Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-03 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY COUNCiL M(NUTES CITY OF ALTO Regular Meeting February 3, 1986 ITEM‘` PAGE Oral Communications 6 8 1 1 Approval of Minutes of December 16, 1985 and 6 8`1.1 December 23, 1985 Item 01, Presentation by -Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory 6 8 1 1 Committee Consent Calendar 6 8 1 4 Referral 6 8 1 4 Action 6 8 1 4 Item 02, Repair of Corte Madera Reservoir Road 6 8 1 4 Item 03, Inflow/Infiltration Source Detection 6 8 14 Study, Phase 11 Item 04, Recarpeting third Floor of Civic Center 6 8 1 4 Item 05, Design, Installation, and Monitoring of b 8 1 4 Methane Gas Probes at the 8aylands Athletic Center Item 06, Tennis Court Cleaning 6 8. 1 4 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 6 8 1 5 Item 18, PUBLIC HEARING: General Revenue Sharing 6 8 15 Funds for 1986-86 Item 08-A (Old Item, 01), Ordinance Re Seismic 6 8 1 5 Hazard Reduction Program Item 09, Housing Reserve Guidelines Item 010, Preliminary_ Report on City -owned Sites for Low- and Mderate-Income Housing Recess to Closed Session Re Litigation Item .011, Adoption of the 198f Editions of the Uniform Building Code, Housing Code, Fire Code, Pluibiny Code, Mechanical Code, the Hationa1 Electric Code, and Amendments to the Municipal Fee Schedule 6 8 1 9 6 8 2 6 6 8 2 8 6 8 34 Adjournment : 10:30 p.m. 6 8 3 5 • 6 8 1 0 2/03/86 Regular Meeting February 3, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Cobb -announced at some point during or after the meeting there would be a Closed Session re Litigation to discuss City of Santa Clara v. Herrin ton pursuant to Government Code► Section 9 .9 a URAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Dr. Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, was a recovering alco- holic, a,consultant and planner in health, education, and gov- ernment. Several years ago he appeared before the- City Council regarding a memorialization in regard to labeling alcoholic beverage containers as dangerous to one's health. The concept of labeling received endorsement from Stephanie Brown, former director of the Stanford Medical Center's Alcohol Clinic as well as others in the alcohol rehabilitation field. He was also a charter Board member of the board of directors of the Midpeninsula Alano Club located in Mountain View, which was looking for a new site, and perhaps a branch in Palo Alto. A prime site in Palo Alto was the spa on El Camino opposite Stanford. He invited everyone to go to the current site of the Midpeninsula Alano Club at 650 Castro Street, Mountain View. If they called 968-1500 in advance, the manager would give a guided tour and explanation of the Club's scope and possibilities for an enlarged facility. With regard to a memorial i zat#on, he again asked Council to request people in other legislative areas to act in conjunction with other cities. He urged the City Clerk be directed to communi- cate with higher legislative bodies, such as the County and the State in terms of Congress,. February 8, 1986 was an open meeting of the general membership to discuss sites, etc., of the Club and he invited all to attend. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 1985 AND DECEMBER 23, 1585. Minutes of December 23, 1985 vice Mayor Woolley submitted the following correction: Paye 6615, last paragraph, line 9, change "were then" to now. — Councilmember Sutorius submitted the following correction: Page 6678, fist paragraph, next to lest line, "unattended" shoeld be "unintended." NOTION: Ceeacilmeeber Levi► .moved, seconded by $ecktel, approval of tee P%inetes of December 161 1,es, as sobeit ;ed, and December 73, 1915, as corrected. NOTION PASSED ■aaaimtesly, ITEM #11 PRESENTATION BY PRt,O ALTO BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PwK . 2-/) J ennette. Carey, represented the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), and spoke about the study of bicycle accidents and risk. factors. PABAC advised the City staff on bicycle facilities', development, and safety, and its current membership was about eight citizens and three City staff people. PABAC was r e 6 8 1 1 2/03/86 1 i 1 interested in determining whether a pattern existed to bicycle accidents in Palo Alto, and instituting procedures to reduce the number of accidents. Some years ago, PABAC member-, Diana Lewison, began cataloging all bicycle accidunts in the City and was aided in that effort by the complete police reports of all bicycle acci- dents. Four traits appeared to be related to the occurrence of bicycle accidents: age, gender, road position, and direction of travel. Direction of travel required definitition because PABAC used them in_ the study. PABAC defined two road positions for bicyclists: in traffic lane, or on pedestrian facilities, and considered on -the -road bike paths to be part of the traffic lane and sidewalks; off -road bike paths, crosswalks, and curb cut areas to be part of the pedestrian facilities. PABAC also defined two directions of travel; namely, with or against adjacent vehicular traffic irrespective of whether the bicyclist was in the traffic lane or on the pedestrian facilities. In addition, PABAC looked at accidents at intersections not only between streets, but between driveways and streets. Since intersections occurred everywhere two streets or a driveway and a street intersected, and those were the major places where the Committee expected con- flicts, they treated those intersections similarly. In the analy- sis of the bicycle accidents over the four year period, there were 398 accidents total, 267 of which occurred at intersections defined as such. It was a_lot of accidents between bicyclists and_ motor vehicles and largely reflected the fine bicycle facilities provided by the City, as well as the yeod bicycling weather. year- round, 5oth day and night in Palo Alto, and the complete recording of bicycle accidents by the Police Department. PABAC analyzed the distribution of the 267 accidents according to the four traits which Diana observed to be correlated with accidents. She showed a bar graph which illustrated 40 percent of bicycle/vehicle acci- dents at intersections were incurred by females, and about half incurred by people under 18. A little more than half were incurred by people riding in the traffic lane, and almost two- thirds incurred by people riding their bicycles in the same direc- tion as adjacent vehicular traffic. In audition, PABAC observed several of the traits appeared to act together in contributing to accidents, e.g. about one-third of all accident victims c}ere people under 18 riding on the sidewalk or crosswalk areas. PABAC understood a lot about the accidents, but knew nothing sbout rela- tive or ifferent riding behaviors which might contribute to those accident's; therefore, knew nothing about how to prevent them. In order to further illustrate the difficulty of understanding acci- dent risk, she used the example of under -18 riders on the sidewalk who comprised one-third of all accidents. If half of all riders were under 18 and rode on the .sidewalks, that group could be said to be at relatively low risk since they incurred only one-third of the accidents. If, on the other hand, only ten percent of all` riders were under 18 and rode in the sidewalk and yet incurred one-third of all accidents, then it was probably a risky combi- nation of traits. The:question PABAC wanted to answer was,the representation of each accident victim trait among the riding population, and in order to do so, PABAC counted bicyclists according to the four traits shown by asking the City to provide personnel to count bicyclists. Counters stood at an appointed intersection in the City and visually identified the cyclists' traits -found to be of interest for accident risk. The counts were taken at the intersections of Embarcadero and El Camino Real, Embarcadero and B3ryant, and Middlefield and East Meadow, which intersections were determined by PABAC as carrying high volumes of bicyclists, and likely to represent all trait groups, The counts were taken on two successive days in October 1984 during what PABAC determined to be the hours of peak bicycle usage; namely, 7:00 a.m.- to 9:00 a.m.; 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.; and 2:45 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. During that -period, a total _of 2,946 cyclists was counted, which large number gave PABAC confidence in interpreting the resits of the study. Of'the nearly 3,000 cyclists counted, about 36 percent were female; about_ 35 percent were estimated to be under 18; 55 percent were riding on the road in the traffic lane; . 45 percent in the pedestrian facilities; and almost 80 /1143h8i percent rode in the same direction as adjacent vehicular traffic. The fraction of female r. idAr$ were approximately ogual to fema.io accident victims so one could intuitively say beiuy -female was probably not a risk factor for bicycle accidents; however, under 18 riders were only 35 percent of the total rider pool and yet incurred nearly half of all accidents. From that type of analy- sis, age alone appeared to be a risk factor for bicycle accidents. Similarly, direction of,riding alone, i.e. with or against adja- cent vehicular traffic, also appeared to be a risk factor since only 20 percent of all riders opposed traffic, and those riders incurred about 40 percent of all accidents. Such behavior appeared to be a high risk behavior. However, it appeared that position, i.e., on the traffic lane versus on the pedestrian facilities, was not a risk factor since the fraction of riders and accidents was about the same. There might be opposing effects since among people under 18, there seemed to be a disproportionate risk for riding on the sidewalk. The younger might be at greater risk and that higher age group at reduced risk. It was seen for riders in traffic, those under 18 .comprised about 20 percent of riders, and had only 16 percent of accidents. Similarly, in the over 18 group, there was little risk of riding in traffic, but riding on the pedestrian facilities, there was a high risk for persons under 18 -with 16 percent of the riders comprising about 31 percent -of the accident victims, whereas the over -18 age group appeared to be relatively safe. Those offsetting effects gave rise to th0 apparent absence of risk associated with position. Definite risks were due to position for certain groups of cyclists; and, similarly, PABAC looked at other pair -wise combi- nations and found an offsetting effect in the effective position and direction taken together where riding with traffic appeared to be relatively safe whether done in traffic or on the pedestrian facility, whereas riding against traffic was unsafe whether done on the traffic lane or on the walkways, There was .an excess risk associated with bicycling on the sidewalk in the direction