four walls, two which were reinforced and two which were not, and the latter two he shared with two other businesses, so there were actually three owners involved. Every building was a special case. The cost of examining every building, the cost of trying to bring it to code or to satisfy the City was going to be astronomical. When the issue was first raised, somebody said the ordinance would do more to destroy Palo Alto than any earthquake, and he believed it. It would not happen immediately, and probably not with the current Council. The people who would have to deal with it would be the Councilmembers four or five years from then who would begin to get heat from the citizenry saying, "Why is the business dis- trict shrinking? Why are we losing all these businesses? What's happening to the Downtown?" The ordinance would cause Downtown to change. The social cost was going to be greater than the economic cost because as a long-time resident of the area,; he saw slowly not only the physical historical parts of Palo Alto disappearing, but also the social. If the ordinance was passed, they would have to seriously reconsider relocating their business outside Palo Alto because they could not afford to rebuild a building which housed. five employees at a cost of $100,000. It did not make eco- nomic sense. In the businesses he knew and talked to there would be a slow exodus of older businesses because they probably had the financial muscle to get out and get rid of their property 1/20/866 which would be develuped into condominiums. In the future, Palo Alto would have a lot of the older businesses gone and a lot of nice, bright condominiums and apartment houses. It was an impor- tant decision Council had to make and had nothing to do with pub- lic safety; it was an economic decision and also one of what Council wanted to happen to Palo Alto. The repercussi ors of the program would be as strongly felt as rezoning an area, or all the other little variances which took place in the Building Code. He urged Council to vote against the ordinance. David Hammond, 1062 Metro Circle, was a structural engineer who practiced and lived in Palo Alto, and a member of the United States Rescue Team responsible for finding and saving people in the Mexico earthquake. Council's decision was difficult. The: economic effects on individual lives were great; on the other hand, he opined there were definite and definable gross inade- quacies in many buildings in Palo Alto, both Downtown and else- where, in terms of unreinforced masonry, old concrete frames with inadequate reinforcing and sometimes hollow, clay tile walls which nearly exploded out of them in an earthquake, and buildings built over a long period of time up until 1973 or so, which possibly had reinforced masonry or brick walls, but which were poorly tied to the wood roofs and floors. The latter buildings were the ones probably the most cost-effective to fix, and many were fixed voluntarily by owners. The Code was trying to identify those gross inadequacies to allow people to get out of buildings safely. The intent of the current Code being used as a model, the 1985 Code and later ones, was not only to do that, but also to save property values, make buildings more survivable, . and more usable after an earthquake. He opined whatever the code, if the building was consistently and adequately desi gncd, carefully tied together throughout so loads flowed from the roof all the way to the foundations, the 1973 Building Code was the model which should be used for analysis and repair. Repair might even be a fraction of the Code, i.e. the numbers madewere half the issue or less, and the careful design to carry out the numbers consistently was really what the knowledgeable engineer would do. It would be a mistake to use the 1985 Code or to confuse the issue with a higher code because the 1985 Code might lead to improper liability deter- minations by bankers and others who really did not understand engineering. The engineering profession was in constant ferment in code charge. There was a new code teeing proposed presently where most engineers i n . the area would go to classes in the spring for a totally new approach to building design as far as the mathe- matics were concerned. The result might still be the same, but he opined a code of the 1?73 variety which was clearly understood by most engineers was the one to be used .for a model for adequacy. One really put one's head in the sand to sat 1.. Palo Alto there were shakes over the period of time since 1906 and nothing had happened and the ordinance would cause more destruction than it would save. There were no shakes in Palo Alto of any significance since 1906. There could be great loss of life. A lot of the haz- ards were clearly definable • and should be addressed and the tenants should know about them. Mayor Cobb knew Mr. Hammond was in Mexico City and had a chance to, view some of the damage. He talked about the 1973 Code being an appropriate ease for Council around which to build an ordinance, and he asked if in his professional judgment, he believed the 1973 Code represented an adequate and reasonable level of safety for an earthquake ordinance, Mr. Hammond said when talking about allowing human .beings to escape from the building, life safety, a_ consistent design which used the 1973 Code was adequate in his opinion. Councilmember Patitucci said Mr. Hammond used "gross" problems in connection with thr► Code, and then said the current Code was designed more to protect long -teem economic value. He clarified Mr. Hammond meant one could have a code which might satisfy some situations and would protect people and allow them to get out of the building, but the building itself might, in fact, end up not being habitable again and have to be torn down. Whereas, the higher level code said not only would the people get out, but the building would itself retain its economic value; and, therefore, what they had from the 1973 Code to the 1985 Code was protection of building rather than people, or more in that direction. Mr. Hammond said yes. The 1976 through 1985 Code produced a more survivable building; it had greater economic value, whose ele- vators should work, stairs would probably be clear, would be easier to patch. It was not to say people were not safer in the building because they were, and they probably could exit faster. He opined a survivable building, especially as they were talking mostly about smaller buildings, could be adequately addressed by a careful engineer in terms