opposing traffic, and there were several places in Palo Alto where, because of the facilities, it was either necessary or the most desirable route as seen by many cyclists. PABAC also found the risk for wrong -way riders on the sidewalk Wes further ampli- fied for the under -18 age group, which was unfortunate because PABAC also found among riders under 18, more of those people rode against traffic on the sidewalk than with traffic on the sidewalk, so not only were they at ehigher risk, but more of them did it The study concluded that sidewalk riding was not necessarily cafe for everyone. It .was probably likely, although they could.,not assure the reasons, sidewalk riding created a false sense of security which might be particularly exacerbated among young people, particularly those who did not drive cars, and therefore, could not anticipate correctly the positions and movement of vehicles into their paths. It came as no surprise that riding in the street against traffic was hazardous. It was something one would not do instinctively; however, PABAC also found riding against traffic on the sidewalk was dangerous. She pointed out in that case, the burden of caution was entirely on the cyclist, and particularly for young people, it was not adequatr:. PABAC oelieved those results had policy implications in several areas, many of which PABAC was currently involved in; namely, design of bikeway facilities, choice of routes by cyclists, and rider edu- cation. Their analysis would have been . impossible without the availability of detailed police reports. Furthermore, the study suggested a number of subsequent studies would probably be useful to further pursue the bicycle accident risk factors in _Palo Alto and elsewhere. Councilmeeaber Fletcher said PABAC was honored _ by being invited to present its data to the American Public Health Association. . It was a pioneering study not previously done and was going to have great implications for designing- bicycle facilities nationwide. She introduced Diana Lewiston and Alma Alan Wachtel, Chairperson of PABAC. 6 8 1 3 2/03/86 As cal/17/8b constructed at a later point. Regarding what happened if there got to be more than six people; in the market, for example, of 1,000 :quart foot with the grocery stacks, shelving, etc., it would be a tight squeeze to get more than six people in the building and fairly unlikely it would happen at a common time. She believed there was value in supporting the amendment and hoped at least five of her colleagues would do so. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the situations, criteria, and steps pursued with respect to finding a building with a substan- tial defect, which caused it to be under notice for demolition. Mr. Herman said one of three of things: a private engineering report, a complaint, or a City employee's observations, as in the case of.the building mentioned on Homer, which he had not seen personally until he was requested to go for the inventory. The Building Inspection Division did not have a program of inspecting building to building; the Fire Department did and brought any obvious hazards to the division's attention upon which they fol- lowed up, but there was not a set routine such as a category of building. Councilmember Sutorius said, therefore, there might be potential, absent the ordinance, for a Fire Department semi-annual inspection to have occurred or to occur in the future at the market, and for the inspection then to cause a report or notice to be filed with the Building Inspection Division. Mr. Herman said yes, the Fire Department probably would review all commercial sites within the City twice annually, and if it was obvious to them as firefighters, not as structural or engi- neering -type personnel, they would bring it to the Building Inspection Division's attention. Councilmember Sutorius clarified the potential existed for a building with defects to be brought to staff's attention which might be 1,990 square feet,-- or 2,000 square feet, occupied by two people, and staff right find reason to expect the property owner to improve the building to a safe condition, again absent the ordinance. Yet what Council was considering was a situation where it might exempt a building with as much or more defect. ML. Herman said that was correct. Councilmember Sutorius had the same difficulties referred to by Vice Mayor Woolley. He understood the concern for the use; how- ever, he aluo made the rounds of the buildings identified. When he was in the store, he was one of six people there; the owner, the owner's daughter, two salespersons making their regular rounds,, another customer, and himself. As he left, another cus- tomer went in. Therefore, there was room for more than six to be there, so he found it difficult to arrive at an exemption standard he believed was difficult to administer in the strictest sense of the wording being applied. For those reasons, he asked the ques- tion be separated so Council could vote separately on the a mend- ment. He supported the ordinance in its entirety, and while he sympathized and was concerned about. the potential loss of the store itself, he agreed with the Building Official and his assess- ment of the situation and believed it important to support the ordinance in i to e=ntirety. Councilmember Fletcher said absent the ordinance, and if a building was brought to Building Inspection's attention, because the building was unsafe, say for fire or strong winds, gales, etc., whataction would the Building Inspection Division take, Mr., Herman believed Section 16.40 in the Municipal Code defined dangerous, substandard structures which gave he and the, Fire. Chief authority to cause or order vacancy, repeal', or demolitions of any structure for safety reasons regardless of other ordinances. Councilmember Fletcher imagined if the amendment passed, the City sf.Zi vials wouldlie more reluctant to take action. Mr. Herman disagreed because there ,Was one building on the list where he believed 16.40 would be used regardless of Council's action that evening. Councilmember Fletcher said suppose a mother was in the store with a baby and the building collasped, she did not believe Council would forgive themselves for exempting a building obviously in need of structural ethancement. Councilmember Bechtel said the main ordinance just required a report. Council was not requiring mandatory -improvements yet, and to require a study for a very small building whose life expectancy was not that long in the first place was unreasonable. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Sutorius in voting against the amendment because it just asked for study; it did not ask for major repairs to be made. Commercial properties brought in good revenue, and it was reasonable to have the studies done. It was a step quite a way back from where Council started in the study of seismic safety of looking to beef up the buildings, and now Council was eating away at just studying them to find out whether they would hold up in the case of an earthquake. it was important to know and important for the public who were invi.tees to those building to have the information as well. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5.4, Fletcher, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley voting *no.' MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. ITEM 09, HOUSING RESERVE GUIDELIts1ES. (PLA 2-15) (CMR :149:6 ) Councilmember Klein said it was not clear to him from reading the staff report how much the City presently had in the reserve. He was confused between reading Item 09 and Item *10. Staff said the City received $3.25 million and used $1.6 million, which should leave at least $1.6 million. He believed Item 010 said only $1.5 million was available. He asked for clarification. Planning Administrator Toby Kramer said the confusion was . because the interest rate kept goieg up. The City kept getting more interest every month. There was about $1.6 million in the fund present' y. Councilmember Klein said with interest, the fund should be more than that since his calculations wore without any interest at all. The statement was approximately $3.25 million raised, $1.6 million spent, and if the City only had $1.6 million now, it did not count any interest at all. He wanted confirmation as to the precise amount the City had in its. Housing -Reserves. Director of Planning and Community Environment ;yen Schreiber said it was slightly more than $1.6 million. There was also some funds outstanding which would be coaling with future projects. For the purposes of planning, $1.6 Million to $1.7 million was available at present or in the near future. Councilmember Levy said in the first paragraph of the Housing Reserve Guidelines, they used the phrase "affordable housing." He asked if "affordable housing": was defined as housing affordable to low and moderate income families. Mr. Schreiber did not have a copy of the ..Comprehensive Plan with him, but the definition as he remembered it was affordable to low, moderate, and middle income housing. The emphasis was on lowand rode M e income housing. - 2/03/86 As Co 3/17/86 MOTION; Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the ordinauce. ORDINANCE 3666 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE CODNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 16.42 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SETTING FORTH A SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTI!'ICATION PROGRAM" (1st Reading 1/20/86, PASSED 8-0, Klein absent) AMENDMENT; Coancilrember Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, to amend the ordinance to add a clause to Section 16.42.030(a)(1) to read "except those of less than one thousand and nine hundred (1,900) square feet containing six (6) or fewer occupants.' Vice Mayor Woolley -looked at the particular structures, and said they were dealing with fewer than the seven on the list. The first three were actually one building although technically divided into three sections. The ones on High and Homer were probably not of any great concern because it appeared the ' one on High would shortly be replaced by a new project, and the one on [comer, on which there was a note from the Building Inspector, was an excellent candidate for demolition. She was appalled to realize the City had a building at the back of the property made of hollow bricks tied together with mortar. There was a lot of daylight showing through, and the whole building looked like it could blow over with a good puff of wind. It boiled .down to two structures, and she was concerned, since one of therm at present was used as a market, more with the interior of the building than the exterior. Having been in an ear.thgeake once at Safeway, she realized the cans area bottles could be 'as much of a problem to someone in the market as the four walls. On the other hand, she checked with Mr. Herman who