of detail and consistency in the building using the 1973 or earlier Code. Councilmember Patitucci understood building codes applied to the construction process. - The ordinance talked primarily about what kinds of things would be done to bring older buildings up to some reasonable standard to protect lives. He queried whether the Building Code was an appropriate thing to use or whether other standards applied to retrofitting and fixing up buildings separate from any building code which should be used when looking at bringing a whole series of past actions up to some acceptable standard of life safety. Mr. Hammond could only answer the question from personal experi- ence. What he was talking about was one could find buildings very poorly connected together. He was in buildings where remodeling went on or was proposed, and found the roof was totally not con- nected from a moving in and out standpoint to the walls,. It was a building done in 1924. The forms were still there on the inside which prevented the connection of the roof wood to the concrete wall; there was absolutely no connection. It was obviously a gross inadequacy. There were many publications to which one could refer. An Applied Technology Council publication talked about rehabilitation of buildings, how to rehaoilitate and the kinds of ways of doing it, and things other people faced was part of the engineering body of knowledge. The numbers used to start the pro- cess were in the Building Code, and some of the deta`i 1 reminding one to do certain things were in the Building Code, which was half the battle. Once it was One, one had to use .common sense, con- sistency, and experience to put the thing together. Councilmember Sutorius appreciated Mr. Hammond's presence. He referred to his opening comments to definable gross inadequacies in Palo Alto and identified urrei nforced masonry ` ,ii l di ngs as a category where the gross inadequacies and deficiencies existed. He also indicated a category of building with reinforcement, but with appendages or brick applied as a veneer. With Category I Council was dealing with in the proposed ordinance was the unrein- forced masonry building. He did not perceive Council had Category 2 specifically identified, unless it was Construction Age. Mr. Hammond said the three types of buildings he talked about were concrete frames of a pre -1960 variety, most of which were covered by the ordinance; unreinforced brick was the second category; and, third were the buildings with concrete or brick walls not con- nected well to roofs, which included tilt -up buildings, but also included buildings built back into the 1920's :some of which were covered and some were not. Councilmember Sutorius asked about what was currently going on at the State level in regard to seismic hazard, either attheadmini- strative bureaucratic level or at the legislative level. Mr. Hammond deferred to Mr. Herman. 6 7 7 1 1/20/86 Councilmember Sutcrius asked whether Mr. Hammond had served on some bodies in the past, Mr. Hammond said no; his service was more in the search and rescue area, not engineering. Councilmember Levy asked for help because his predilection was to reference the 1973 Code rather than the 1985 Code as the standard. Ms. Lee believed he could say staff recommendation with the proviso references to the 1985 Code be changed to the 1973 Code, and staff would take care of making it consistent. Mayor Cobb asked staff to -=explain the relationship of Appendices A and B to a motion of that nature. Mr. Herman said Appendix A was for buildings other than unrei n - forced masonry walls, and would reference the 1973 UBC according to the motion. Appendix B was strictly for unrei nforced masonry bearing wall buildings and did not reference any code year. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renxel, the staff recommendation referencing. the 1973 Uniform Building Code in a l l areas where the 1985 Uniform Building Code was referenced in the staff recommendation. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TRE CITT—DF PAcrALTo ADDING CHAPTER 16.42 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SETTING FORTH A SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENFICIATION PROGRAM" Councilmember Levy was not satisfied with the motion, and believed refinement was in order. He grew up in San Francisco, as did Councilmember member Sutorius; and, was- familiar with earth -quakes, They were all aware of what an earthquake could do and of the inevi- tability of a major earthquake in the area. The more years with- out an earthquake, the more likely it was to be hard when it finally occurred. Earthgllakes were unpredictable and no one knew where one would hit, how the forces would manifest themselves, or what buildings specifically would be damaged. While most boats did nog, ;ink, they needed to carry life-saving equipment and be built so they would not sink even though they might never encoun- ter troublesome circumstances. Palo Alto was in the same situation in terms of earthquakes. He would be remiss and feel like a failure if he were a City Councilmember and an earthquake came, and there were things he could have done to save lives which he did not do. Council had to do something, and it needed to be significant and useful, but not outrageous in terms of the econo- mic demands made on property: owners. He believed Council should use the 1973 Code rather than the 1985 Code for consistency. Council did not intend to deal with buildings built after 1976 since he understood the particular buildings were all built to the 1973 or earlier Codes. To introduce the 1985 Code represented a complication which might get the City in trouble because it meant Council mandated every report submitted would haveshortcomings in terms of the 1985 Code, which, was unnecessary in his mind. The City could have an effective erdfnance c,.ting the 1973 Code. He referred to Category I, particularly as it related to shall buildings, and said all the categories indicated occupancies of 25. or more; in fact, most dealt with occupancies of over 100. In terms of unreinforced masonry buildings, there was no occupancy standard, which meant even i f a building only handled one or two occupants, it had to be retrofitted. If it was en unrei»forced masonry building, retrofitting e- s al must: mandatory, which meant Council mandated an expensive pi!etess for the small buildings. He queried whether a minimum standard occupancy might be appropriate or whether it was a judgment call to say ft was unwieldy and