said it did not make a lot of sense to require attaching the shelves to the building in .some way because the building itself would not be that resistant to earthquake, even though the City did it with the libraries. She was in somewhat of a dilemma and wanted to hear from her colleagues. As usual, the exemption went with the property rather than with the use. Although she knew Council was eager not to cause the demise of any markets in the Downtown area, if the market was no longer there then the building remained exempt because it went with the building. - Councilmember Levy commented as he saw the ordinance, the exemp- tion applied only so long as the building was used by six or fewer occupants. If the use were changed and the building had an occu- pance of greater than six, it was no longer exempt. Councilmember Patitucci assumed all the buildings in question were single -story, and asked it the exemption included single -story as an exemption or whether it was just the total square rootage. Chief Building Inspector Fred Herman said the exemption was related to square footage, but they were all single -story buildings. - Councilmember Patitucci was inclined. to support the proposal because if everyone was on the first floor, the only thing that could fall on they; was a roof. If an earthquake started, presum- ably they had a good chance of getting out of a 1,900 square foot building in some direction. - It was different with a two-story building. It was not relevant, then, to propose en amendment that it be single -story since there would be no more buildings which fell under it. Second, the six ot;less seemed to be a difficult variable to control. How would they know if- ten people showed up at a market at once. . It seemed : the burden of monitoring was difficult. 6 8 1 6' _2/03/86 As corrected 3/17/86 Councilmember Levy said the inspection indicated all of those buildings were rarely occupied by as many as six people. It might be difficult to monitor, but he believed it would become cloar if the use of any of those buildings went beyond that level. Since Council was talking about a finite number of buildings that would not be added to, he believed it could rely on the inspection people to let them know if it got out of hand. Councilmember Patitucci asked if it was a typical type of control mechanism for buildings. Mr. Herman said yes. Councilmember Renzel said the report listed the seven buildings under 1,900 square feet with an occupancy of less than six people, and only the three Alma street buildings, or one Alma Street building as the case night be, were currently in good repair; two of the others were candidates for demolition and two had a lack of maintenance and repair. She asked if there was a risk of more than just the roofs falling in on the buildings. Mr. Herman said risk analysis was a difficult subject, but he believed Council was dealing with a difference between use of structures and the structure. Prom staff's point of view, the structures were unreinforced masonry or old hollow brick tile, which would probably fall down in a moderate earthquake. It was a •tough decision and depended on who was inside. Councilmember Renzel said because the main ordinance upon which the amendment was propsed basically asked for inspections to be done and reports to be made within a certain time ''ramework, she asked what happened to any of the buildings if their occupancy changed and it went to Council's attention within or after the period of time when Council already required reports for everybody else. Mr. Herman believed if the buildings eeceeded the occupant load of six, the owners would be notified they had 18 months to submit a report on the structure. He did not believe it was practical in many cases since the cost of reporting those buildings was probably greater than the cost of replacement. Councilmember Renzel clarified the structural report on the buildings was mo:e costly than to replace the buildings. Mr. Herman said demolition was a lot cheaper in a building of the small square footage, than to replace it and put several thousand dollars into a study to determine how to correct it. He was sure it was easier and cheaper for the owner to demolish and replace. Councilmember Renzel clarified staff's earlier report indicated it might cost on the order of a $1.00 to $1.S0 a foot to do the analysis on smaller buildings. Mr. Herman said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel said over a period of time it was not a huge amount of money. Mr. Herman said because ;he buildings were smaller-, it would be at the higher end, maybe $1.75, for the testing and amount of time spent on a smaller structure. Ceenciltember Bechtel supported the ordinance because the small buildings, with small occupancies, and a limited number of buildings as proposed by Councilmember Levy, was a reasonable way to keep a couple of uses Council wanted to see. It was true the ordinance change went with the building, not with the use; how- ever, she doubted Council would see a change of use of those small buildings while the building existed. What was more likely to happen was for the building to be replaced and a larger one S 8 1 7 2/03/86 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Levy removed Item 07, Ordinance ,e Seismic Hazard Reduction Program (2nd Reading). MOTION: Cosaci_leember Srtorius moved, secowded by Woolley, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Act;on ITEM 12 REPAIR OF CORTE MADERA RESERVOIR ROAD (UTI 7) (CMR: i45r :6) 4 Staff recommends the contract for the road repairs in the amount of $12,170.00 be awarded to George Bianci Construction Company. AWARD OF CONTRACT George Biancl Construction ITEM 13 INFLOW/INFILTRATION SOURCE DETECTION STUDY,_ PHASE II (ufi 7-1) (CMR:11 :6 Staff recommends Council approve Phase II of the existing. I/I Source Detection Study Contract with Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers, in the amount of $484,870, and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract documents. Staff further recommends the approval of a contingent fund, in the amount of $50,000. AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES Rrowa,1 Caldwell ITEM 14. RECARPETING THIRD FLOOR OF CIVIC C::NTER (PWK 7) (C4R: i54-: 6r Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Carpets International Company in the mount of $25,500; and 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders in the amount of $3,(100. AWARD OF CONTRACT Carpets International Ces+paay ITEM 05 DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND MONITORING .OF METHANE GAS t BES ATBE BAYLANDS ArHLE'TIC CENTER (UT{ 4) TCMR:156:6) Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to exeute the agreement with EMCON Associates for $18,000, 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $2,500. AGREEMENT FQOM Associates ITEM #61. TENNIS COURT CLEANING (PAR 4.3) (CMR:1b7:6) Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with ` longer Johnson Construction for $14,500, 6 8 1 4 2/03/86 CONSENT CALENDAR CONTINUED 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders not to exceed $2,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT Zonger Johnson Constriction MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES„ ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner said Item f1, Ordinance re Seismic Hazard Reduction Program (2nd Reading) would become Item #8-A. ITEM #8 PUBLIC HEARING: GENERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR 1985-86 (FIN 6] (CMR:151:6) Mayor Cotb declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests ' f rorn the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Ceuncilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt staff rec*mweredation to approve the ise of General Revenue Sharing (GRS) finds in the amount of $3,0,000 for the Field Services program of the Police Department. Counci lmember Fletch(- said in the middle paragraph of CMR:151:6, "Legislation recently passed cts fiscal year 1986 funding for ORS by 8.36% or $381 mi'tlion." She clarified Palo Alto did not get the $381 million. Budget Manager Dolores Blanchard said that was correct; the figure reflected the nationwide cuts iri the'program, MOTION PASSED raanlmaisly. ITEM #S -Ai (ULO ITEM #7) ORDINANCE PE SEISMIC HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM 12nd Reading) (PLA 12-5) Mayor Cobb asked staff to comment about whether Council was still in a second reading status with the prospective changes. City Attorney Diane Lee said there were 50 buildings currently in Category I, so, given the fact it would only apply to about five or six, .the scope of the ordinance was basically the same, and Council was at second reading status. Councilmeriiber Levy believed it Was important to have an earthquake safety ordinance and he supported the City's present ordinance, which he looked upon as a two -stage ordinance, He intended Council not stop at that point, and was prepared to vote for all or a portion of the second stage of the ordinance as well. The ordinance should focus on those buildings which posed a signifi- cant public risk. Generally, it meant the buildings were of mod- erate to larger size since those were the buildings of greatest risk to the most people, and he believed it eras fair to exempt small , lightly -occupied structures from phase I of the ordinance because being small, those structures were less likely to collapse since structurally they were tighter boxes and the roof was iief-ter with less of a span. Further, having minimal occupancy also reduced the public, exposure. He believed, therefore, in Phase I of the ordinance, Council should exempt those buildings of a size less than 1,900 square feet and which contained six or fewer occupants. 6 8 1 5 2/03/86 Councilmember Levy asked if there would be any objection if council replaced the words "a tfordable housing" with the total phrase "the development of housing affordable to low, moderate, and middle income families," or something of that nature, to make it clearer to a first-time reader. Mr. Schreiber said there was no objection. Mayor Cobb said Council would call it a friendly clarification. Councilmember Renzel wanted to double -clarify what Councilmember Levy said was housing affordable to those three groups, because the way the sentence read it was, "...development of affordable housing and in assisting the housing needs of low and moderate income persons." She believed Council had a special definition of "affordable" which was up to 140 percent of the median income, or something, which was high ey ordinary standards. Mr. Schreiber said that was why it was low, moderate, and middle, with emphasis on low and moderate. The City did have some pro- grams that went beyond the moderate range. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt staff recommendation approving the Housing Reserve Guide- lines as revised to change the wording in the first paragraph to read ".,.assist in the_ development of housing that is affordable to low, moderate, and middle income families. All moneys con- tributed...." Councilmember Levy said the ocher concept he did not see in the Housing Reserve Guidelines was that any development: of housing on City -owned property should be developed in a manner and density compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. There did not seem to be a place in those guidelines for the concept, and he wondered if it was appropriate for those guidelines. Mr. Schreiber did not believe it was. The guidelines addressed a specific issue, which was the use of a City reserve account con- taining moneys from various sources collected for housing pro- grams. The type of concept discussed by Councilmember Levy was a much broader planning concept more appropriate in the Housing Clement of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Patitucci re !erred to the paragraph describing elig- ible uses, and asked if the numerical listing reflected the prior- ity or just an enumeration. Mr. Schreiber said it was not a priority. Councilmember Patitucci asked if there was a priority for revolving funds as opposed to those expended, i.e , money:which went out with an opportunity of it coming back and being reused to stimulate some housing activity in the .future .versus that which went out tae door and the -City never saw again. The purchase of land which was resold had that character .stic to it, but he did riot see it in numerical order. He asked if there were ways to somehow use the doiiars ' ::;o the City could at least maintain as much of the corpus as possible. He- knew it ::ouid not always be done, and that points would expend the money, but it seemed it should- somehow be characterized as a priority. Count: i l member Sutorius said it seemed to him under -"Procedures, the request process put an emphasis on loans. Item 1 was "Size of loan of grant"; Item 4, "Reasons why a grant, rather than a. loan, is requested (if applicable)"; and Item 6, *Identification of lev- erage achieved through City grant or loan." It seemed philo- sophlcally.Councilmember Patitecri's concern well recognized in the :"Procedures° so anyone__ dealing with staff- understood Council waeted to pet the buck to the best work it could, and any application -would be tested_against the concept. 2/03/8 As cor ec e 3/17/86 Counci/momber Patitucci said rather than it just being implied in the PLeeedueee, he preferced to have it £iaLC L- it was the highest priority to pursue the use of those funds in a manner which preserved the corpus, revolved the funds, and got the City the most housing over the longest period of time. Mayor Cobb asked for clarification. Mr. Schreiber said as indicated by Councilmember,.Sutorius, there was a recognition if at all possible, it was better to use the money and get it back rather than simply using it once; however, it was not an inherent higher priority given to a loan. Looking back over the history of the housing program,_ it was a Council decision on how the money was spent, but in staff work they tried to evaluate the appropriateness. In some cases loans were fine; in other cases, specific proposals or projects did not lend them- selves to loans, and he was not A all sure a flat, This is the highest priority," statement could be made given the wide variety of potential uses and projects. Councilmember Patitucci said after others spoke, and before Mayor Cobb called for a vote, he wanted a chance to see if he could come up with something that made sense. Councilmember Bechtel encouraged Councilmember Patitucci. to not bring it up as an amendment because she believed Council needed the flexibility. Since it as not a motion, she did not want to argue it, but encouraged a vote for the policy as it .was written in front of Council. Vice Mayor Woolley agreed. It was so difficult to find a site and actually complete a project she did not believe Council needed to be worried about prioritizing the various procedures because Council did not have that many opportunities to use those funde. Councilmember Klein said there waa no mention in the report of making any distinction between family -oriented housing, i.e. housing suitable far children, and senior housing, or housing for singles, or handicapped,. or any other category. He asked why no distinction was made and whether stiff believed it was appropriate to have a policy along those lines. Mr. Schreiber said a representative of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) might want to comment on it since the PAHC Committee did the bulk of the work. Looking back over the PAHC and the types of projects they worked on, they tried to address a broad range of housing needs, ranging from family housing at Terman to smaller units at Birch. Court to a lot of family housing at Webster, if one went back far enough. He believed the sense was that opportunities came along, and one tried, if at all pots - Bible, to pursue family housing, but sometimes those opportunities did not exist and other non -family or predominantly non -family housing opportunities occurred and were appropriate to look at, and perhaps, seize. Family housing was not appropriate for all sites and heunderstood the PAHC did not want to inherently rule out certain types of housing simply because it was not family if it seemed the most appropriate thing to do at the time and Most appropriate thing for Council to do. 11 i i T:: Coeacilmember Klein moved, -441wonliomr by fletOber, to amen the Bossing Reserve Guideline* top a 'ep eferebloe! be given to bussing ter families with minor . rem, wer, that it not preclmde tom; bss of fends for ewer :tges of bemsing affordable to the lair, modtwate. add: Sylvia Semen,3380 Middlefield Road, Executive Director of ,PA3C, said the PAi3C's emphasis was to try to serve tamili* e, but at the eat time, they also tried to serve the lowest income possible.. Cu' ently, the only federal program available, and she did not know howlong it would be available, was for,. ow -income senior housing. If there was an opportunity to serve low-income senior houeing versus serving highei-income family housing and a certain site became available, PAHC weighed all of those things to see which provided the best service to the City. The Committee tried to serve the identified needs as best it could, Councilmember Klein said if that hypothetical went before Council, he would want to see Council then serve the family -oriented housing. He was concerned about the demographics of their com- munity and where they were going, and believed the City had a priority to try and create familleeoriented housing. Ms. Semen said it was true and PAHC agreed, but, they could not have expensive housing and attract families with young kids either. Councilmember Klein said the amendment spoke to affordable housing. Ms. Seman said that was her point. There was no federal program available, there were no funds available to bring housing prices down. Councilmember Klein understood that, but did not preclude other types of housing and did not preclude doing a project without federal financing. Ms. Semen agreed with that. Councilmember Levy referred to the misunderstanding with the use of the language, and asked if Councilmember Klein would be amen- able to using the more explicit term 0°families with children" in his amendment, -because he heard "families" had another context as well. Councilmember Klein appreciated the suggestion and believed Councilmember Levy was right. It might be even more explicit to say "families with minor chiidron." Councilmember Levy endorsed the language, and also said the pur- pose .of the guidelines was not for members of the City staff and PAHC alone, but was also a guideline to outside developers. Often, when outside developers came to Council with below--market- rate housing, etc., they thought in terms of small units, and almost exclusively housing for the elderly, and tried specifically not to provide housing for families with children. Being more explicit was worthwhile not only for themselves but for members of the public generally. Councilmember P titucci said a section for priorities or prefer- ences was missing. He propesed Councilmember Klein's amendment might have a paragraph inserted right above "Procedures," that said "Priorities: Proposals for funds will be used to the extent feasible for (a) housing for families with minor children." When he had a moment he would propose a (b). Mayor Cobb asked staff if that kind of structure was something they could livewith in the guidelines. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Mayor Cobb. asked Councilmember Klein if he minded packaging his amendment in that fashion, whether or not Council''added anything else to it. Mayor Cobb ruled that Council vote on Councilmember Klein's amend- ment first, and if Councilmember Patitucci's amendment was seconded and passed, he believed staff would be requiredto add a priority section to the Guidelines. eeeeeeo3' Councilmamber Fletcher challenged the statement some locations were not suitable for children. She agreed there were some loca- tions less desirable for children than others, but believed with proper design and development, children could live very happily. She spent her late teen years in New York City and could not say it was an ideal environment, but there were lots of kids around, and many grew up to be fine citizens, so she would not preclude any site from having children. Councilmember Renzel said it seemed the guidelines were intended to be general, i.e., to provide a basis for at least winnowing out those projects which would not qualify for housing funds. Council had other policies in the Comprehensive Plan, the housing element and the programs submitted to the State. Council also had control over any City land to be used, and she presumed also had to make an appropriation of any of those funds through the Council. She queried whether the scope and nature of a project would be known by the time Council had the appropriation and/or use of the land before it for a decision. Would someone have done a lot of work to develop a senior project, for example, and Council say it would rather see the land used for a family project. She asked if it would then be too late. Mr. Schreiber said not necessarily. Projects could come in con- siderably detailed, but projects were reviewed by Council for funding, not so much design, at a much earlier stage. If there was concern at the staff level, staff's preference was to get a proposal to Council earlier so Council could have an initial policy role, and direct staff not to ourcue something rather than allow somebody to do a lot of work on a project only to come in and find out there were problems. Councilmember Renzel.