economically unfeasible to have the ordinance apply to buildings where: the minimum occupancy was less than ten or so. He asked for staff's input. Mr. Herman said it was heavily debated at the Committee tee level during the Citizens Seismic Hazard Committee meetings, and the number ten was actually looked at. It was believed the unrein- forced masonry buildings had such a potential, not just to themselves out to neighboring buildings, they should be included. I_t was true the cost of rehabilitation for a small building might not be feasible, and replacement might well be in order, but the Committee was serious about leaving all sizes in, Councilmember Levy welcomed comment from his colleagues on the question because he was concerned. His second concern dealt with Categories V and VI. Category V related to buildings built between 1956 and 1976, and was particularly interesting to him because he believed it encompassed almost 4,000,000;_square feet and the largest number of buildings, 118, while all the other categories encompassed less than one -tenth of it . He asked staff whether it primarily related to tilt -up buildings, or what was the nature of the concerns the City had_with Category V. Mr. Herman said Category Y was composed of mostly tilt -up buildings or concrete block buildings of the same era in the Industrial Park and other industrial areas of town. Councilmember Levy clarified those buildings were found to be of real concern. Mr. Herman clarified those buildings deserved looking at closer. Councilmember Levy asked if it was proper to limit Category V just to those certain tilt -up buildings. Mr. Russell said there was a problem with definition. The type of problem staff was trying to address was not generic to tilt -up buildings; it was a eceinection-type problem between a wall and a floor or roof and could occur in buildings wi`h infill walls not considered tilt -up. There was not a definition in the UBC or any construction manual of a "ti 1t -up" building which could be used and be fairly applied. It was discussed at the Committee level, and determined to be unwieldy. Councilmember Levy said the City of Palo Alto spent millions of dollars upgrading its own buildings seismically, and it was true the building they were meeting in not properly seismically rein- forced before the recent work was done. He was not sure whether it was because the plans or the constriction were improper, but in any case, the City faced up to it, and as the owner and occupier of the building and other City buildings, made sure its buildings were earthquake -proof to the best of its ability. It was men- tioned tleat evening and by others previously, that nonprofit organizations, churches in particular, might be very hard hit. He was aware and sensitive to it, and yet it would be horrible if an earthquake came when a church s filled. Just because a church was a nonprofit organization did not mean the risk to the resi- dents was not something Council should watch nut for. Finally, it seemed appropriate the issue be addressed by a government body. All of the citizens to whom Council was responsible went in and. out of buildings assuming those buildings were safe in terms of fire hazards, plumbing, and earthquake, and Council. should do whatever it could to ensure they were safe. Counc!Imember Fletcher was sorry the process took s0 long, and Council lost its momentum People forgot there was a Citizens Committee of architects, structural engineers, ,end Downtown prop- erty: owners. The Committee came up with recommendations and Council should not consider completely doing away with the study which took so long to develop by expert people with their own financial conditions to consider. The study was well-done and Council should not ignore it, even though it was done so long ago most forgot it happened. Mr. Herman told Council the 1973 Code was no longer in print. It was a five-year program and the Code 6 7 7 3 1/20/86 now in print was 1985. She Qpp+used yo i ny batik to an outdated Code. The surveys should be done with the most modern knowledge of what constituted safety. Mr. Herman was an expert on the subject; he was in Colinga and did extensive analysis of what happened there and was on a State-wide body which dealt with the subject. Council had in its midst an expert who knew what he was talking about. Mr. E'erman pointed nut the ultimate standards by which the rehabilitation would be judged would not .be the 1985 Code; it would be purely what made the building safe. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to return to original staff recommendation referencing the 1985 Uniform Building Code. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Fletcher with respect to the 1985 Code, which was recommended because it was readily available to people. She understood at least one aspect of the Code related to earthquake safety was identical to the 1973 Code, while editions in other areas might be different. It might not be consequential, but it made sense to use a readily available Code. Furthermore, if Council asked people to produce the study and specified a Code, and they used the 1973 Code, people would have generated a lot of engineering data for themselves which might not be useful should they be doing other kinds of remodeling work which needed to be done to the current 1985 Code. When prop- erty owners spent money on the studies, they should have a useful product in the end for more than just the purpose of the study. For that reason, it made sense to use the 1985 Code. Many members of the public spoke to the entire ordinance as though it required them to make the updates and, at that point, it only asked for an identification of those things which could be done to improve the structural soundness. It did not require owners to meke the updates. Council hoped people would make the updates once they understood they had problems because nobody wanted their building to collapse.. People were not mandated to upgrade, so using the most cur=rent Code made sense in terms of having a useful and pro -- duct. Councilmember Patitucci asked staff if using a 1973 Code totally emasculated the ordinance, or whether it was a refinement. Could they live with the 1973 Code. Mr. Herman said yes. Councilmember Levy asked if a property owner was forbidden from using the 1985 Code the way the motion was presently worded. Mr. Herman said no. He clarified the original motion did not preclude the use of the 1985 Code, the amendment on the floor required the use of the 1985 Code. Mayor