-asked if ,the priorities were added to the statement of qualifications for `use of the funds, would the prior- ities enable the various projects; to be integrated into the flow of things going to Council without causing a great deal of culty. In other words, would staff.be obliged to say, "Go away and come back with a family housing project," or would staff be obliged to say, You can go forward with it, but the priority as stated was family." She asked how it would impact the flow of projects to have the priorities. She agreed with the priorities, but was concerned about making it more difficult to process housing projects. Mr. Schreiber wished the City had enough money and enough programs to have a flow of projects. If a senior project were received, and the priorities were in place, staff would Zook to it, ,but would also bring it to Council with the information. Projects close to meeting the types of objectives for the reserve account were not received that fast. Councilmweber Renzel would support the motion because she agreed with trying to encourage those projects which provided for fami-- 14es with children. The tendency was not only for the money to be these foe senior projects, but there tended to be a lot more, political support for them. The fact of the matter was the City was losing a lot of youth from the community, and it was becoming a serious problem, and it was also an area of critical housing need. She supported the motion with the understandings , it pre- sented no impediment to projects movin? forward in the process since there were limited groups bringing projects forward and limited resources to do them. Vise Mayor Woolley believed Council wa:a making a ,mountain out of, a molehill. The next item on the ager'sia showed how few sites there were and how few projects Council cculd ever address. To get into a priority discussion with the housing guidelines was unnecessary. She also. believed Council was _ thinking in terms Of a traditional family. Palo Alto had many families consisting of a parent and a child,' and she suspected when it came to qua,t.iUying income -wise 1/8 8 Asscorec• 3/17/86 l f for the kind of housing produced, it would be more frequently the sinyle parent with a child than Lwo wc.,rkinr parents with two incomes and a child. In that case, the size of the house did not need to be as great as it would for a traditional family of four. She wanted to see Council get on to the next item, and did not support any further amendments or efforts at the Council level to try to prioritize. It went through a lot of discussion with the PAHC and staff, and was something better left to those groups than for Council to get involved at that point. Councilmember Sutorius said Policy 7 from the Comprehensive Plan, was to "Encourage the development of housing low, eoderate, and middleN :income households especially those with children can afford." He agreed with Vice Mayor Woolley and did not believe it was necessary toeprovide the amendments to the policy. Ly reason of the comments and the existing policy, the Council enthusias- tically endorsed the provision of affordable housing to attract young families and new forming families and change the direction of those demographics. Councilmember Bechtel said any use of the funds must.be approved by the City Council. As pointed out by Councilmember Sutorius, the priority was strongly set. Council was spending too much time on the item, and she believed the message was clearly given to the Housing Corporation that Council supported providing housing for families. She did not believe the amendment was necessary. Councilmember Patitucci said three Councilmembers said the item was not necessary. The issue was important. People gave the City $3.25 million so far and there was more to come, and the City was communicating back to them what it would do with those dollars being paid in penalties, Mitigations, and other forms. The Council could say the moeey would be used for any reasonable pur- pose to implement the housing policies of the Council previously adopted, and there would be no debate. It seemed to him when they were talking about something so important, Council should deal with some substantive issue?. To him, priorities communicated to those in a position to spend money and those who gave the money how the City wanted to have it used. He believed it was appro- priate to have a priorities section in the document. He worked at the other end of the programs where people gave money, and legis- lation at the State level had a section of intent. One could say to disregard the intent because it was not really the substance -of the law. In fact, the intent created the basis on which bureau- crats acted, and he wanted to have priorities stated in the sub- ject document and each time Council dealt with those issues to be consistent with the history which started with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Klein said the document before the Council was important. Housing was one of the major problems in Palo Alto, and Council needed to pay attention to what a one -page document entitled, "Housing Reserve Guidelines," said. Presumably, it was the document potential housing sponsors would look at. Council -- members might read the Comprehensive Plan, but most people did not. Given the choice between a one -page "Housing Reserve Guide- lines" and the Comprehensive Plan, one would read the Housing Reserve Guidelines. He believed it was important for Council to say it favored housing for felonies with children. It was important to get it out. The present statement was neutral, and it was not unreasonable for someone reading the Hcusing Reserve Guidelines and nothing else to assume Palo Alto was neutral with regard to where it went on low and moderate income housing; that it would be alright whatever the category because the language as presently written was neutral. If it was .left as it presently was, he believed Council was making an unfortunate policy state- ment. If it was so clear to those worried about the amendment that it was already stated in the Comprehensive Plan, he did not understand why they should be opposed to stating it again. M 3,81 Mayor Cobb associated.r►ith the comments of .Councilmember Klein. He could think of nothing more important to the City of Palo Alto then opening the door to more families and children. As he reread the motion, he believed it did not in any way say the City would not do other kinds of housing. AMENDMENT RESTATED: -TO AMEND THE HOUSING RESERVE GUIDELINES TO ADD THAT PREFERENCE BE GIVEN TO FAMILIES WITH MINOR CHILDREN. HOWEVER, THAT IT NOT PRECLUDE THE USE OF FUNDS FOR OTHER TYPES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Woolsey, Sutorius, Becht0l voting *no." AMENDMENT: Corncileeeber Patitucci moved, seconded by Klein, to incorporate the wording of the previous amendment in a section called 'P= Terri ties" ahead of the section on "Procedures, " as sub- section (a), and add (b) Uses to Preserve to the extent feasible the corpus of the fund. Councilmember Patitucci said the City would not just make loans and get the money back, but would look at the salvage value of all the dollars the City put into the programs to see if there was some way to rotate the dollars to create the kind of housing the City wanted. He agreed some benefits required expenditures, but a lot could be gained by providing a no -interest loan, or an advance with the expectation that under certain circumstances one could receive the funds back. The procedure already implied the priori- ties, but he believed they should be overtly stated. It would send a positive message to those asked to contribute to the funds that the City would get the most mileage out of the limited dollars. Councilmember Levy would not support the amendment because it took away the emphasis on getting the most housing and the best deal in housing. Whether it meant getting back the investment the City made should be a secondary consideration. He referred to Webster Wood and believed the City was entitled to get back the property 40 years down the road. Technically, it conformed with Council - member Patitucci's desires, but 'en the other hand, it was 40 years down the road. The key question to him was what happened in the interim. At Webster Wood, the City had good housing as Well as a corpus coring back. If it went to a paint where a decision had to be made between the best housing deal and the best fineheing deal, he was willing to look clearly to the best housing deal. Councilmember Renee' supported the amendment because she believed it was important, particularly with the increasing scarcity of funds for housing, to have the maximum leverage on the funds the City received and get the maximum amount back to keep: producing housing. In particular, when the City ended up selling housing with those guidelines, while the housing price was maintained, the housing moved intothe private sector and the City never saw the particular return again. The housing paid for itself anal was then in the private sector. She believed it was implicit in the prior- ities that rental housing which did stay in the public: domain be brought back. She hoped the Ca 'y could find creative ways tv do so. As a project was received, Council would have to evaleate it against the:priority and make a determination. The Council was creating the priority --and was capable of saying it would not apply in a particular case, but she believed Council wanted to encourage projects to meet the priority. It was important to' acute it at the outset. Councilmember Sutorius supported the amendment in order to get on with business. He believed Council would face situations in the near term where it might have to wrestle with both the issues being discussed because of the opportunities available and whether the City could find creative ways to take advantage of the oppor- tunities. He hoped Council would not find itself in a situation 2/0 3/8 6 As carrec ed 3/17/86 where religious adherence caused the City to miss out on signifi- cant housing opportunities. Opportunities occurring in and of themselves might not provide the -highest priority directly, but they created a turn factor, which could serve the highest priority neatly and traditionally. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Woolley, Cobb, Bechtel, Fletcher, Levy voting "no." Mayor Cobb assumed the previous amendment could be incorporated conveniently in the language of the guidelines. Mr. Schreiber said there was no problem. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Klein was concerned about the different numbers quoted in Items #9 and #10 and how much money was actually in the Housing Reserve Fund. He requested staff provide a more detailed report about the money available. Be also understood there were moneys due the City from various developers one past projects, which was due to be received over some reasonable period of time. He wanted to know about those since if Council was budgeting it would have more than $1e5 or $1.7 million and he wanted to know what it was and what the payments were. City Manager Bill Zaner said the report would be provided. ITEM #I0, PRELIMINARY REPORT ON CITY -OWNED SITES FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-TNC©►ME HOUSING (PLA 2-6) (CMR:150:6 Vice Mayor Woolley said the staff report referred to the mitiga- tion payment to he made by Varian of $50,000 tor predevelopment costs. She asked if the money was available or whether it was something that aright or might not happen in the future. Director of Planning and Community environment Ken Schreiber said the Varian project had not yet gone to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and design review was the point at which mitigation measures would actually be applied. The money was not yet avail- able. Staff anticipated it would be available, but did not have a speeitic'eproject to which it was tied. Jacquelyn Brown, Executive Director of the Peninsula Conservation Center (PCC) Foundation, 2253 Park Boulevard, said the PCC site was being considered for low and moderate income housing. The PCC dedicated its 15 -year existence to preserving and enhancing e special Peninsula environment, and was the home for seven other organizations, with a combined membership of more than 28,000, more than 5,000 of which were Palo Alto residents. She thanked the City for leasing the PCC the old fire house since 1980, during which time, they maintained the building, improved the Lkind- scaping, and sertied the community with its conservation lending library, public programs, community meeting facilities, and a center which served as the environmental headquarters for the San Francisco Peninsula. The PCC wanted to stay at its present loca- tion since it offered easy access tco the community it served. It was centrally located and easy to find, and the PCC store thrived. Income from the store supported its conservation activities, and was critical to the financial stability of the PCC Foundation. The PCC' believed. it offered a unique and important variety of services to the city of Palo Alto. It estimated the dollar value of the public services offered by its constituent organizations at more than $150,0+00 per year. Ideally, the PCC Founcatton wanted to establish a permanent home in Palo Altos Several Council - members expressed interest in the concept of a mixed use project to include low- and moderate -income housing along with space for the PCC_ offices and community meeting facilities. e The PCC Foundation wanted to work: with the City Council to explore any approaches to best serve the common interests. . As coY til 3/17/8 6 Mayor Cobh believed there was a lot of support for the work of the PCC, and regarding some type of mixed ase on the present location when there were other potential locations in town which might offer more room and advantage, he asked if there was a particular reason other than the disadvantages of having to relocate, why the location was important or whether others would work as well assuming they had the `proper facilities. Ms. Brown said one of the most important features of the location was its easy access. She referred to the PCC store, and said if the PCC located in a somewhat remote facility, it would affect the store. The PCC was open to looking at all possibilities, and it hoped to find a permanent home in Palo Alto. Councilmember Klein referred t.o the mixed use concept, and asked if it was fair to interpret her remarks as meaning if such a thing was feasible, the PCC intended to participate on a full market value basiia with no subsidy from the City. Ms. Brown said yes. Councilmember Klein asked if such a mixed use would require a reduction in the number of housing units to be puton the site, and if so, by how many. Mr. Schreiber said assuming it was commercial land, it would not inherently have to require a reduction in the number of housing units. The specific answer in terms of numbers would have to be looked at in terms of the square footage of the area. If there was a lot of commercial, there might not be enough space left to build all the housing possible on the site. Councilmember Klein referred to the present PCC, lot, and said staff had some idea of how much square footage the PCC presently had, so if a like amount was included in a new project, he asked what it would mean. Mr. Schreiber said the problem with the PCC. lot first was the cur- rent Comprehensive Plan designation was multiple family residen- tial, and current zoning was RM-3, which did not permit a mixed use development, although it could be pursued under a planked community zone. The site was a little less than .7 acres, and it might be difficult, especially since the well on the site further restricted use, to have a mixed use development with so much- com- mercial without impacting the number of housing units. Councilmember Klein asked if the PCC approached staff. Mr. Schreiber said no. Councilmember Renzel said the staff report recommended the PCC site be developed for a housing project within a year or so which should give the PCC ample time to find another site. She asked about the PCC's time needs. Ms. Brown, believed one year was inadequate on its face to find another site. The PCC looked at other sites for the past two years and had not located a site which was adequate and within the PCC's present financial means. If the PCC were to go forward with a mixed use concept, and she emphasized i t was a concept, it would take as. immense amount of planning. The mixed use type project attracted the interest of PCC supporters to make a financial com- mitment they otherwise might not be interested in making. The PCC looked at leasing and/or purchasing. Councilmember Suto i us said reference was made to a year, and he understood the lease presently ran until February, 1988, The staff report and materials spoke to pursuing the potential of a parallel system where two projects might be undertaken within the next two years. If he understood it correctly, no one. was talking 6 8 -2 7 2/03/86 about evictim9 the PCC ahead of its lease expiration. He was interested in public comments and Council discussion because he shared the concern expressed by staff about the size impacts for the mixed use within the existing site. The concept being sug- eested seemed to have potential in a variety of ways. Mary Bay, 2261 Columbia, represented the Housing Committee of the Senior Coordinating Council, formed in July, 1985. The Committee expressed its appreciation and support of the staff study. Sylvia Seman, Executive Oirector.Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), 3380 Middlefield, wanted to ensure people were aware of the letter directed to the City Council (which is on file in the City Clerk's office). The PAHC endorsed the staff recommendations and said the PAHC was interested in getting started immediately because they knew how long it took to build afft'r.)able housing. She referred to the Tower Wells site and said the PAHC explored the idea of there being a few units on the site. One possibility was taking the design of one of the fourplexes at Webster Wood and putting it on the Tower Wells site. The PAHC was looking to see whether the site would take it with the parking requirements. The PAHC hoped Council would bring to the floor the beginning of a study on the Main Library Community Gardens site because if it was ever to be developed for affordable housing, it would take a long- term process the PAHC believed needed to start right away if there was to be housing in the foreseeable future. Regarding the deri- vation of the staff report, she believed it came from when the Gamble site was turned down for senior housing. At that time, the PAHC said the only available federal program was for an elderly housing project and they were looking for a site. In order to submit an application, there must be site control and preferably zoning. The Notice of Fund Availability for the Sectior 202 Program especially for the elderly and handicapped was expected to come out within the rext month or two. It was also expected to be the last time it weteld come out. The PAHC wanted to submit an application for a Section 202 elderly project. She was concerned about the emphasis on family housing in the previous item because there was a chance, a ithOugh there would be keen competition, to get some low-income elderly housing in Palo Alto, which need was demonstrated. The PAHC wanted to have a site on which to begin work. If they were talking about the PCC site in a year or two or longer, then they still did not have a site to make application for a Section 202. She urged Council consideration. Vice Mayor Woolley asked what Council action Would be helpful to the PAHC. She referred to the Tower Wells site and said the PAHC was pursuing it, and she asked if Council needed to take any action that evening. Ms. Seman said the PAHC would return to the Council after explora- tion. Vice Mayor Woolley referred 'to thee frltural Center site, and asked if it would be helpful for Council to take some action that evening to direct staff to start` a work plan' or process.' - Ms. Seman said yes. COUNCIL RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION RE CITY 'OF SANTA CLARA v. A tRIttGTOM PORSVATT ebbE - 5! a f:2b p.ra.. TO 9:R3p..m. Counciliember Bechtel c arified when the representative from the PCC Foundation spoke and was -asked about whether they -would be prepared to participate in full market val.aae, -she saiu yes. Shy understood she meant full meeket value of construction of• a Is -wilding, but not int:tudine full market value of the 1zn . 6 8 2 8 2/03/86 MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved. secondod by fatitvcci. that staff be directed to: 1. Work with the Peninsula Conservation Ceater to explore a location for their activities. in order to wake the site at 22:=3 Park Boulevard available for a horsing development; 2. Work with the Palo Alto Noosing Corporation to take the neces- sary steps to begin the development of the PCC site for low - and moderate -income hoofing; 3. Work with th Pale Alto Housing Corporation is the use •f available City 'leasing Reserve Fred and COBS moneys to identify a privately -owned site for the purpose •f developing a low- aid moderate -income housing project; and 4. Report back to the City Cou nci l wTi th a work plan to explore the possibility of development of housing on the Community Garden site, Vice Mayor Woolley said on Item #4, the Planning Department had a long list of projects, and now there was one less person on staff. She did not want to specify ,the priority of the project, but left it totally to staff's discretion. She just requested the report be put on staff's list wherever it seemed appropriate. She just wanted the report to be scheduled into the list. Counci lmember Bechtel asked about the intent of the motion related to the PCC, and clarified by changing the wording, the motion directed staff to explore ways of keeping the PCC in Palo Alto, but did not preclude a mixed use on the particular site or some other site. Vice Mayor Woolley said that was correct. She was open to making the language more clear. She just wanted it to be broad enough to include either having them stay at the particular location or possibly to go to a new location, but to work with the staff. SUBSTITUTE NOTION: Couacilmember *ouzel moved for staff to work sith the Palo Alto !loosing Corp•ratiem to take the necessary steps to begin the development of the Commea#ty eardea site for law- wad moderate -Income housing and .to weft with the PAHC in the use of available City Noosing Reserve Food and CBBG moneys to identify a privately -owned site for the purpose or development a low- and moderate-i raceme lousing project. SUBSTITUTE NOTION' DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Renee/ did not support the motion because the PCC had a nova -renewable lease which expired in January, 1988 by a previous Council policy. The PCC would have to either find new quarters or make some offer to the City then to purchase the site qr Work in a joint venture with the PAHC or someone else to develop a mixed use. The Community Gardens site was presently available and more than twice as big as the PCC site,. The site had its" political problems and staff seemed to pet more emphasis oh the_one at the Community Gardens, but basically bott; sites would' have politica problems and required community input. She believed the Community Gardens site WO more desirable for housing because it did not have to railroad behind it and the coaauercial areas adjacent. The California Avenue areE. already -had one, Palo Alto . Heusi ray Corporation development: in it, as well as four BMR dull is f roaa_ the Cox project and another 40 wh l eh Were supposed to come out of the ultimate development of .that project... In terms of the City's policy of disbursing housing, I,t make more sense to look at the Community Gardens site fi rt 4 . -0000;1 1. knew the PCC Would be available in -the Spring .of' 1988`' one Way or the other, and it enabled a housing -project .with that type of deadline to be brought forward then. If they were looking at trying to develop a project then, they had a site which -was not committed in a lease, 6 8 2 9 2/03/86 it had no development on it, and was availablee She opposed the motion because she believed it made Council's priorities sort of funny if the objective was to get going on a project soon. There was more control over a different.eite than the one suggested in the main motion. Councilmember Fletcher clarified the PCC lease was not renewable. Mr. Zaner said when the lease expired, Council could chose to renegotiate, but there was no automatic renewal of the lease in 1988, Councilmember Fletcher was concerned about the possibility if the motion passed, an alternative site might not have been identified for the PCC, and it might be left homeless. She preferred the motion be divided in order to'vote separately, especially on item #2 because she believed the PCC should be encouraged and assisted in finding an alternative site., It was premature to assume the housing would be built as soon as the lease expired. Council could give that direction when there were plans for the PCC to move. Councilmember Bechtel wanted to ensure Council did everything it could to keep the PCC in Palo Alto. It was a valuable resource, and she supported Items fl, 3, and 4 of the motion because she believed Council needed to work to find a place for the PCC while at the same time working for housing. Council previously agreed to rezone the area to al 1 hoes i =g'e and it was possible -there might be so►ne property in the immediate area available for a mixed use. If not, she wanted to ensure a site was found, and did not want to move ahead without being guaranteed,a site was found for the PCC. Mayor Cobb said the PCC had approximately tat( years to go on their lease, and as a matter of understanding, he believed Council would make an attempt to ensure an appropriate location for the PCC before finalizing any housing plans. He asked if staff would take the approach of ensuring the PCC had a home in Palo Alto before logging in on a particular housing project. Mr. Zaner said the normal intent would be to try and help the PCC relocate before . the lease expired. Staff did not intend to move them out sooner than the expiration of the lease einl-ess another place was found for them. Mayor Cobb said if the focus was on senior housing, he asked if the tendency was to go toward senior housing on the PCC site or whether Council should attempt to ►aandate it. Mr. Schreiber said the Council's discussion of priorities indi- cated the City would look at family housing. If .the conclusion was family housing it was a difficult proposition in that location and it did not use the site effectively, staff would look at senior housing. Ms. Semen also mentioned the Federal Housing Program, which was only for senior housing. Mayor Cobb believed the motion as stated was proper, and it was Council's intent to see to it the PCC retained a home in Palo A1to4 At the same time, it seemed the PCC site was ideal for housing and particularly senior housing. His vote on the previous matter notwithstanding, the PCC site was an exceptionally fine one for senior housing, Councilmember Klein was concerned about Item 44 in the motion because it said to report to the Council with a work plan to develop housing on the Community Gardens site. As he under stood she language, it implied a commitment that housing should be built on the site. He _would feel more comfortable using language "to explore housing..." because before Council made such a commitment, .it needed to have substantial input from the public. b 8 3 0 2/03/86 Cour,cilmember Klein suggested item #4 say to report back to the City Council with a work plan to explore the possibility of devel- opment of housing on the Community Gardens site. LANDAU TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT OF NOOSING ON THE COMMUNITY GARDENS SITE INCORPORATED INTO ITEM 14 OF NOTION Councilmember Klein said it was important the public not feel a decision was made and they were being asked to rubber stamp some- thing. The public's input on the issue would be significant and everyone should keep an open mind. In contrast, on Item #2, Council made a decisicee to rezone the PCC property for housing and told th'e PCC 'they should not rely on the site beyond two years. He supported the PCC, believed they were a valuable addition to the community, and hoped they could remain in Palo Alto. However, it was an extremely valuable site for housing, and he was con- cerned the City's relationship with the.PCC on the site was incon- sistent with the City's stated official position with regard to the use of City -owned land by private organizations. The Council said it would not subsidize private organizations with the City's land, and he believed it was appropriate. Council needed to be consistent. Council could not distinguish between PCC, whom the City might like and admire, and other organizations with similar tax exempt status, but whose positions the City might not like as much. The City should not be in a position of favoring a private organization. He supported leaving in Item #2 as presently writ- ten; and believed Vice Mayor Woolley's language was sufficiently broad to include a whole variety of things. He could not supp _ et a- mixed use' ,plan if it involved any subsidy of the PCC, which included a subsidy on land costs. He was sorry to hear the PCC move back from what "fair market value" meant. To him, "fair mar- ket value" meant construction costs and the value of the land. A mixed use might have a lot of advantageso and he was willing to explore them, but he could not support it unless it was on a no - subsidy basis. Vice Mayor Woolley urged Council support of both Items #1 and #2. She IocFiau upon them as two parallel actions since one -would end before the other. She asked how long it would take to develop the plans for a housing project on the PCC site. Mr. Schreiber said it would not have to be two years. The phys- ical plan development was more simple than the financial plan development. From the start to breaking yround could be a year. Vice Mayor Woolley did not want to see tip:: City welt until the PCC was settled in a new home and then start the process because it would be at least another year after that. If the two processes could go in parallel, she believed housing would:be there much sooner. Mr. Schreiber said Vice Mayor Woolley's comments were the sense got from the Council's discussion, and if it was not the intent for staff to work with the PAHC and the PCC in the near future, staff should begin in some other direction. Counci laaember Levy associated himself with the comments made by Counci#member Klein, He was a member of the PCC and considered the PCC to be a public or "public spirited" organization. It was a non -City organization, and et the time the PCC found itself in need of a location, they went to the City and pointed out the City had a temporarily surplus site, and while it was a temporarily surplus site, they wanted to make use of it, The City said yes and developed a lease not based on the market values, but based on the fact it was a temporary surplus site. He was pleased the City was able to do so, just as he was pleased with several sites around the City where Council made land available to private gardeners for community gardening. Housing was a higher priority on the sites, and as the City was able to make use of the sites for housing, it should be done. He'agreed with the motion as 6 8 3 1 2/03/86 written, and believed Council should work with the PCC to help them find an appropriate site, but recognizing they were .not directly a City organization, and the direct objectives of the City had to be at -a higher priority. AMENDMENT: Couecilmemeer Reazel moved, setoaded by Bechtel, an amendment to Item !1, to work with the PCC to explore a loca.tioe for their activities is order to make the site at 2253 Park Boulevard available for a housing development or to incorporate. the PCC in a mixed use development on the site. Councilmember Menzel believed it, was appropriate tq consider incorporatiny the PCC in a mixed use development on the site either by the PCC developing housing in conjunction with their use or by the PAHC developing housing and leasing, or selling space to the PCC as the case might be. She believed the present use was yrandfathered under the rezoning so the use could be allowed to continue on the site as long as it did not get more intense, The City's public land policy did not say the City could not subsidize