Cobb was bothered by the liability issue, and the 1973 Code versus the 1985 .Code struck him as being one of two ways Council could deal with the liability question. Council had not yet answered howthe insurance companies would deal with the question. He talked to a person he knew in the insurance business, eno whereas he was not 100 percent sure the use of the 1985. Code in such an ordinance would cause people to lose their liability insurance, he said it was not zero either. He placed the odds somewhere in the 25 to 50 percent category insurance companies might take the view which would basically make structures uninsur- able for liability. It was a serious concern particularly for so extensive an ordinance. It seemed by going to the 1973 Code they accomplle'ted part of the problem in dealing with the liability question; part berg there were not so many buildings with the onerous report attached to; their various documents which said the building had a problem. wI4th problem was then read by the insur- ance companies and used as an excuse to deny liability insurance. It still got reports, but it was at a more management level in terms of the people on the property. As Mr. Herman stated, the 1985 Cede represented ..�.� ���ri��rj eligifir-'E?I`i11g state-nt,.tbR-art which was tough standard, and few buildings in town could meet it. He was not sure they knew what they would get. His concern with going too far too quickly :was Council had to be careful of unintended consequences of its actions. Council tried to move people down the road toward earthquake safety, and if it pushed too hard, too far, and too fast with unreasonable standards, it might get some unfortunate consequences for the City. Council should be careful not to get into the kind of a situation until it knew what it was getting into. The question about insurance needed to be answered. Going to the earlier code was a little safer position, and a little less likely to create the liability crisis. He opposed the amendment. Councilmember Renzel said Councilmember Levy asked whether, if the 1973 Code was required as the standard, the 1985 Code would be precluded. The answer was no, a person could do their study to the 1985 Code standard. Mr. Herman clarified if a person so chose to use a 1985 Code and 1973 was specified, there was no problem. Councilmember Renzel clarified staff did not believe it presented any problems in having a variety. It .was building by building, so staff did not need to compare one building with another, and only needed to determine a particular building identified any possible weaknesses as far as collapsing. Mr. Herman said that was correct; it was not a comparison. Councilmember Renzel cle, fled it did not present a problem for staff in terns of tracking which standard was used while reviewing something= Mr. Herman said it was not a major problem. Councilmember Fletcher addressed the insurance question. It did not make sense to her because ell the insurance companies must know the multitude of buildings built prior to 1985 would not come up to the 1985 standard, so why would they charge more for insur- ance or not insure a building built prior to 1985 which was shown in the survey not to have 1985 standards. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Renzel, Fletcher voting Councilmember Patitucci asked whether the ordinance, if passed, Would be implemented on rehabilitating the buildings. Mr. Herman said rehabilitating a building for seismic forces was voluntary. The ordinance 6id not mandate any rehabilitation. Councilmember Patitucci asked if he had a building and decided to modify it to some level, would he be required to adhere to the ordinance at that point. Mr. Herman said no. Councllmember Patitucci asked how the ordinance night be modified to include it. Ms. Lee believed it would come into play: under the Uniform Building Code. If a property owner did substantial modifications tR his building, i t was where an owner would be required to bring his building up to existing Code. 6 7 7 5 1/20/86 Harmer any new work to }. 85 Mr. Harman �.�uii .iiai {� urij i�Gi a .RGu � have .3� to � 9Q:� standards. Anyone who presently wanted to upgrade a building ,for lateral forces or earthquakes, the City allowed them to do almost anything to improve the building, as long as. it did not lessen it. Staff hoped they would bring it to a life -safety standard which, for many buildings, would be 1973 Code, but not in all cases. A design engineer for a tilt -up building would use the 1973 code for connections and not go less. On another type building he would use the Los Angeles standard, but an engineer was not required to meet it as part of seismic rehabilitation. Councilmember Patitucci asked about the trigger point for someone having to bring their building up to code given a certain percent- age of rehabilitation. Mr. Herman said currently it was only a change in occupancy. Staff would have another amendment before Council with the adop- tion of the 1985 Code which would be 50 percent of the replacement value. Councilmember Patitucci said, in effect, the provisions of the ordinance would be implemented in the process and Council need not separately address rehabilitation. If somebody at some. point voluntarily rehabilitated their building to some percentage, it seemed staff would then enforce some seismic standards. Mr. Herman said if a person went over the 50 percent rule, which woul d hopefully be adopted in about a month, there woul d be no need to implement it because the owner would bring the building to 1985 standards, and it would become an academic exercise. Councilmember Patitucci said as it currently stood, there was nothing in the ordinance which required it. %r. Herman said that was correct. Councilmember Patitucci asked if there was a method by iehich the question from Varian could be addressed. If someone already made the effort, did they need to go through a fairly expensive process or could the City's Building Inspector go in and make a determi ne- ti cis prior to a major expenditure. Was it covered in the ordi- nance. Mr. Herman said yes. . Staff added the words, "substantial compliance," which was grey intentionally, and had buildings removed from the draft inventory because there were permits and drawings of work done for lateral force requirements. Councilmember Patitucci clarified if someone made an effort and had their own studies, staff could look at the old studies, the building, the drawings, and be exempted even at present. Mr. Herman said