organizations; it said if the City did subsidize organizations in leasing land, they must provide substantial public benefit. It was already found that the PCC provided substantial public'bene- fit, and they continued to do so. The Council did not necessarily have to mare its land available to every group which provided public benefit, but the procedure was there in the City's policy for leasing City facilities and land wherein, if substantial pub- lic benefits were provided, there could be less than market value for the rent, otherwise the City charged market value. She believed there was a good basis for having a mixed use project on the site which might in fact provide desirable projects. Councilmember Bechtel agreed with Councilmember Renzel there was substantial benefit provided -by the PCC in terms of the library facilities, information. and referral, and the services being .pro- vided to the residents Of ,Palo Alto. There, were.. 15,000 Palo Alto residents who were members of the PCC. Regarding size, there were figures between 3,000 and 5,0W -square -feet, but she heard PCC would be satisfied with a site of approximately 3,900 square feet. A meeting room could be easily opened up much of - 'the time to:the seniors or whoever lived there. Subtracting 3,000 square feet from the possible 18 units was a difference, perhaps, of three units, so there was rota for mixed use on that site. The amend- ment was strictly additive to the initial motion 'and At was to Nor* explore mixed use, so she hoped Council continued to keep that in mind and supported the amendment. AMENDMENT TO AMENUMEMT: Councilmember Klein unoved,, seconded by Setorins, to add '...provided any such mixed sse shall not involve arty subsidy on either csnstruct1oa or load cost from the City.* Councilmember Klein was concerned because he believed Council should use neutral principles and not speak to organizations th,._. favored. He had long favored a variety of conservation causes and probably agreed with the pe itions taken by the oe9ani nations located at the PCC over 90 percent of the time, but it was not appropriate to use public funds Or public assets to :advocate such positions. The orydnizatiions at the PCC, in addition to ..providing public benefit such as the library, took -political positions and he did not believe Council could gainsFay -it!. by either citing sta- ti stl cs about number , of books or peopVe.-" There might be can equal number of people ie Palo- Alto whop. disagreed. with . posi;tioee :taken by the Sierra Club, etc., and. Council should not take sides in -the use , of public funds or public assets. It was apprbprl ate for the City to at least explore, and maybe enter into joint .use proposals with a variety of private organizations, of which the PCC was cer- tatnly a natural one, but the -idea of- subsidizing was inappro- priate. He urged support for the amendment to the _amendment: - 5 8 3 2 2/03/86 Councilmember Sutorius asked staff whether the main motion without the two amendments, gave staff the latitude to work out a develop- ment proposal for housing with the PAHC and the PCC along the dual track proposed by staff. In other words, the motion contained four points and provided for both pursuing something on a site over which the City presently had control, and pursuing something through the acquisition process, and he asked if it was enough latitude without being so explicit so as to tie staffs hands. Mr. Schreiber said it gave staff a considerable amount of lati- tude, but there was an important caveat. City Council's adopted land use policy for the old fire station site, the PCC site, was residential. Council rejected the whole area of the commercial land use designations. He would not place the emphasis of the exploration of any mixed use concept on the PCC site. Other opportunities would be the primary focus. Councilmember Sutorius encouraged the „raker of the amendment and the maker of the amendment to the amendment to agree to withdraw their respective amendments. For those who did not make those amendments, he . encouraged nonsupport because he did not believe Council needed either of the amendments. He believed the poten- tial for what could be explored and what ultimately could from the direction provided in Items 01 through f4 as initially presented was the way Council should go. Nothing would happen without returning to Council and without the full processes, and he would be concerned about limiting staff and the PAHC in terms of possi- ble avenues to be explored which might turn out to be beneficial to all parties. Ccuecilmember Fletcher intended to vote against the amendment to the amendment not because she supported subsidizing the PCC with City funds necessarily, but some arrangemeee might be worked out which involved some assistance on the part of the City would be precluded if the amendment to the amendment passed. She tended to agree with Councilmember Sutorius tjat the amendment was super- fluous at that time. There might be other sites, and if the main motion passed, staff had the direction to assist the PCC in finding a location, which might well be part of the project. She preferred to vote for the\original motion. Zouncilmember Klein said Councilmember Sutorius' comments were well taken. He'would withdraw his amendment to the amendment if the makers of the prior amendment withdrew theirs. If not, in order to protect Council from taking an unfortunate position, the policy was needed. Councilmember Renzel withdrew her amendment because of the vote count. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT NITNNRAIIR AMENDMENT 01I.TMUAMN Councilmember Patitucci clarified almixed use on the site as a proposition staff would explore was low priority versus looking at other sites because of the historic policy the site was zoned for housing and .ndi commercial. Counc.il+eembar Klein said with regard to dividing the motion, he saw the item as an entire package, and was not sure he could sup- port the motion with an element eliminated. He suggested if Councilmember Fletcher did -not like one particular item she move to delete it. 6 8 3 3 2/03/86 Mayor Cobb concurred with Councilmember Klein and asked if there was a motion . to either amend or delete Item #2. He was pu esuaded there was some connection between all the actions. AMENDMENT: Coeoci lmember Fletcher moved, „seceoded by hovel to delete Item 12 from the motion. Councilmember Bechtel wanted to see Housing in the area. She did not want to move immediately on it and wondered if Council could delay somewhat. She wanted to give the PCC a chance to explore the mixed use concept, and ' to take necessary steps immediately to develop the site was premature. Vice Mayor Woolley said without exploring housing it was impos- sible to explore mixed use; therefore, she did not see how one could happen without the other. They' had to be parallel tracks, and there was nothing in the staff report to indicate the PCC was going to be thrown out. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vete of 3-S, Stenzel, Bechtel. Fletcher votioy °agree° Councilmember Renzel said white she supported Items #3 and 4, since Council could not divide off the items and she did not believe there would be support to amend out item #1, she did not concur with Councilmember Patitucci's ,interpretation that Item #1 eant Council gave a .low priority to a mixed use there as opposed to someplace else. She did not know -whether Council had to let the words and .various people's talk stand on their own, or whether the interpretation as confirmed by staff was how Council had to interpret Item #1, She understood Vice Mayor Wool ley's motion to specifically say it did not preclude a mixed use there, but Cpuncilmember Patitucci said it meant mixed use someplace else first. She asked for the proper interpretation. Mayor Cobb asked staff if it was correct that the motion as pre- sently structured precluded looking at a mixed use. Mr. Schreiber said yes, Councilmember Patitucci clarified given the site, given the pre- vious policy, he did not believe Council wanted to promise a mixed use at the site was a high priority.. It was important to look at, but it was also important to look at alternatives given and what Council knew about the site and zoning. MOTION PASSED eoaolmettsly. 1:TEM #11 ADOPTION OF THE 1985 EDITIONS OF %HE UNIFORM BUILDING C Ji)E HOOSING CODE FIRE'. CODE, PLUMBING CODE, CAL 11 TW g84 NATI IC CODE AND AME;N0MENTS' { I U C L FEE SCH.tTOULE (PJA 12/SAF 4) MR:1 O. Mayor Cobb asked which fee schedule was referred to in the staff report. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said the fee schedule was pubs., fished ih the 1985 -Uniform Building Code on page_ 16. The one 4n Council's packet was identical to the one in the URC. Councilmember levy asked for a clarification on the smoke detectors In residences, Section. 15.04.I -6O, and whether .a smoke detector was required in every sleeping room of a single-family residence or in every home. Mr. Herman said it meant in every single-family residence, not in every sleeping room. 6 8 3 4 2/03/86 MOTION: Cooed lmember Refxe.i roved, se&®edsd by . Moe11 e1►, to adept the 1946 Editleas •f the Uniform 3uildia9, Plumb's', Mechanical. Meusia9 and Fire Cedes, dad the 1904 National Electric Code with areedmmets dad revise the Muaic.ipa1 Fee Schedule tea• 4istaat with the tee schedule found •n page IS of the Uniform iiildINg Code. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 01-77 44) ALTO ADOPTING TNE 1985 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE ANO 11111F016: OUSING CODE AN/ AMENDING CHAPTER 16.04 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CO/Ea' ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING untitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE ALO ALTO ADOPTING THE 1905 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMRLNG CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16.01 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE" ORDINANCE FIN FIRST READING entitled ORDINANCE OF THE t1UNCIL .OF 'TR CITY 4r PALO ALTO ADOPTING TNE 1964 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16.16 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE° RESOLUTION b4$8 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF E CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING FINDINGS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE 1945 UNIFORM FIRE CO/E° ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF TNE trairriThrrIV-TALO • ALTO ADOPTING TNE 1985 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AS AMENDED (MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 15.04)a Councilmember Fletcher was gr.tif1ed to see the expanded require- ments for fire alarm systems, sprinklers, and smoke detector . MOTION RASED eaaui.eusly. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Nottatiotevir- Mayor 6 8 3 5 2/03/86