yes. In one case staff was receiving something 'n writing from the design engineer. It was not a report, but said the design with the permits, etc., was completed substantially in conformance, and staff removed the buildings from the list. Councilmember Patitucci asked if remedies and penalties were pretty standard for the City's ordinances. Ms. Lee said -yes. The normal remedies staff included, even if one was not included there, was a catch-all provision at the beginning of the. Code which said, *Every violation of this code shell be a misdemeanor." She believed ft was in Chapter I of the Code which set forth ° the penalties for a misdemeanor, which changed from time to time, but currently were six mcl.p.ths and $500 fine. They were the maximum penalties, and a. judge had discretion to levy others. Usually in those ordinances, staff would also seek injunctive relief if they believed it was important. Staff always gave themselves the option. Coulcilwewber Pi-tiLcci did not Wdiit to be in d situatiuii where Council did not act on the ordinance, and at some point in the future, a serious earthquake and its consequences seriously injured or killed many people as a result of inadequate building structure. He did not buy the argument because on an annual basis there were 50 times more fire deaths or injuries, !0 times more attention should be paid to the business of fire damage. An earthquake was a one time thing in a long period of time which needed to be averaged over whole periods, so it was difficult to deal with it on an annual statistical basis. It was important for Council to have the ordinance on the books. Council needed to start the process that evening. However, there were sufficient questions unanswered in terms of insurance liability, the process, the costs, and compliance. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Bechtel, to revise the ordinance to exclude Categories II through VI so the only Category applicable would be Category I (unreinforced masonry buildings). Councilmember Patitucci said as Council approached the end of the 18 -month period, it should examine its experience with the process for the unreinforced masonry buildings with the intent it might likely apply the standards in the future, if the information col- lected justified it, to the subsequent categories. The context of the motion was important because he did not believe Council wanted to let anyone believe it would not consider Categories II through VI in the future. Council needed to examine its experi- ence with the enforcement process with the Category I buildings, and answer some of the insurance and liability questions to which there were presently no answers. He wanted to include some sort of review at the end of 18 -months of enforcement of the unreinforced masonry builings, and wanted a sooner report on the insurance question --perhaps 90 days. Mayor Cobb clarified the first part of the amendment reduced it to just include Category I, and the second part requested a review after 18 months of enforcement to apply experience, and to evaluate on a shorter time frame the situation as it related to liability insurance with regard to incorporating the other five categories in a subsequent ordinance. Councilmember Patitucci clarified it was property owners' liability about which he was concerned. Councilmember Bechtel would .not second the second part concerning liability insurance. It was something staff could evaluate,.- At the end of the 18 months and probably in 24 months, Council needed to find out the actual experience of the property owners. Councilmember Patitucci said if it took 18 months to enforce the ordinance, probably three months after the 18 months would be a good time to evaluate actual experience both In enforcement and to see if anyone had any insurance liability problems. Mayor Cobb said there was a semi-annual review required by the ordinance. Councilmember Patitucci, asked if it would cover the two points. Mayor Cobb asked if the six-month reporting included in the ordi- nance would cover the reports Councilmember Patitucci requested. M.r. Herman said yes, Mayor Cobb clarified they were back to the original amendment. Councilmember Bechtel said the matter was originally received from staff in 1982 in response to a Comprehensive Plan included by the Council. Staff prepared a good ordinance which not only required titive81 property owners to survey, but to actually to do something once it was done. There was a.mandatory requirement for improvements on 285 buildings. At the time, she chaired the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee and there were something like 400 people in the Council Chambers. The Committee decided it was a little too much to do right off the bat, and instead formed a committee. The Seismic Committee met for a long time, and recommended a voluntary program. Knowledge was important and as people found out about the extent of their personal liability to their tenants, etc. they made improvements. The value of the long process was a lot of information was generated, people were aware of the situation, and the insurance companies ;tight not have gotten the message which was why the unreinforced masonry buildings still had the same insurance. The insurance companies would probably get the message soon. Since June of 1984 when Council unanimously passed the recommendation, the insurance situation changed substantially. The City knew about the "deep pocket" liability problems, and many companies were running into the same kinds of problems. She believed just requiring the 285 buildings to do the reports could cost millions of dollars. Council did not want its entire City to be torn down. She supported the amendment because she believed Council should do the first step. Require the report for those buildings considered to be 80 percent life -threatening immediately. If she owned a building with a 90 -person capacity, she would get working or the building immediately. The tilt -ups built in the 1960s and 1970s, had many employees and those with hazardous chemicals were equally dangerous. If she owned one of those buildings or if she were a tenant, she would want to imme- diately fired out the situation. At that point, Council should just do the first step with a clear idea that in two years, it would go on with the next steps. Councilmember Fletcher opposed the amendment because Council had 16 months to see if problems developed. At that time if there were undue hardships or buildings would have to demolished, Council could emend the ordinance to pull out those categories. The categories were developed because of various levels of hazards. Council was dealing with the most hazardous ones first, but it did not mean the others were not hazardous. Council should deal with all those the experts said 'were in jeopardy during earthquakes. If the insurance industry had time to think the matter through, they would not penalize ones with the survey and favor those without the survey. Councilmember Sutorius believed there was merit in the amendment, and countered Councilmember Fletcher's comment if Council passed the main motion, it would not have the experience opportunity suggested because all notices by the ordinance went out within a six=-month period of passing the ordinance. The engineering report must then be returned within the time frames included in the ordi- nance. Everyone would be put on notice to get cracking and some might respond or consume staff time with inquiries, and some might contract with structural engineers to get underway. There was the potential of expenditures being made and not much in the way of experience by which to make a decision until many of the owners already committed themselves one way or another in terms of expen- diture. Taking action then would be improper. He supported the amendment. He shared the life concern question and the expression of responsibility. It was difficult considering he resisted the entire main motion. It was important to get underway, and going with Category I as a step was appropriate He understood going with -Category I was a less stringent way than: originally con- sidered..and was less stringent than most cities who took action on the earthquake subj'eot. He was concerned it might be too relaxed. HQ was on the fence between an amendment which would at least add the next tier of category and was concerned about the low number. of buildings addressed by the amendment and the fact it was . a voluntary plan. Mandatory plans.. and compliance for the unrein. forced masonry buildings in other cities were on the books for some time. Councilmember Renzel opposed the amendment. Philosophically, Mayor Cobb upon taking office said Council should try and move issues on. The seismic issue was around a long time, and began with the Comprehensive Plan Seismic Safety Element mandated by the State. Shp did not believe the Comprehensive Plan was meant to be a lip service plan, but rather one with some teeth and import in terms of how the City comported itself. There was a public hearing in March, 1982 at the P&P Committee and in April, 1982 at the Council. Action was not taken then as a result of public input. The Seismic Committee presumably took a lot of public input which again returned to the P&P Committee for more hearings and discussion. In June of 1984, it returned to the Council and again a decision was postponed. It was a lot of Council, staff, and public time, and Council now proposed to go to a process where it would take 19 years to get to Category VI while it evaluated each successive category - in terms of how it might impact the next. Council would have not much applicable information from Category I and possibly even Category ii to relate to subsequent categories in terms of the cost of evaluating the buildings and the costs of possibly bringing them up to code or the reactions of property owners_to those buildings because the unreinforced masonry were likely to require more complex surveying and repairs. Likewise, the prc-1935 would take more work because there would be few plans available by which to go. Since a Building Code was adopted in 1935, more recent buildings were apt to have plans on file and types of construction readily identifiable to make it a less cumbersome process for those later categories. The time periods were extended on each category and presumably the surveys would take about 18 months, and the ordinance gave four years to conduct the survey. Before the later catgories even went into play in terms of when they would have to think about starting their surveys In order to co ply the experience would have been received with Category I and probably Category Is. Council should bite the bullet and get on with it. They were talking about life safety. The insurance issue was one on which no one could provide information, and independent of anything Council did with seismic ?safety, insurance might be more difficult to get. With the unreinforced masonry buildings, Council would not get any insurance information because they were already known to be a hazard. She urged her colleagues to reject the amendment and support the train -motion. Councilmember Levy appreciated Councilmember Pati tucci ' s attempt to grapple with the unknown, and appreciated and agreed with what Councilmember Renzel said in terms of Council not learning any- thing from Category 1 because it was the obvious. Ilhen Council got into the less obvious, it would begin to learn more precisely the impacts. It was. clear to him Council needed to have more than Category 1 at a minimum in the first cut. If Council were to include more than just Category I, but still take less than a full cut, he asked which categories staff recomritended in order to get a better overall feeling of the iv:tp4cts. Because each category had a longer time period, he believed most owners would wait a period of time before they began the 'work, but he did not want to penalize the property owner who decided to get going immediately and then found if they waited, they would not have incurred - the extra cost. Mr. Herman suggested Categories 1, 11, and III be included. Councilmember Levy said in Category 111, he calculated there should be 2,200,000 square feet for the 29 buildings. Mr. Herman said that was correct, AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Coinci1meMber Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to revise the Seismic Safety Ordinance to exclude Categories IV, Vr and VI.. Vice Mayor Woolley was inclined to support the amendment to the amendment. Councilmember Bechtel went through the history of the 1/20/86 process. otr.ers mentioned Council's responsiblity with regard to the public wel fare. The insurance developments were on the other side of the balance sheet. She believed Council might only sacri- fice a slight slowing down of the pace by limiting the motion to Categories I, II, and III. It could do the reverse and go ahead with the entire ordinance, and if Council discovered problems down the line, it could call a halt and make some changes. She was not sure it made a lot of difference as long as Council and the public watched the process with reports from staff every six months. She believed the amendment to the amendment was satisfactory. A mem- ber of the public cautioned Council might c;estroy more buildings with its ordinance than an earthquake in the downtown area, and it was a concern to her. The Historic Resources Board was consid- ering adding some more buildings to the historic list and the most important part was they would come up with some measures to make it economically feasible for the buildings to be restored instead of torn down, and she hoped Council would support them when they went before the Council. There might be a real change in the downtown area if Council did not do something to improve the economic situations for the buildings which gave the variety and visual texture to the downtown. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the pros and cons of Categories I, II and VI in order to address all unreinforced masonry buildings, and al . pre -1935 buildings other than unreinforced masonry. He realized substituting Category VI for Category HI I went to a lower occupancy on a per building basis. The difference was some 60 buildings in Category VI versus 29 buildings in Category III. He did not know how much of the life risk Council would be trading off. Mr:- Herman said there were many different ways and methods used to categorize risk analysis. The one before the Council was the one developed by the Citizens Committee and was ranked by what they felt were most important. He agreed with the Committee that large occupant loads were ones which probably ghoul d be included rather than smaller buildings of possibly wood frame construction. CouncOmember Patitucci believed Categories I, II, and III might provide more information than just Category I. It provided an array of different types of buildings, and kept it over a reason- ably short period of time,. He was persuaded to withdraw his amendment. MAKER AND SECOND WITHDREW ORIGINAL AMENDMENT Councilmember Bechtel said the 25 historical buildings in Categories I, I I , and III would also have an additional 18 months exception beyond the times listed. Mayor Cobb said it was a total of 36 months. Councilmember Renzel continued to oppose the amendment, and believed Council should deal with the entire issue. She hoped if Council went for a more limited study of the buildings, the time frames for Categories IV, V, and VI would be shortened so they ended up being as close as possible to the time they would have arose had Council proceeded that evening. She was; concerned the matter was being sent far in the future. They were talking about life safety and Council diddled around for three years because it was unable to make a decision. It made no sense to postpone the matter. Council knew there might only be minor changes needed to o e of the Category IV, V, and VI buildings to make them safe and use queried why not do it sooner. Mayor Cobb intended to make a motion at some point for staff to do a survey of the insurance field to find out exactly what it would mean to .apply the proposed ordinance .to the remaining categories. He supported the amendment, but wanted to see the insurance survey get done so Council knew exactly where it stood. AMF!!OMI!±T PA_Scxn by a vete of 7-1, Renzel voting 'no," klein. absent. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, to revise Seismic Safety Ordinance to add new Section to read: 16.42.040(d) Exemption. The owners of buildings whose uses are subject to amortization under this code shall be exempt from com- pliance with Section 16.42.040(c); however, upon the termination of the nen-conforming use, the owner shall be required to rehabilitate the building to then current lateral force require- ments in the Uniform Building Code prior to occupancy by a con- form4rrg use. Councilmember Bechtel asked how many buildings were on an amorti- zation schedule under Categories I, 11, or 111. Mr. Herman said two buildings under Category I were on an amorti- zation schedule. Councilmember Levy said there were two parts of the exemption. He concurred with the first that those subject to amortization should be exempt, but the second element looked as if it might be more strict than what the property owner would have to go through normally, i.e., if the owner made a small change in their building, would they have to bring the building up to current code. Mr. Herrman said the exemption was written such that it would require at the time the nonconforming use terminated, the building would have to be brought to then current code. Councilmember Levy asked if it was more strict than at present. Mr. Herman said under the ordinance, no repair at all was required. It was analysis orly. Staff and Councilmember Sutorius believed in exchange of keeping the building for up to 15 years extra and since the change of use from a nonconforming to a per- mitted use would probably entail a great deal of remodel anyway, the building should be brought to current code. Councilmember Levy understood if a lot of remodeling took place, the building had to be brought up to current code. If only minor remodeling took place, the building did not have to be brought up to current code. Mr. Herman said that was correct unless there was a change in occupancy classification. Councilmember Levy would be satisfied enough if .the owner were reeuired to file the engineering report at the time their amorti- zation ended rather than having the more stringent requirement placed upon the property owner. Councilmember Sutorius believed the City's position was reasonable in that the use was declared nonconforming, and if the use had a termination date associated with it, and it was in one of the buildings, the City avoided the double whammy by passing the amendment. As the termination period crew to a close, or if the owner of thz building sold or made a decision to change to a con- forming use and in that process was going to work on the building, it seemed entirely reasonable the building should be brought to a current code. It should be not only safe from a seismic hazard standpoint, but it should conform with all the other applicable elements of the Building Code. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, .to amend the language commencing with 'however,#, to read, "however, upon the termination of the nonconforming use, the owner shall be required to conform to the ordinance." AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT' DIED FOR LACK OF A: SECOND AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. Councilmember Bechtel was concerned about the small buildings. In that unreinforced masonry category she believed there were two choices: either do a size exemption for a maximum occupancy of maybe six or ten; or, a maximum size of 1,000 square feet She asked how many buildings might be involved with an exemption of 1,000 square feet for an unreinforced masonry building. Mr. Herman said about four give or take one. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, an exemption in. the unreinforced masonry category for a maximum occupancy of no more than ten with no more than 1,000 square feet. Councilmember Levy clarified it was a maximum occupancy of ten and no more than 1,000 square feet. Councilmember Bechtel said that was correct. She was concerned about the SOS Market, which was actually 800 square feet. The reason she said "and" was because there were hardly any buildings that small with the same occupancy. Councilmember Renzel was also concerned about the SOS Market, but the owner spoke primarily to making the necessary repairs to bring it up to date and the fact it might be costly and thereby drive it out of business The per foot cost of analyzing such a small building was probably not that great and not one which would threaten the business. People were just as dead if a 1,000 square foot building fell on them as if a 10,000 square foot building fell on them. They were talking about an evaluation of buildings, not the corrections. It was an unreinforced masonry building, the insurance factor was not a factor because insurance companies already knew the situation with such a building. She believed Council was responding to appeals not really relevant to the issue in terms of the scope of the action. AMENDMENT FAILS( by a vote of 3-5, Cobb, Bechtel, Levy voting ''aye," Klein absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved that staff provide, within a six-month time frame, a survey of the insurance industry to find out poten- tial impacts on liability to property owners by applying the ordi- nance to the remaining categories. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Levy did not second Mayor Cobb's motion because he did not believe surveying the 1 neurance industry would bear any fruit since they would say what they wanted. He believed if other cities with seismic ordinances were surveyed regarding the impact of the ordinance on their insurance coverage, something might be learned. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Menzel, to direct staff to survey other cities that have :seismic safety ordinances to find out their experience re impact on i asurance liability. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified only Santa Rosa had an ordinance on unreinforced masonry buildings Mr. Herman said that was correct.. Councilmember Renzel believed the motion should be left broad because there might be some experience from the unreinforced masonry which might be relevant. MOTION PASSED unanimously: Klein absent. t/i098g e i ITEM 112, REQUEST OF COUliCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE TRAFFIC SCHOOL FOR BICYCLE TRAFFIC VIOLATORS (SAF 3-6) Councilmember Fletcher suggested setting up a Palo Alto bicycle traffic safety school to accommodate those cited for violating traffic violations on a bicycle. Presently, such a school existed for motorists and the opportunity should also be available to bicyclists. If it worked out with the County Court system, it would be a service to the families in Palo Alto who had juvei i l es cited since it would relieve them of the responsibility of taking their children to San Jose. NOTION: Cosecilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to direct staff to 'work with Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee! and County auth•rit4*s to examine the feasibility of establishing a Saturday bicycle traffic school in Palo Alto for adult and Juve- nile -',Waters of bicycle traffic regolations. Councilmember. Fletcher said the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) members were experts at what caused accidents. She pointed out a particular violator might not believe they behaved dangerously,- and data cold be presented for the local streets in Palo Alto where bicyclists got their tickets, which showed how many accidents were caused by . the particular behavior. It was more impressive than just paying the fine. As far as costs, she believed the PABAC members were the logical instructors and the fees would be moderate. She did riot believe classes would need to Jae held more than every other month, which should not exceed MO a time, and $600 a year was not a great deal of money, plus the people who attended could be charged a fee. For the last three years, the Western Wheelers donated $300 to the City for use in bicycle -related activities, and there was no reason to believe it would stop, so classes would not ha''e significant impact on the budget. If the motion passed, staff could return with their reac- tion. Councilmember Bechtel supported the motion, but pointed out a Juvenile cited for a traffic violation on a bicycle did not have to go to San Jose. Her daughter went through the stop sign on Churchill which fall, and it probably took nine months before She actually appeared before a Juvenile Traffic Court person in Palo Alto, not San Jose. Vice Mayor Woolley enthusiastically supported the motion because, from her own experience, one needed to understand the reas•dn behind the rule before going along with the rule on a bicycle. The classes would do more to help people understand the -reasons behind the rule than simply giving them a citation. Not all students were able to take Diana Lewiston's good class at the middle school level ancf it would help those people. Mayor Cobb referred to the lady who "did not believe her behavior was dangerous," and believed it might be the best argument for the classes, because her behavior obviously was dangerous and she neededto learn it, Councilmember Fletcher said she got her information both from a parent wno called and said they had to take their child to San Jose, and the Police Department who gave the same information. She believed Councilmember Bechtel's situation was unique in not going to San Jose. NOTION PASSED enanimomitly, Klein absent 6 i El 3 1/20/86 ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:00 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor