HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-24 City Council Summary MinutesRegular Meeting
March 24, 1986
1
1
CITV
COUNCIL
M 1NUT€s
CRY
OF
PAL O
ALTO
ITEM PAGE
Ural Communications 6 9 8, 9
Approval of Minutes
February 18, 1986
February 10, 1986 and 6 9 9 4
Item #1, Appointment of Two Human Relations 6 9 9 5
Commission Members to Fill Terms Expi ri ny March 31,
1989
Consent Calendar 6 9 9 6
Referral 6 9 9 6
Action 6 9 9 6
Item #2, Resolution Appointing June Fleming Acting 6 9 9 6
City Manager
item #3, Gas Rate Decrease
Item #4, Use of Facilities
Item #5, Remittance Processiny Agreement for
Utility Bill Receivables
Item #6, Palo Alto Area Information and Referral
Services - Human Services Contract Amendment
Item #7, Project Mobility - Transportation Develop-
ment Act Grant Application for Fiscal Year 1986-87
Item #8, Housing Improvement Program - Application
for State Deferred Payment Loan funds for Housing
Rehabilitation
Item #9, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Application of Chuck Paya for a
Preliminary Parcel Map Creating Two Lots, One of
Them a Flay Lot Which is Substandard in Depth,
Located at 565 Newell Road
Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Zoning Administrator's Decision
to Deny the Application of Francis and lei Kuen'
Cheng for a Use Permit for a Second Detached
Dwelling Unit (Cottage) for Property Located at 317
El Carmelo Avenue
Recess -
Item 911, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Lone Change for R-1(929) (Single
Family Residence District) to PF (Public Facility)
and Comprehensive Pl an Land Use Neap Change from
Singkle Family. Residential to Major institution/
Special Facility for Property Located at 1431
Reverie' Street (THE GAMBLE HOUSE)
6 9 9 7
6 9 9 7
6 9 9 7
6 9 9 7
6 9 9 7
6 9 9 7
6 9 9 8
7 .0 0 3
7 0 0 7
7 0 0 8
ITEM PAGE
Item #12, Policy and Procedures (PAP) Committee 7 0 0 8
Recommendation re Moratorium on Building Permits
for Boarding Houses in R-1 Zone
Item #13, Report from Council Legislative Committee 7 0 0 9
Item #14, Resolution of Necessity Re Eminent Domain
-- Keystone
Item #15, Cable Franchise Agreement - Closing and
Execution
Item #16, Payment to Arnold and Porter
Item #17, Designation of Mid -Peninsula Access
Corporation as CATV Community Access Organization
item #18, Repealing CATV Lobbyists and Code of
Ethics Regulations
Item #19, Request ..of Vice Mayor Woolley re Santa
Clara County - Harvest of Change
Item #20, Reports from Councils:embers Fletcher,
Klein, and Levy re National League of Cities Annual.
Congressional City Conference and Recommendations
re Federal Legislation Matters
7 01 0
7 0 2 0
7 0 2 1
7 0 2 2
7 0 2 2
7 0 2 3
ADJOURNMENT: 11:40 p.m. 7 0 2 4
6 9 8.8
3/24/86
e
1
Regular Meeting
March 24; 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 (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Cobb,
Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patltucci, Renzel
(arrived at 7:35 p.m.) , Sutori us , Woolley
Mayor Cobb announced that a Special Study Session with the
Historic Resources Board was held in the Council Conference Room
at 6:00 p.m
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor .Cobb said Council had an extremely long agenda that evening.
There was a special issue people wanted to speak to;on which he
had already received a number of cards.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to
change Council's Organization and procedures re Oral Communi-
cations (P MC 2.04 120(2)) to limit the discussion an the
Sanctuary issue to s total of 20 minutes only, and that the
remainder of the speakers be allowed to . address the Council at the
end of the meeting.
Councilmember Klein said the procedure was followed by many com-
munities in the area, and he believed Palo Alto was unique in not
having it. It might be useful for Council to adopt the procedure
ona permanent basis in the nehr future.
Councilmember Fletcher asked if the motion was intended to limit
all communications to 20 minutes or only the Sanctuary topic.
Mayor Cobb said there was one" speaker on a subject other than the
Sanctuary under Oral Communications. He asked Councilmember Klein
to clarify his motion,
Councilmember Klein said it was a good question, and given the
number of people who were present with respect to the issue, he
suggested the 20 minute limit be for those who wished to speak on
the Sanctuary issue.
Councilmember Levy asked how many cards there were.
Mayor Cobb had seven cards, which would take a total of approx-
imately• -35 minutes.
Councilmember- Levy agreed Council had been liberal in the past
allowing members of the public to. speak. The previous year he
suggested Council have a standing rule to 1.ixrtt the :public in
situations where there was likely to be extended public discussion
which might be repetitive. He questioned whether the issue was
appropriate for Council to discuss ttat evening. He did nut favor
the °motion because it meant Council arbitrarily changed the rules
of the game on the day when members of the public had prepared
long in advance to address Council. He suspected the preparati :n
was thorough and probably well organized. If Council wanted to
limit the public. in the future, the public should be given fair
warning. Council had ..the right to make the chenge that evening,
but he believed it would be unfair to their constituents.
SU$ZTITUTE MOTION: Covacilmember F1'tcher moved., seconded by
Srtories, to limit the discussion rude.' Oral Communications re
Sanctuary to the eight members of the public that have submitted
speaking cards.
SUBSTITUT1 NOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Patitucci, Klein,
Woolley, Cobb voting 1ne.'
1, Dr, Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, President of HKR
Associates, Inc., consultants and planners in health, educa-
tion, and government, spoke regarding alcohol container
labeling memorialization. 'He hoped a Councilmember would
ayendize the matter at some point. On February 18, he spoke
about the Palo Alto Addiction Recovery Center (PAARC). He
submitted information (on fide in the City Clerk's office),
and reeuested a City donation and for a Councilmember to serve
on the PAARC Board of Directors.
2. Walter Hays, 355 Parkside Drive, urged the Council to put the
Sanctuary issue on a future City Council agenda. Regarding
whether the Sanctuary issue was a local one, Councilmembers
were elected officials, and their primary duty was to deal
with pressing issues in Palo Alto. Council could nat'spend
time in all meetings talking about the details of the federal
budget, etc., but urged Council to look at the nther side of
the issue. Any official was elected to carry out the will of
the. electorate. The lines between local , state and national
issues were flexible and practical. If Palo Alto was building
a new sewer and had to get a federal sewer grant in order to
finance it, Council's local responsibilities involved lobbying
at the state or national level to get the grant. Occasionally
a major moral issue arose where an overwhelming majority of
constituents wanted Council to express its will to the higher
levels of government, and he believed the Sanctuary issue was
one. He referred to the Nuclear Freeze issue where Council
passed a resolution. When Council passed the resolution, it
did not knuckle under to political pressure against crossing
jurisdictional borders and responded to the will of its con-
stituents. Passage of the resolution was a fine moment in the
history of the Palo Alto City Council, and a movie about . the
incident was probably shown all over the country as a model of
citizen involvement and community leader response. The issue
presented by Sanctuary was similar to the freeze, and he hoped
Council would respond in the same way. It was a0 overpowering
moral issue. People fleeing persecution and oftentimes being
sent back with the knowledge they faced persecution, possible
torture and death was unacceptable to a majority of people in
the country and particularly Palo Altens. A letter in the
Palo Alto Weekly talked about the inscription on the Statue TiTerty and pointed out the issue of refugees was totally
repugnant to everything the United States stood for as a
country. Regarding whether the issue had local impact, there
were refugees who lived and worked in Palo Alto. His wife
hired a woman from Guatemala to help clean house, etc., to do
what she could to he p. If the person was arrested, deported,
and sent back, and something happened to her, it would have a
direct aid personal impacc She was considered a part of the
family, and there were many " other people like :hat. Those
people had become part of -the co, munity. The next question
was whether the constituency wanted Council to act. He
submitted petitions (on file in the City Clerk's office).
3. Mark Vanderhaut, .President of the National Lawyers Guild and
immigration lawyer in Redwood City, urged Council consider
adoption of a resolution to declare Palo Alto a "Sanctuary
City.`° It was an important step in a paramount need through-
out the country and in Palo Alto, He frequently had
Salvadoran refugees who lived in Palo Alto go to his office,
and every day he heard the same stories: people trying to
6 9 9 0
3/24/86
find brothers, sisters, fathers, husbands, wives mutilated
sometimes in the most barbaric forms; for example, arms cut
off, sometimes eyes gouged out, and fingernails torn off. The
refugees pled "Can you help me to get political asylum in the
'United States?" His answer had to be a frank "no," because if
he was to file an application for political asylum on their
behalf, it would be an immediate ticket to death in El
Salvador. They would be deported by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, not because they did not qualify under
the law but because they did. The law said one needed a :ell -
founded fear of persecution, but the government was not fol-
lowing the law for ideological reasons but rather for foreign
policy reasons. He believed it was incumbent upon state
legislatures, city councils, and citizens throughout the
country to take a stand on the matter. It was relevant when
refugees were in the community. He reviewed the proposed
resolution presented to Council, as he did before he testified,
before the Seattle city council and the San Francisco Board ofe
Supervisors on similar resolution:. In his opinion, as a
lawyer who studied the matter, the resolution was completely
within the law and called upon no member of_the City of Palo
Alto to do anything illegal. He opined the Sanctuary movement
itself was not illegal despite protests to the contrary by the
federal government. To house or transport someone against the
laws of the United States one had to be unlawfully in the
United States. The United Nations stated refugees with a
weal -founded fear were lawfully fn the country, and it did not
matter whether the federal government anointed them as such.
It was important for the Council to take a stand because there
were people _ who suffered dearly in Palo Alto, partially
because City employees turned the refugees over to the Immi-
gration and Naturalization Service, the result of which was
deportation. The resolution asked there not be the feeding of
the names of those who were only there under "Civil Viola-
tions" of the immigration laws; that the City not take the
initiative and turn those people over to the Immigratire and
Naturalization Service. He believed it was sound in the law,
and there was no obligation whatsoever for a City official to
help enforce the federal immigration laws. As a matter of
fact, the Ninth Circuit Board of Appeals said City officials
could not enforce the federal immigration laws; that it was
under the purview of the federal government. He urged Council
adopt the resolution.
4. Joaquin Dominguez, e. refugee from El Salvador and a lawyer in
his country, said before it became necessary to seek refuge in
the United States, he worked for the Salvadorian government.
He worked in the legal division of the Agricultural Department
in the Land Reform Program. He was one of 14 lawyers in
charge of encouraging the Land .Reform Program but on March 5,
1980 when the program was launched, his people started to be
killed. 1He discussed with h! s ! of leagues in the Agricultural
Department whether their role was to be a mask of the
slaughter in the countryside. Maybe the mask was a crime
because in November, 1980, 20 or 30 soldiers in a military
truck went to his home, surrounded his home, broke the front
door of his house, and demanded he turn on the light or- they
would kill everybody inside. The soldiers said they had
information the house was considered a safe house for sub-
versive persons, and they were looking for arms and subversive
materials. They searched for about two hours and even though.
they found nothing, he was captured, put in the garrison, and
interrogated about being a -Subversive person. Because he
would not say he was, he was transferred to the headquarters
of the National Police in San Salvador where they continued to
interrogate him. Because of pressure from his colleagues,
friends, relatives, and because he met the legal adviser of
the police ho_ disclosed detention was illegal, he was given a
legal release. He went to his mother's home, but 30 minutes
6 9 9 1
3/24/86
later five ni in civilian dress with machine guns went to his
mother's_ home and summoned him to return to She National
Police because he needed to sign some papers. He knew they
wanted to kill him.- Miraculously, he escaped because of an
.American friend who worked for the Peace Corps volunteers who
helped him go to Washington, D.C. He was afraid of deporta-
tion and started a legal center in Washington, D.C., the
Central American Refugee Center, and was the Executive -
Director for five years until he moved to San Francisco. The
law did not work in relation to the refugees because his
people were deported to certain death. The Immigration
Service deported 30;000 Salvadorans. Refugees wanted to live
in their country in peace. They did not went war but were
powerless. On behalf of his people, liceeirged Council consider
declaring Palo Alto a refuge which would be a clear statement
to the Reagan administration that Palo Alto did not agree with
deportation of the refugees nor- with the war in Central
America.
5. Hope Raymond, 639 Arastradero Road, represented the Faith
Communities in Palo Alto and responded to the command of their
biblical heritage, "When a stranger sojourns with you in your
land, you shall not do him or her wrong. The stranger '.who
sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and
you shall love the stranger as yourself." The Faith Common-
itiee shared a deep, moral, and humanitarian conviction there
was no higher calling than to love their neighbors as them-
selves. It was the third anniversary of the assassination of
Archbishop Romero of San Salvador. South Bay Sanctuary
Covenant was formed when three Palo Alto churches declared
themselves public sanctuaries along with a church in San Jose
and offered protection, humanitarian aid, and advocacy for
their brothers and sisters from El Salvador and Guatemala who
e fled fr,rm fear of persecution in their own countries. South
Bay Sanctuary Covenant low included I1 groups in Palo Alto or
nearly 4,000 local citizens. Sanctuary congregations were
necessitated by the immoral and it 1 egal stance of the federal
government toward its neighbors- from the south. Sanctuary
congregations tried to convince the government to stop depor-
tations, but their voices fell on deaf ears. Guatemalans and
Salvadorans continued to be deported in droves. Synagogues
and churchee could hel p to protect some refugees but could not
begin to protect the upwards of 600,000 refugees from El
Salvador and Guatemala who resided in the United States. The
people turned to their mayor and city councllmembers since the
normal channels of help refused to search the depths of them-
selves as human beings, 'to hear the call given to them to love
and serve one another. She knew from personal experience how
easy it was to get caught up in the roles as lawyers,
teachers, fathers and mothers, and city councilmembers, and
forget underneath they were first human beings. While the
pressing demands of pragmatic affairs made one impatient with
concerns. which on the surface seemed removed from the lives of
Palo Alto citizens, history would notice if the City Council
allowed itself to be inconvenienced and took time to hear the
cries of its citizens and strangers by placing humanitarian
concerns first on its agenda. If only one life was saved, it
was well _worth the time and effort. It would be said Palo
Alto was a city with courage to base its decisions on humani-
tarian values which spoke out for justice and compassion when
its federal government did not. If Council doubted the will
of the Palo Alto people, she suggested the voters be asked,
"Is it your will that the City Council deal with the matter
of Palo Alto becoming a Sanctuary City?* and "Do you want your
City Council to declare Palo Alto a Sanctuary City?' He
presented Council with a resolution declaring Palo Alto_ a City.
of Sanctuary and Refuge for Salvadoran and Guatemalan, refugees
and respectfully requested the matter be agertdi zed for the
next meeting of the Palo Alto City Council.
6 9 9 2
3/24/86
6. Peggy Law, 830 Los Trancos Road, said sanctuary for those who
fled terrorism in El Salvador and Guatemala ;gas a local issue
because citizens of Palo Alto requested the issue be ad-
dressed. It was a local issue because refugees were in Palo
Alto and because refugee children in Palo Alto woke from
nightmares of a terrorism to which they were likely to be
returned if the City did not respond. Sanctuary was a local
issue because it was a human issue, and Palo Altans were an
integral part of humanity. Local tax dollars supported the
terrorism which forced the people to leave all that was cher-
ished and familiar and seek refuge. Council's blindness and
inactivity would increase the likelihood of refugees being
sent back to face inhuman conditions from which they fled.
History showed everyone would be held accountable, for the
atrocities committed if they turned their heads in apathy. If
anything was learned from World War II, it should have been
that no one escaped responsibility for terrorism, torture, and
murder by labeling it none their business. ,If Council turned
away and maintained individual and collective blindness about
the conditions in Central America and the plight of the
refugees in its midst an historical moment about 'which all
oaring people would be ashamed was created. On the 'Statue of
Liberty were written the words, "Give me your tired your
poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the
wretched refuse of your teeming shore." Palo Alto citizens
oust decide whether those words called their community to be
what they claimed to be, or whether those words were nothing
more than empty symbolism.
7. David Still represented the United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service. He said resolutions which expressed
displeasure at a foreign policy, or made a recommendation for
the government to change current wording of laws concerning
the definition of a refugee, the number of refugees to be
admitted, or an extended voluntary departure, did not trouble
the Immigratioe and Naturalization Set ;'ice (INS), As a ha-.ir
tenet of free speech and representative oovernment, such reso-
lutions were acceptable to the INS. The INS did take issue
with any resolution or proclamation which promoted Palo Alto
or any city as a Sanctuary city, which promoted a spirit of
non -cooperation between federal and 1ocel authorities, or
which promoted the idea among City employees that breaking
some laws were condoned or hidden. Immigration and the
writing, passing, and enforcement of immigration laws were
federal matters. Anything citizens aid to influence the
writing, passing, or changing ofsuch laws by the Congress of
the United States was commendable, but it was unacceptable for
a city to declare itself as a shelter from federal authorities
for those individuals in violation of federal immigration
laws. Declaring the City of Palo Alto a shelter sent a false
message to thousands of individuals already in, or hoping to
get to, the United States that they would somehow be protected
if they could reach Palo Alto. The INS would apprehend 1.8
million aliens attempting illegal entry in 1986. Approx-
imately two of three people who attempted illegal entry would
succeed. While millions waited on lists outside the country
to immigrate legally, millions would enter without regard to
the orderly procedure set up by Congress. The United States
was the most generous country in the world in terms of legal
immigration which status could change if the lieies between
legal and illegal immigration were blurred or destroyed. He
cautioned the City Council regarding the Sanctuary resolution
recently passed in Los Angeles After the passage of the
resol ut i on z: members of the Los Angeles city Council polled
:heir constituency on the issue. One poll by KHJ TV found 90
percent of the public was against the declaration of
Sanctuary. After less than three months, the Sanctuary reso-
lution was rescinded in Los _ Angeles by a vote of 11-1. The
Los Angeles city council now passed a resolution to study the
impact of illegal immigration on their city. Immigration was
a situation deserving study and reflection, and hu encouraged
Councilmembers study the issue carefully and reject a
Sanctuary resolution.
8. Phyllis Campbell, 2316 Amherst Street, said when the national
government handled'a problem contrary to international jaw as
well as the Refugee Act of 1980, the people had to assert
grassroots democracy and urge their nearest representative
government, the city council, to stand up and be counted as a
city that would not turn away the hungry and helpless. If
enough cities had the courage to be Sanctuary cities or cities
of refuge, surely the national government would change its
attitude toward refugees.
9. Edward Freiberg, 726 E. Charleston Road, said after World War
II, Dr. Mildram, a psychologist at Yale University, headed a
team of social scientists who intended to go to Germany to
study why the German people had been so obedient to the Nazi
government; to try to understand why there was little
resistance to a government so oppressive to part of their
population. At that time, the expression "the good German"
was widely used referring to the German people who obeyed, or
went alone with, policies of the government which were crim-
inal in nature. Before going to Germany, Mildram decided to
establish a. data base by studying Americans. He found
Americans to be obedient to authority figures. He conducted
the experiment in a laboratory setting in which a man in a
grey eboratvey coat, playing the role of psychologist,
instructed volunteers to administer an electric shock to a
col l eayue of the psychologist who played the role of another
volunteer. A volunteer would invariably press ._the button to
administer an electric shock, increase the voltage to a lethal
amount under the supervision of a man in a grey laboratory
coat who said, "It is required that you continue. I will take
full responsibility." Dr. Mildram never went to Cermany The
data base proved overwhelmingly Americans were just as passive
and obedient as the "good Germans" who said, "I didn't know
what was going on. It was not my department." Presently Palo
Alto was faced with a situation analagous to, and as horrible
in its consequences, that which took place in Nazi Germany
prior to and during World War II. When refugees were appre-
hended by their government and returned to the country they
fled in fear,- they faced almost certain death. The Refugee
Act of 1980 provided temporary refugee status to those per-
secuted or having a well-founded fear of persecution in their
o.wn countries. The federal government violated its own laws
by returning those people. The United Natitons'High Commission
for refugees found the .United States' treatment and deporta-
tionof Salvadorans to violate international as well as United
States' laws. He urged Council consideration.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 1986 AND FEBRUARY 1Qs 1986
Minutes of February 10 1986
Vice Mayor Woolley had the following corrections:
Pa 6841, paragraph two, last line, the word '"were" . after the
wor p er" should be omitted, and the words *were ready" should
be added to the end of the sentence after "in general."
Pa a 6851, fifth paragraph, third line down, the word "would"
ss ou t4 added before "be a struggle."
�Pa a 6851, seventh paragraph, third line down, the word "took"
iFrould be substituted for "sailed."
Page b853, twelfth paragraph, first line, the words "...was not to
the exclusiye use of a..." should be changed to "...would not
exclude use by a...'
6 9 9 4
3/24/86
Cuunciimember Rene -el submitted the following corrections:
Pag.e 6045, eighth paragraph, first line, delete word "the.
Page 6847, ninth paragraph, the word "excess" should be "access."
Minutes of February 18, 1986
Vice Mayor Woolley submitted the following correction:
Page 6893. - third line from _top of_ page, insert "organizations"
after nonprofit," and delete ";" and insert ", for example."
MOTION: Couacilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to
approve the Minutes of February 10, 11986, and February 18, 1986,
as corrected.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel °abstaining" on Minutes of
February 18, 1986.
ITEM 01, APPOINTMENT OF TWO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS TO
FILL TERMS EXPIRING MARCH , 1989 U -
Mayor Cobb said there were two Human Relations Commission (HRC)
positions to be fi 1 led, and the six applicants were:
POOOLSKY, Joseph L.
RAMACCIOTTI, Jean M.
ROTH, Harvey K.
TAYLOR, Shelley E.
TORIN, Lynn A.
WE'. L I S, Jonathan L.
Counc i l member Levy said applicants for the position of Human
Relations Commissioner were of high quality, and Council was
blessed with an exquisite dilemma of more good people than
openings. Council interviewed four applicants since Anne Blair
withdrew her application. Joseph Podolsky was a current member of
the Human Relations Commission, served as liaison to Palo Alto
Community Child Care (PACCC), was a Board member of Palo Alto Area
information and Referral Service (PAAIRS), and chaired the HRC.
Mr. Podolsky was applying for a third term and he did not believe
Council should automatically grant second or third terms to
existing Commissioners. It was often good to see new blood. Joe
was an outstanding leader on the Commission and was recognized for
his work in mediation, in leading the Commission to take a broad
look at the City of Palo Alto, and to continue its diversity. He
supported Joe Podolsky. Jean Ramacciotti was a long-time resident
of Palo Alto, was active in school affairs, was a single parent --a
category of individuals in the community who were generally under-
represented. Shelley Taylor was younger . than the other appli-
cants, was also a long-time resident of Palo Alto having been born
there, was also a single parent of a younger child, and was also
active in many aspects of the community including the Children's
Health Council. Lynn Torin provided outstanding service to the
community as President of the League of Women Voters and as a past
president of various PTAs. All three individuals were well -
qualified, worthy of Council's vote, and worthy of service to the
community. It was a hard choice. The present Commissioners 'were
outstanding, long-time, active residents. However, he believed
there was a lot of similarity on the Commission. One Commissioner
was a senior, and all the others were similar in age, in , the age
of their children, and many of their experiences. Shelley Taylor
was younger, had a di f fereilt background and experience, and was a
singe parent of a, younger child. Although he recognized= Lynn
Torin and Jean Ramacciott.i would make outstanding Commissioners,
he leaned towards Shelley Taylor.
Mayor Cobb would support Mr. Podolsky- on the first bal i cat for much
the same reasons as Councilmen ber Levy. The choice between
Shelley Taylor and Lynn Torin was_ difficult since they would .both
be Oxcellent Commissioners. He landed on the side of Lynn Torin
6 9 9 5
3/24/86
because of her proven track record of considerable work and per-
formance on the part of the City. He believed the Commission
would be well -served by her but hoped there would be a near term
opportunity for Shelley Taylor to also be on the Commission.
RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING
City Clerk Gloria Young ,announced the results of the first ballot
for the first position.
voTIM1, FOR PODOLSKY: Levy, Fletcher, Bechtel, Sutorius, Klein,
Patitucci, Cobb, Woolley, Renzel
Ms. Young said Mr. Podolsky received nine votes and was
appointed.
Mayor Cobb congratulated Mr. Podolsky on his appointment and
looked forward to his continued service.
Councilmember Sutorius, associated with the comments of Council -
member Levy and Mayor Cobb and for the benefit of his colleagues
and candidates Torin and Taylor, he emphasized the difficulty of
the choice. For the reasons identified by Councilmember Levy, he
would vote for Shelley Taylor. lie would be comfortable voting for
Lynn Torin; and, in the event Shelley Taylor was not appointed on
the ballot, he would vote for Lynn Torin on subsequent ballots.
Both applicants were well -qualified,
RESULTS OF THE
SECOND ROUND OF VOTING
Ms. Young announced the results of the second ballot for second
position.
VOTING FOR TAYLOR: Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Levy.
VOTING FOR TORIN: Klein, Woolley, Cobb, Bechtel, Fletcher
Ms. Young said Lynn Torin received five votes and was appointed.
Mayor Cobb welcomed Ms. Torin to another set of activities on the
part of the City of Palo Alto. He knew she would do well and
honied she would join in encouraging Ms. Taylor to take an active
role as well as the other fine applicants for the position.
Councilmember Fletcher said the choice was difficult. She did not
want to vote against Shelley Taylor, who was an excellent appli-
cant, and hoped Ms. Taylor would reapply for a future position.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayer Woolley said she would not participate in Item 14,
Agreement with School District re Use of Facilities, due to a
conflict of interest.
NOTION: Coueci ialeaber Levy moved, seconded' by Sateri as,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
None
Action
ITEM 12t RESOLUTION APPOINTING JUKE FLEMING ACTING cmMANAGER
(AUK b)
RESOLUTION NM entitled $$USRLVTION OF CRRIIICIL OF
TIT—TrrirlAro ALTO APPOINTING JOSE FLE$I*S AS ACTIN
CITY MANAGER"
ITEM #3L GAS RATE DECREASE (UTI 1-1) (CMR:217:6)
Staff. recommends Council adopt the resolution confirming the
actions taken by the City Manager to effect a gas rate change on
January 1, 1986, resulting 1n a gas revenue decrease of_approxi-
mately $1,270,000 on an annual basis.
RESOLUTION 6499 eotitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CItt OF PILO ALTO AMENDING UTILITY RATE SCHEDULES
G-1 AMID- G -5O AS A RESULT OF TRACKING ►6iE GAS RATE
CHANGES"
ITEM #4, USE OF FACILITIES (PRE 8) (0 6:185:6)
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute
the contract with the Palo Alto Unified School District in the
amount of $42,150.
AGREEMENT
Palo Alto Unified School District
ITEM #5, REMITTANCE PROCESSING AGREEMENT FOR UTILITY BILL
KEcEfiff s (UTI 1) (CMR:213:6 j
Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the remit-
tance processing services agreement with National Data Corporation
for processing utility bill remittances.
REMITTANCE PROCESS SERVICES AGREEMENT
Rational Data Corporation, CISCO Division
ITEM #6, PALO ALTO AREA INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICES
SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDME T SO 9-1 CMR:178:6
Staff recommends. the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute
the contract amendment between Palo Alto Area Information and
Referral Service, Inc. (PAAIRS) and the City of Palo Alto for the
remainder of fiscal year 1985-1986.
ARENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. 4323
Pale Alto Area Information aed Referral Services
HUMAN
ITEM f7 PROJECT MOBILITY - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT GRANT
APPL I N 9 -`SAE YEAR f986-8 3`OS 4-4) CMR :221 :;6 )
Staff recommends Council:
1. Authorize staff to submit an amendment to Palo Alto's 1985-86
TDA Article 4.5 claim reducing our grant by $20,000; and
2. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the filing of a
grant application for $112,000 in IDA Article 4.5 funds for
1986-87.
RESOLUTION 6600 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
TIT CITY PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIN
WITN T$E METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR
ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FONDS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 19$6-671
ITEM #8 HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - APPLICATION FOR STATE
j( N -.i YM N - O H- U.. NG R H B L N P ...
Staff recommends the Council adopt the Resolution and authorize
the City Manager to enter into a contract with the State of
California for receipt of State Oeferred Payment Loan Funds.
-
6 9 9 7
3/24/86
i
1
1
RESOLUTION 6501 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY ALTO APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO TPE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOP-
MENT DEFERRED PAYMENT REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS TO
SUPPLEMENT THE , FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY'S NOOSING
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM'
MOTION PASSED reawiareesly, Moeller 'net participating' •N Item
14, Agreement with Pala Alto Unified Scheel District.
ITEM 09, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
PPLICA I N OF HU K P Y R R LI MARY P C L M CR N
O —L0 S H _M L L W H SUBS AND
LOCATED A 5 N W `
Planning Administrator Lynnie Melena said there was one correction
to the staff report pointed out by Councilmember Sutorius: page
2, Requirements for Parcel Map, Item 1.c. should read, "Access to
a public street for a flag lot shall not he over an easement but
over land under the same ownership..."
Planning Commission Vice Chairman. John Northway said the four
members of the Planning Commission who voted for the flag lot
subdivision did so only with the recommended condition the second
floor riot exceed 1,000 square feet.. The two members who voted
against the motion believed the piece of property could be better
served by the cottage application.
Councilmember Sutt ri us said during the conversation regarding the
1,000 square foot second story limitation for the rear lot versus
other ways of looking at possible controls on privacy invasion,
etc., if he read the Minutes correctly, Mr. Paya indicated a
willingness to accept a limitation of 3,000 square feet on ;level -
opment on each of the lots. There was no further conversation,
along those lines, but with the lot sizes involved and the ease
with which all setbaks could be accommodated, it still left a
large site area within which the 35 percent site coverage could be
accommodated. The potential seemed to be on the front lot where a
ground floor could be 2,800 square feet, which represented 35
percent of the lot and because there was ample site area to accom-
modate setbacks and daylight plane situations, he guessed the
second floor on the first lot could easily be 2,800 additional
square feet. Good design might not put a box there, but it was
potentially a hsme 4,000 -to 4,500 square feet. In lot two, the
rear lot on which the 1,000 square foot limitation applied, as
Commissioner Northway pointed out, with the lot size and the set-
back situations there really was the potential for 3,500 square
feet on the ground floor and an ads etional 1 , 000 square feet on
the second floor, which made 4,500 square feet. He found it
interesting the applicant addressed himself to accepting.a limita-
tion of a total 3,000 square feet on each of the lots, and the
:pshot in terms of the rear lot could be the economic level for a
second floor was probably 1,000 feet. From a design and use
standpoint, if the applicant put 1,000 feet up, there would only
be 2,000 feet underneath making the site coverage .less than 35
percent.
Commissioner Northway said the Assistant City Attorney advised the.
Planning Commission that conditions to the subdivision 'eequest
needed the absolute consent of the applicant. It was the sense of
the Commission that the applicant said things like, 'Well, we
could do it for 3,000 square feet, but I really want to be able to
study that and have some flexibility." The only proposed restric-
tion the Commission made to which the applicant agreed was the
1,000 square foot second floor. The Commission preferred there
be just a single floor on the back lot but the applicant would not
totally agree to it. The applicant said he probably would do it
that way but wanted the flexibility to study itp The Commission
went to the 1,000 square foot limitation because 1 t was the
restriction to which the applicant agreed.
6"998
3/24/.136
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open.
David Apfeloery, 1426. Pitman Avenue, was Mr. Paya's partner in
developing the subject lot. The lot was approximately 100 by 200
square feet, which was the amount necessary to approve the' devel-
opment at the staff level 'except for the' four-fdot easement 1n the
back because of a City pole. The lot could accommodate two sep-
arate lots each with 9,500 plus square feet. Palo Alto required
6,500 square feet. Councilor ember .Sutorius pointed out 3,000
square feet was less than 35 percent of the buildable property
which seemed what people in Palo Alto accepted for those prop-
erties. The present site was in poor condition. The home was
built in 1907 and was dilapidated; there were old boats and
trailers on the property and the landscaping was unkempt.
Improving the property and subdivision would enhance the aesthe-
tics of the neighborhood and the property values. The subdivision
was not inconsistent with the area. There were four houses
subdivided at 781-773 Newell Road, which was a block and one-half
away; there were four houses subdivided at 735-755 Newell Road; a
block and one-half away; there was a flag lot at 663-665 Newell
Road, a block away; and there was a flag lot at 1445 Hamilton
Avenue, right around the corner. The Crescent Park subdivision
was only two blocks away. The property had large, mature trees at
the perimeter and on all sides which ensured privacy. He showed
pictures taken at all the perimeters and sides to show the large
trees which blocked almost all adjacent properties. Even if two
two-story houses were built, the neighbors could hardly see into
the property because of the trees. The Planning Commission
imposed a 1,000 square -foot second story limit on the rear house.
He and Mr. Paya agreed since they believed it would help preserve
the .neighbors' privacy. They respected the privacy of all neigh-
bors, were sensitive to aesthetics of the neighborhood and adja-
cent pr=operties,` and would do everything possible to preserve all
perimeter and peripheral trees to preserve the privacy inherent in
the property.
Beth Boyle, 1500 Edgewood Drive, said the house at 565 Newe l gt d
was nct about to fall down and was a beautifully -built old house.
It needed restoration. The house was hui l t out of heart redwood
and was wonderful structurally. The proposal was cohsistent with
some of the worst .developments along Newell Road. She hoped
Council would limit the size and shape of the structures so there
were no more large, spec blocks built in the nei gnborhood of
unique and beautiful individual houses. The shrubbery on the lot
was overgrown and the "mature trees" should go. By the time there
were two houses, probably as big as a developer could snake them,
and asphalt paving for driveways, the quality of planting and open
space would change .considerably and probably irreparably. If
possible to limit the back house to one story, it probably should
be done. She urged Council to seriously consider a firm
commitment from the developers otherwise a structure would be
built to the maximum allowed. She urged Council do everything to
preserve the quality of life.
Mayer Cobb declared the public hearing closed.
NOTION: CeeRcilseaber Bechtel Paved, seconded by Levy, to adopt:
P1aeeleg Commission recoUUeedaitIoe finding that the proposed pre-
liminary parcel dap will met have an adverse eevir neeetal impact
aced finding that the exception for a 91 -fiat depth ex Parcel 2 be
wasted betties*:
1. There are special Circemstaaces sr eead$tlems effecting the
'report/ le that the deficiency le depth is caused - by a small
jog 1a the rear property line, which is more than coepeesated
Per by the large s1 tes •f the proposed parcels;
The except i *a is necessaryforthe preservat 1 ear asd en j cymest
of a West/tetial 'report, right of the petitleeertIn that the
arlgleal parcel is more than large enough for two horses;
MOTION CONTINUED
3. The 9raati-ng of the exception wi11 not be detrimental to the
public welfare •r InJuraoos to other property 1s the territory
im which the property is situated since the proposed sew lots
are larger than required and will therefore serve as a transi-
tion from the 10,000,square-foot tots in the R-1(929) zone on
nee side to the lots in the R-1 zone on the other side;
4. The granting of the exceptions will not violate the require-
ments, goals, policies, or Writ of the law is that a parcel
-which is 93 feet deep and 95.4 feet wide is very close to
meeting all of time requirements and, in fact, exceeds both
area. and, width requirements, and Is therefore consistent - with
the 'spirit of the law; and
5. Approve the preliminary parcel map with the condition that the
existing horse. be removed. If there is to be a second floor
on the house on the rear parcel, it be limited to 1.000 squire
feet of gross floor area --this limitation is to be recorded in
a deed restriction.
Councilmember Fletcher said with the 1,000 square -foot limitation
on the second floor, the motion was a good compromise. Council
could not prohibit second floors because eventually all the houses
could presumably build second stories since they were legal under
present zoning. The motion was not ideal but she supported it.
Councilmember Klein wanted to ensure the City Attorney's office
believed the 1,000 square -foot second floor was part of the
Planning Commission recommendation or whether Council needed
specific language.
City Attorney Diane Lee said the 1,000 square -foot second floor
was part of the Planning Commission recommendation.
Councilmember Renzel referred to limiting both houses to 3,000
square feet. The neighborhood was primarily single -story homes
well set back from the property lines, and a 3,000 square -foot
limitation eight protect the integrity of the neighborhood since
development was adding a second lot, structure, and driveway
access in an area in which residents complained of traffic prob-
lems for years. Council needed to be more sensitive in the area,
and she did not support the Planning Commission recommendation as
it presently stood, She .ranted to hear from more of her col -
leagues ,on the matter and believed it might be possible to get a
better subdivision more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Patitucci did not bel ieye the predom_inent frontage
on Newell Road was si ny l e story. In the saiee block were two older
two-story homes set back differently. He agreed with Council -
member Fletcher about the necessity to permit a second floor. He
hoped Council would sometime consider a floor area ratio (FAR) .for
all properties in Palo Alto to make . it easier on the Planning
Cosmmmi ss i one An FAR was a better method than limiting the size of
second floors. In that instance he would support the motion as
appropriate.
Mayor Cobb clarified the 1,000 square -foot limit applied only to
the structure built on the flay part of the lot.
Ms. Melena ,said that was correct.
Councilmember Menz ,,l said a 3,000, square -foot limit did not speak
to the second story but, suggested it would either be well set
back, which was the case with the multi: -story. houses in: the.yicin-�-
its, or it would be a single -story, house in .keeping wlt'h the
neighborhood._ ..She hoped some_of her coil eagues might follow up on.
the idea,
7..0 00
.3/24/86
Councilmember Sutorius asked the City Attorney whether there was
something significant in a Council action which led to a deed
restriction of a 1,000 square -foot limitation on the second story
on the flag lot versus a deed restriction which, if agreed to by
the applicant, limited the homes on each of the lots to 3,000
square feet.
Ms. Lee believed there was no substantive difference. The ques-
tion was whether the applicant consented, and she believed it was
clear from the Minutes the applicant did acquiesce to the 1,000
square -foyer second story. She did not believe the applicant
acquiesced to the 3,000 square -foot limit.
Counc i lmember Sutorius shared Counci 1 member Renzel ' s concern.
Council might want to find out how the applicant regarded the
matter, In the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
February 26, 1986, page 19, second line from bottom, "Mr. Paya: I
would feel fine if you wanted to limit the size of each house to
3,000 sqare feet. That would not bother me at a1 1 ." He under-
stood from the City Attorney that Council could make the limita-
tion but looked for acquiescence from the applicant.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
he and Commissioner iiorthway recollected the statement to which
Councilme eer Sutorius referred went on to say "...but I really
would not want to condition it," The second comment from Mr. Paya
was, "I just don't want you to tell me that that is what I've got
to do."
Councilmetber Sutorius believed Mr. Paya responded to Commissioner
Hirsch who immediately prior to the statement said, "obviously, I
am struggling with this. Why can't you limit yourself to one
story in the rear, considering the fact that 35 percent of lot
coverage is going to be 3,300 square feet. You could build out to
that, and this would clearly preserve the privacy of at least four
surrounding properties." He believed it was clear Mr. Paya
responded to the one-story limitation because he concluded the
sentence just quoted by saying, "If 1 could work that in, I would
be glad to build a one-story house." The question was whether
3,000 square feet was acceptable and it was not a limitation on
stories.
Mr. Schreiber deferred to the applicant. The actual Commission
discussion was a little more disjointed than reflected in the
Minutes, and he would not recommend Council rely on the Minutes as
acquiescience to the condition.
ANENONENT : Ceunci l ■ember Sut•rl us moved, seconded by Remit, to
approve the subdivision with the Planning Commission condition
changed to a condition of a 1iritatiew of s maximum residential
development of 3„000 square feet per each of the lots.
Chuck Paya said he would be happy to build the houses at 3,000
square feet although he preferred Council gave him & maximum limit
of 3,200 square feet just in case he needed an extra 200 square
feet here or there. If Council wanted to set a maximum limit at
30200 square feet, he would agree. . He did not want a limitation
of 3,000 square feet when he might need to put 3,005 square feet
in the house. h. believed 3,200 square feet would be more' than
ample and would set le for that "right then.
Counci lseteeber Sutorius said if the seconder of the motion would
accept it, he would ayree with 3,200 square feet per lot because
it ' wes more beneficial. to. the properties ,than the present main
motion.
NAILER AND SECOND OF ANENIMENT AGREED TO CNA116E LANGUAGE TO
43,200 SQUARE FEET PER EACH IF THE LOTS.'
Mr. Schreiber clarified it was 3,200 square feet including the
7 0 0 1
3/24/86
Councilmember Sutorius said the determination of the gange was
the same in the amendment as it was in the Planning Commission
recommendation, which was no. He asked staff if that was a
correct statement.
Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission made no recommendation
for that type of limit and the discussion never went so far as to
include whether the size limit included the garage.
Mayor Cobb clarified the amendment was for 3,200 square feet not
including the garage.
Councilmember Sutorius believed the amendment was getting out of
the arena where it should be discussed, and he would withdraw his
amendment with his seconder's permission. The question of the
garage changed the complexion of the site area useee and the total.
appearance as far as the structures were concerned.
Councilmember Renzel preferred to see Council use the standard
in the multi -lot subdivision of a 400 square -foot exemption for
garages. She wondered whether Councilmember Sutorius and Mr. Paya
were amenable to that.
Councilmember Sutorius was not amenable.
Mayor Cobb asked whether the seconder of a motion had to acquiesce
to the withdrawal of a motion by its maker.
Ms. Lee clarified.. the maker and the seconder needed to agree to a
withdrawal
Mayor Cobb clarified the maker and seconder were not in
agreement.,
Councilmember Renzel preferred to see Council try to,_ vote on a
3,000 square -foot limitation excluding the garage.
Mayor Cobb asked Councilmember Sutorius to restate the motion in
order for Council to vote.
Councilmember Sutorius clarified the motion was amended to 3,200
square feet. Then: Council got into discussion of the garage and
he did not favor having the amendment be for 3,200 square feet ' not
including the garage.
Mayor Cobb ruled the amendment before Council was 3,200 square
feet not including the garage.
Councilmember Levy believed the amendment was withdrawn by the
maker.
Mayor Cobb clarified the seconder did not withdraw; therefore, the
amendment was still before Council.
Councilmember Levy was not sure but did not believe the seconder
needed to withdraw.
Mayor Cabb clarified it was the advice given by the City Attorney.
Ms. Lee believed the seconder did need to acquiesce to withdrawal
of the motion.
Councilmember Fletcher wanted to know what happened to the 1,000
square -foot :limit on the second story.
Mayor Cobb said the amendment essentially removed the 1,000
square -foot limit. It was different limitation and wits.
essentially a substitute motion.-
Councilmember Fletcher asked about the effect of the amendment if
the dppl icdnt did not agree.
Ms. Lee believed it was beyond the concern of the meeting. If
Council passed somethiny, they would be in another forum tb "make a
decision depending on the applicant's response.
Councilmember Renzel said it seemed whether Council approved
Planning Commission's recommendation or the substitute motion,
the size and location of the garage would be somewhat beyond
Council's control . The size of the garage only made a difference
to the extent it was affected by the site coverage. If site cov-
erage was used for a garage, for example, the square footage for
the house would go up, but Council was still talking about a more
significant limitation than if two full stories at full lot cov-
erage were allowed. She urged her colleagues to support the sub-
stitute motion because she believed it provided more flexibility
in planning the site and, at the same time, gave more likelihood
of getting a site plan more compatible with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Bechtel encouraged her colleagues to vote against
the amendment and in favor of the previous motion. As Council -
member ,Sutorius suggested, Council was attempting to play Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission's recommendaton was a good
one. The limitation of 1,000 square feet in the rear lot would do
more to protect the neighbors in the back and those closest and
most affected than would 3,200 square feet excluding the garage
would. '
Councilmember Patitucci concurred with Councilmember Bechtel.
Councilmember Sutorius said the change was such that the second
story on the rear lot from a design and size standpoint could be
constlerably above 1,000 square feet. A garage on the ground
level and an additional 3,200 square feet made it possible more
than 1,000 square feet would end up on the second floor, which was
the predominant concern expressed by the most immediately adjacent
neighbor. He would not support the amendment.
Councilmember Levy associated himself with the . comments made by
Councilmembers Becntel , Patitucci, and Sutorius. He also had
trouble playing Planning Commissioner because the Commissioners
thought about the issue thoroughly. He was sure if C:euncil made
untoward ameedments there would be unintended consequences.
Councilmember Renzel said it appeared the Planning Commission did
not feel it had the acquiescence of the applicant with respect to
the eroposal and for that reason -gave the proposal nor further
Consideration. She clarified Commissioner Northway nodded in
concurrence. It was possible the commission .might have supported
such a proposal if it believed they had the acquiescence of the
developer.
Mayor Cobb believed Council's proper action was to refer the
matter back. to Planning Commission if it wanted to look at a
different alternative.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vat. of l -St Leezel yetis, *apt.'°
NOTION PASSED by a rate ,af'S-1, Rtozel v•ting.mw.e"
ITEM #1O, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RE Lt IiIfiG ADION R R S S1ON tO 'ANY THE APPLICAt1 1T
NG FOR A Utt FIRMrt i
r 317 !L CARMELO
YEN
Vice Mayor Woolley asked staff when the cottage on the front of
the/ property would have to be demolished in relation to the
building of the house on the rear.
7 0 0 3
3/24/86
Toni ntj Administrator Bob Brown sold the cottage on the front would
not have to, be demolished until the point of issuing an occupancy
permit for the rear residence. At that point, the one unit would
have to be removed so there were not two legal dwelling units on
the same piece of property.
Vice Mayor Woolley believed one of the concerns of the applicant
was the family be allowed to live in the cottage while the large
house was being built. If the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tion was followed,.she asked whether the applicant's family could
live in the cottage.
Mr. Brown said the scenario was possible although he was not
certain exactly how the rear house would be designed in that
case.
Councilmember Levy said staff's memo to the Planning Commission
indicated there were revised plans showing a 14 -foot and 16 -foot
setback. The plans Council received indicated a 7- to 10 -foot
setback on the east side. He asked which Council should consider
that evening.
Mr. Brown said neither. The applicant originally had a proposal
for a 7- to 10 -foot setback and offered to increase it by 3 feet
to a setback of 10 and 13 feet. The applicant subsequently
offered a setback of 14 feet and then withdrew the last offer.
Council had before it a 10- and 13 -foot sideyard setback.
Councilmember Levy clarified it was three feet further than the
plans submitted to Council.
Mr. Brown believed that was the current offer.
Councilmember Fletcher asked whether the latest setback was what
the Planning Commission voted on.
Mr. Brown said no. He believed the Planning Commission voted on a
10- and 13 -foot setback.
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open.
Francis Cheng, applicant, 317 El Carmelo Avenue, said at the
January 29 hearing, :Commissioner Marsh presented the equation,
things could be much better, but on ;he other hand, a 6,000 to
7,000 square foot house could be built even on the rear yard. The
February 26 hearing was pointless because the Zoning Administrator
asked the Planning Commission to postpone the meeting without
asking the consent of the appellant. It was clear at the February
13 neighborhood meeting, even if the Planning Commission approved
his 14 -foot proposal, the opposition would appeal it to the City
Council. There was no point in making the 14 -foot proposal at the
second hearing. The findings made by the Zoning Administrator
recapitulated the City Code. and recited the complaints of the
neighbors. Mr. Craig James` objection had self-interest in mind.
In the worst case scenario, Mr. Janes would tear down his cottage
and build his house as -the original pl_en.. = "The long-exlsti ig two-
story house at 325 El Carmelo was about 30 to 35 feet away from
the Rappels yet the Ruppel s .still Cempl a i ned. Government Code
Section 65352 mandated cottage zones. The historical footnote
stated one of the intents of the 'law was "providing a means for
purchasers of new .or- existing houses, or both, to meet payments -on
high interest loahs." The City Code Old hot define "privacy."
According to-- general lief, there was -no .invasion of privacy in the
subject case. Under the .context of law, infringement was synon-
ymous to invasion; therefore; there was =no infringement of privacy
in the case-. . General. welfare intl uded health,- peace, morality.,
and, safety but not visual impact. The historical intent of the
cottage permit was -not --explicitly stated in the City cottage hand-
out . He was confused. The.. structure did not have a back yard,
the side yard was his recreation space. There was= onl y one, two
7 0 0 4
3/24/86
and one-half by four window overlooking the recreation area of the
Ruppels. He was willing to locate his new house 1 4 feet away from
his fence if the Ruppels would not raise further complaints.
Accordiny to the written opinion of Ms. Gail Schuler of the
Building Inspection Department, there was no problem about his
application. If the Ruppels rejected the 14 -foot proposal, he
urged Council approve the cottage permit as originally presented
in his appeal letter.
Gary Ruppel, 2991 Bryant Street, was confused by Mr. Cheng's pro-
posal. He was unclear in terms of the sideyard setback and
whether it was for approximately a 9 -foot setback from the side
and not a 7- to 10 -foot setback. He had not had much time to
react to Francis' latest proposal to go back to 14 feet. The
complex matter before Council was Francis Cheng's desire to main-
tain the cottage on the existing lot while he built a. rather large
structure at the rear of the lot. The cottage ordinance was
designed primarily assuming the cottage would be in the back and
the new structure in the front. This case was opposite. The
other difficulty was the sideyard of the Chengs abutted rear yards
of -two other residences so it had all the worst aspects of zoning.
There was no question placing a large two-story house at the rear
of the lot would impact his and Craig James' property. The neigh-
bors made some attempts to discuss the matter with Francis Cheng
to no avail. It was not clear to him at the neighborhood meeting
whether. the Planning Commission would accept a 14 -foot setback
from the Ruppel ' s yard. The Commission offered some alternatives
which were not really considered by the Chengs, e.g., moving the
existing cottage to the rear of the lot and building the two-story
residence at the front of the lot, which would_ be bounded by two
two-story houses. It was a matter of not considering the needs of
the neighbors. The project should not be situated on the lot the
way it was designed, and even with a 14 -foot setback from the side
yard, it still did not meet the needs of the neighbors. What met
the needs of the neighbors was a single -story or a redefined two-
story house aot as maksiYe as what was currently before the
Planning Commission and Council. The project made a shambles of
the cottage ordinance. He urged Council deny the application.
Counci lmember Levy clarified Gary Ruppel was the brother of
Richard Ruppee who lived at 2960 Bryant Street.
Richard Ruppel, 2960 Bryant Street, lived directly to the east of
the new house. The open lot was there ever since he lived at 2960
Bryant Street. The former owner of the property fought for years
to get something built in the back but was never able to because
of zoning regulations. He agreed with his brother there was e
great invasion of privacy on both sides of the lot with a house
that size being built. He and his brother understood why Council
adopted the cottage use permit. The only way one could have a.
cottage .use permit was when the main residence was on the front
and the cottage in she back. The proposal was a problem mainly
due to the size of the house. A smaller, average single -level
house would probably be fine. Neighborhood meetings- with Mr.
Cheng did not work out. One of the Plannf=,'g Commission rechm-
mendations was the neighbors try to talk with Mr. Cheng to either
Change the design of the upper structure so it was more towards
the center of the lot and move the setback closer to 14 feet, rake
the overall structure smaller, or think about . changing the posi -
tion'` of the cottage and moving ' it to the back. He understood Mr.
Chevy wanted to use the cottage ai a rental unit in order to help
finance the expensive property. The neighbors were alarmed
because when they went to the last Planning Commission meeting,
they bel i ev 3d Mr. Cheng would go alone with and make the appeal
for a -14 -foot setback which he had mentioned. There was no change
in _ the plans of the building and the neighbors were still not
satisfied.
7 0 A 6
3/24/86.
Councilmember Fletcher asked if the offer of the 14 -foot setback
made the application more acceptable eo Mr. Ruppel.
Mr. Ruppel said no, not with the size of the upper part ; of the
structure.
Councilmember Levy asked how large an upper story Mr. Ruppel would
accept with the 14 -foot setback.
Mr. Ruppel asked what the upper square footage was presently.
Mr. Brown said the square footage of the Cecond story was proposed
at 1,245 'square feet which was somewhat deceiving because a good
portion was an atrium. The actual square footage of living area
on the second floor was 1,245 square feet;
Mr. Ruppel could accept 14 feet and the size of the upper struc-
ture cut,in half. The house was immense compared to any other in
the area.
Councilmember Levy asked about proposals to Mr. Cheng in any of
the neighborhood meetings.
Mr. Ruppel said the neighbors proposed a change in the size of the
house, but Mr. Cheng would not budge from the original size.
Councilmember Levy clarified Mr. Ruppel's lot was small and asked
how big it was.
Mr. Ruppel said his house was was a total 1,400 square -feet with
garage. The lot itself was 67 feet by 50 feet.
Caunci imember Levy asked if Mr. Ruppei built his house.
Mr. Ruppel said no. It was originally a cottage in Downtown Palo
Alto built in 1910 and was moved into its .present area in the
1940s when there :were no restrictions on where to put the house.
His house was only about two and one-half feet from the property
lino.
Councilmember Levy clarified Mr. Ruppel's lot .was •half the depth
of a normal lot.
Mr. Ruppel clarified his lot was 67 feet deep from Bryant Street,
which was on the east side.
Craig A. James, 2955 Ramona Street, lived er f;, opposite the
Ruppel's residence to the west, so his property- Allo abutted the
Chene property. He also spoke on behalf of the neighbors at 2929
Ramona . Street. Mr. Cheny's proposed house was approximately 50
percent larger than any house on the block or any house within a
several block radios. It was a 15 -room house plus a 'wo-car
garage. His House was eight rooms and 1,200 square feet including
the garage. The size of the proposed house combined with the
location was the problem. The cottage ordinance was meant for
unusual, large lots where a second structure, if added, would not
be a detriment to the neighborhood nor be the primary dwelling on
the property. The fundamental problem was the unusual lot situa-
tion, i.e., Side lots abutting backs of lots. It was essentially
proposed to put a big house in the middle of everybody's back
yards In a _normal block there Were many back yards together.
The fundamental problem was the haphazard way the area was devel-
oped in the 1940s. Mr.: Cheng and various Councilmenbers brought
up the fact if the cottage was not there, the house could be built
exactly as proposed wi theut any variance at all . Where was oppor-
tunity for the lot to benefit the whole neighborhood, and the
neighbors were still hoping for a suitable proposal.
7 0 0 b
3/24/86
1
1
1
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:4bMENDATION p.m.
RETURN TO ITEM #J O PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM-
R 3 L V N -
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed.
NOTION: Coearcilmember !teazel moved, seconded by Patltuccl, to
adopt Planning Commission recommendation to ephold the Zoning
Administrator's decision to deny the application of Francis and
Nei Keen Chess for a ese permit for a second detached dwelling
wait (cottage) for property located at 317 El Carmelo Avenge.
Councilmember Renze1 said Council established the cottage ordi-
nance with a lot of restrictions on the cottage with the idea the
neighbors already knew what existed in the main structure, and
comments on the impact of the cottage would be the focus of the
hearings held and of the use permit application. In the subject
instance, the existing house, or cottage, was to be secondary,
with a new house to be constructed. Normally the neighbors
reviewed the cottage itself. There were many properties in the
mom unity with existing houses where someone might want to call
the existsne house a cottage and build a new house. It was not
possible to assess the overall impact of two dwelling units on one
location under one ownership as could be done when evaluating only
a new cottage. She supported the Planning Commission recommenda-
tion.
Councilmember Patitucci concurred with Councilmember Renzel.
There probably was an appropriate solution to the property, and
Council's action to deny the application sent a message which
allowed the applicant to resubmit a different proposal that would
eventually reach the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Woolley supported, the motion although she believed
Council was sacrificing a property of some historic interest.
Moving the cottage to the back and putting the house on the front
did nothing to serve the historical aspects because the historical
cottaye would be hidden and nothing would be accomplished from a
visual interest standpoint. They might not accomplish anything in
terms of where Mr. Cheng put the house, and the neighbors could
end up with the big house on the back of the lot. She believed
Council needed to maintain the integrity of the cottage zone and
not set a precedent for granting cottages in that kind of sitea-
tio^which Council might regret later,
Councilmember Levy associated himself with the comments of Vice
Mayor Woolley. He visited the property and said the cottage on
the street was pretty even though it did not rank high in the "i i st
of historic structures. To keep the cottage on the street was a
definite benefit to the community. .lhe problem was the cottage.
zone was not right and was subject to an analysis of the specific
lecatlon in which the major house and the cottage were to go. The
circumstances were unfortunate since the Tot abutted- tiro -side lots
and made the necessity for the developer of the major house in the
back to be sensitive to the two neighbors backing up to his lot.
The plans for the main house were not quite sensitive enough, and
he hoped the applicant_ was able to pursue'; the same idea with a
house somewhat less intrusive and to work With the neighbors in
that rregard. He endorsed the concept of keeping the cottage in
the front and .having the home in the back and hoped -Council would
see the; -concept aagai n. Ho hoped staff was sensitive to the fast
the cottage zone needed a use perMit;_that it would go to Council
end that ;Council -would look at -the unique circuastances. He helped
stiff went gut; of their way to make each applicant in -the cottage
situation 'aware of the process. Applicants could beh given
exempt's of similar cottages which were approved and information
that not every cottage was. automatically approved.
7 0 0 7:
3/24/86
Mayor Cobb associated with_the comments of Cou€3c i l meiiibe r" Levy and
Vice Mayor Woolley.
MOTION PASSED-unaalmemsly.
ITEM f11L PUBLIC HEARING: - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
ZONE CHANGE
'PUBLICFACILITYR AND �OMI ENEN-SIVEMPLAN�RLANDE TO
USE DAP CHANGE FROM
E R SU N TTA L T J ORTN1S''TT iJ T raff f 5PE c I A L F A C`TL" I T Y
i d PRE-PTRfY LOCATED Ay 14;1 L 5 HE , GAMBLE HOUSE
(PLA 3-1)
Mayor Cobb declared the public heating open. Receiving no
requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing
closed.
MOTION: Courc#imemiper Decttel moved, seconded by Woolley, to
adopt Planning Commission recommeedatioa.approving the.rezomin9 of
the Gamble Property from R -1(9i9) to PF, and a Compreheritfve Plan
Land Use Map change from Single Family Residential to Major
Instltutien/Special Facility, finding that such a rezoning and
Comprehensive Plats redesigsatioa would not have a significant
impact en the physical enviro+nsient.
RESOLUTION 6602 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
T'HE CITI OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN A3 1431 WAVERLEY STREET FROM
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MAJOR INSTITUTION/SPECIAL
FACI ITIES■
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
f'C`TC r(FF'"` ALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
18.08 04G OF TUE PALO ALTO NUNICIPAL CODE (TNE ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PrOPERTT
KNOWN AS 1431 WAVERLEY STREET FROM R -L(929) TO PF"
Councilmernber Renzel supported the oeot ., . She was interested in
the Planning Commission discussion of a Comprehensive Plan Park
designation, She understood,the reasons for not wanting to go
forward presently but hoped once the Gamble Garden Center was
fully operative and successful, Council would seriously consider
Park dedications of the site.
MOTION PASSED snamisoa.sly.
ITEM #12, POLICY AND PROCEDURE'S +(P &P} COMMITTEE' RECOMMENDATION RE
MORATOR OUn uR Itab I NG FEi gYrs. F+
T A (CMR:224:61
Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee Chairman Klein said a
special meeting of the P&P Committee was called for March 18,
1986, pursuant to previous Council action on the issue. The
Committee unanimously adopted the ordinance before Council.
Members of the neighborhood were present, and changes were shown
in the staff draft (CMR:224:6) and in the draft ordinance. City
Attorney Diane Lee pointed out the moratorium ordinance would be
different from the actual ordinance when it returned to. Council.
The final ordinance would define a boarding house use and some of
the other issues addressed the neighbors. Definitions were not
relevant in the moratorium and were, therefore, not discussed in
the ordinance. before Council.
NOTIOD Gal ai+ilmember Klein fer the Policy sad Procedures
Comilittee moved re Nerater#sr +Vat for Odsrdia
Meisel in 4-1 Jere &diution sof than Emergency Ordinance.
QROIIANCE 3676 entitled °ORDINANCE OF TNE' .COUNCIL OF TNE
cfliK4F pal ALTO INPOSIng A NURATORION ON CERTAIN TYPES
OF REMODELING OF RESIDENCES IN R•1 DISTRICTS IN TNE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AID DECLARING AN ENERGENCY'
7 0 0 8
3/24/86
Mayor Cobb noted for the record eight votes were required for the
ordinance to be enacted as an emergency.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #13, REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (LEG 4-2)
(CMt-:223:6)
Council Legislative Committee Chairperson Fletcher said the first
bill had to do with seat belts on school buses, which Council
discussed previously when asked to endorse a. resolution. This
time the Committee concentrated on the bill itself which actually
would not- mandate any seat belts in school buse tuiti I a study
demonstrated they were effective and actually a safety feature.
MOTION: Covecilereaaber Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to
support AB 1974 (Melina) which would provide for an independent
study of the appropriateness of seat belts in school buses and
direct the Mayer to communicate the Cityas position accordingly to
ovr legislators and others as appropriate.
Councilmei ber Levy said in contrast to
the other items before
Council from the Legislative Committee he did not feel he should
support the motion. He did not oppose seat "beats and generally
studies did no harm, but he was uncomfortable with the way the
issue went to Council, the way Council dealt with it; who asked
Council to support it, and who had not particularly asked ; Counci l
to support ,it. The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) had
not dealt with the item, had not .tak::sn a position on it, and had
not felt it was i'portant enough or necessary enough to endorse.
The Business Manager of PAUSU wrote to Council (on file in the
City Clerk's office) and said he did not personally support the
proposed legislation. The fact the School Board had not taken a
position nor asked Council to `take a position meant Council was
dealing ill something not really in its department. He did not
want to oppose AB 1974 but believed the bill should go its own way
with the legislators studying it with the school districts who
were directly concerned and let the action be taken in that
regard.
Councilmember Fletcher believed the issue was for all juris-
dictions not only school districts. IFS Mr. Keller's letter from
the PAUSD, he said since 1977 there were fewer than 12 school bus
'occupants' killed per year in bus crashes. The :lives of. 12
children seemed significant, and it would be useful :to find out if
some of those lives might have been saved had they been wearing
seat belts. Common sense seemed to indicate seat belts improved
safety. Since there was some question, it was about time a. study
was done to find out whether seat belts were a safety feature and
to act accordingly.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-4, Mooney, Levy voting mne.".
Counciimeeber Fletcher said the next item dealt with raising suf-
ficient funds to repair roads and for transit. - The traditional
source of funding was the gasoline tax. Now they were facedwith
the Gann limitation which would prohibit, in effect, any increase
in the gasoline tax to take care of growing needs. Senator Foran
introduced an amendment to exempt the gasoline tax funds from the
State's Gann appropriation limit.
NOTION; Coaaaci1member Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, te
support SCA 12 (Foram) , a censt l tst i aeaa l amemdreeet te permit
gasol i ee" tax funds te be exempted from. the Statee's. Oaea arpprepri a -
ti ee ',Imitation and direct the Mayer to cemmuni chte : the City `s
positiiee accordingly Up parr legislators aid others as approprl-
at*.
NOTION PASSED eaasimeesly.
7 O 0 9
3/24/36
Councilmember Fletcher said AB 2644 required local ajencles to
"assure safe access" to senior centers and mandated Public Works
Departments regularly inspect and maintain the areas around senior
centers. The City Attorney's office was strongly opposed pointing
out the bill could increase the City's liability. Also, the laws
presently on the books required local jurisdictions to keep
streets and sidewalks in safe condition.
MOTION: Cowncilmeaber Fletcher .moved seconded by Patitacci,
that Council strongly oppose AD 2644 (Grisham) which would require
local agencies to assume responsibility for safe access to all
senior ,center facilities and direct the Mayor to communicate the
City's position accordingly to oer legislators and ethers as.
appropriate.
MOTION PASSED vaaniaously.
Councilmember Fletcher said AB 2994 (Costa) required litigation
against cities be heard in a "neutral" county. The City
Attorney's office had many problems with it, and she did not
believe the bill made any sense and certainly would add to ,the
expanse of defending any suit brought against the City.
MOTION: Coencilaeaber Fletcher moved, seconded by Patitrcci,
that Council strongly oppose AR 2994 (Costa) regarding change of
venue in litigation against cities and direct the Mayor to com-
municate the City's position accordingly to our legislators and
others as appropriate.
MOTION PASSED unanimorsly.
ode iimember Fletcher said AB 2767 (Lancaster) was a bill which
f permitted the increase o .the truck lengths from 65 feet to 70
feet for certain transport motor vehicles. The trucking industry
was chipping away little by little at reasonable sizes of trucks
on streets and roads, and the Legislative Committee had in the
past strongly opposed the increase and did so again with concur-
rence of staff.
MOTION: Coraci lmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Refuel. to
oppose At 2767 (Lancaster) which would increase the u11c.. dole
length of trucks used to transport motor vehicles and direct the
Mayor to communicate the City's position accordingly to our
legislators and others as appropriate.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #14, RESOLUTION. OF NECESSITY RE EMINENT UOMAIN
(PLA 4-6-3T CMR: 22.: O
Mayor Cobb said it was the time and place for each person whose
property was to be acquired by eminent domain, and whose name and
address appeared on the last Equalized County Assessment Roll, to
appear and be heard regarding the adoption of a Resolution of
Necessity in connection with the Keystone •Parking Lot, 325
Cambridge Avenue, Palo Alto. The Council would hear such person
only if he or she had filed a written request to appear and be
Beard with the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m., March 20, 1986. The
hearing was limited to such persons; it was not a hearing open to
the general public, There were three matters on which any ,such
person might be heard: a) whether the public interest and neces-
sity required the project; b). whether the project ,was planned or
located in the wanner that would be most compatible with the
greatest pubic good and the least priv,ate injury; and c) whether
the property sought to be acquired was necessary for the. project.
He asked the City, Clerk for the name of the person who had filed
such a timely request.
KEYSTONE
7 0 1 0
3/24/86
City Clerk Gloria Young said Leonard J. Bloom of Kennedy, Bloom &
Fletcher requested to be heard before the City Council on behalf
of the owners of the Keystone Lot. The City Clerk's office also
received correspondence from Michael Atherton. of Atherton & Dunn,
a law firm, wishing to speak.
Mayor Cobb clarified the second correspondence did not qualify.
Gloria Youne said that was correct, the second correspondence did
not qualify.
City Attorney Diane Lee said despite the rules which governed the
proceeding, it was a normal Council procedure to ,allow any peasen
who wanted to speak five minutes. She suggested Council follow
the procedure with the exception of Mr. Bloom who represented the
owners as shown on the last Equalized Roll, and he be allowed a
larger amount of time as the Mayor deemed appropriate.
Mayor Cobb said he would allow up to 15 minutes for Mr. Bloom's
presentation. The other speakers would be limited to the usual
five'' ninutes. He asked the City Attorney if Council could still
leave the item open for any questions of staff.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Leonard J. Bloom, Opera Plaza, Suite 2030, San Francisco, repre-
sented all the owners of the property, and he believed the Resolu-
tion of Public necessity did not meet the basic requirements of
public necessity or fairness and equity to the property:uaners.
He pointed out the property was purchased by . Arthur and Eleanore
McClure in 1960 from the Draper Deve+o ement Corporation, and that
the property remained in the hands and ownership of the members of
the McClure family to date, although Arthur: and Eleanore were
deceased.- The owners already sustained severe and substantial
damage byi the -action or inaction of the City of Palo Alto in
respect to the property. e In a letter addressed to him, dated
February 6, 1981, the Real__.Property Administrator of the City of
Palo Alto said he was looking forward to concluding the acquisi-
tion in a timely manner which -ensure! the McClure estate would
receive the full value of the parcel aiid asking him to respond by
talking to the appraisers, other City officials, and supplying the
City with all -relevant information in respect to ,the property,
which he did. Nothing further happened for a full year, and he
had another letter from the City, dated, February 3, 1982, a year
later,. which said the City was sti 1 l considering the purchase of
the property and advising him of a snag regarding Assessment
District financing for the acquisition of the property.- He com-
plied with the requests. The problem would cause some delay in
the negoti ons for the acquisition, but the writer hoped the prob-
lems would be -resolved in the near future. Unfortunately, instead
of a resolution of the problems there were continued inaction,
delay, and prejudice to the owners, The property was downgraded,
downzoned, and {parking restrictions were imposed in April, 1984,
and other serious,restrictions were then imposed upon the subject
property. In effect, and to a great extent, _the property was
frozen or taken off the market. The owners, nevertheless, con-
tinued to cooperate with the ' Ci ty. They • permi tted the public
wi thoet cost or, fee to ut i 1 i zer . the property .for parking purposes
and did not undertake to put ttie property. on the mare et or other-
wise impede the City from -the ultimate acquisition of the prop-
erty. The City engaged .Angus McDonald & Associates to study: the
property further and emake recommendations- to staff and., to the
C�lty He had a --letter from- k gus McDonald and Associates, dated
September 27, 1983, addressed to .the California Avenue Parking
Assessment District Committee which said, in effectse City staff
informed the Committee 'the , l eystone lot alas appraised at a value
between $870,000 and $960,0011, and Angus McDonald & Associates
concluded, '"The consultant recommends -the Keystone-- Lot not be
purchased by the District. Parking spates can be provided more
cheaply by other' means,` then the concern analyzed the reasons
7 01 1
P24/86
why it was possible. Angus McDonald & Associates in April, 1984,
concluded their study and submitted to the City whit he considered
a thoroughly 'reesoned and exhaustive report on what should be done
in respect to parking assessment ordinances, the acquisition- of
the Keystone Lot, and other related matters. He quoted from page
24 of the report, "The Keystone Lot has been appraised at a value
between $870,000 and $960,000. Based on economic grounds, the
consultants have not concluded that it is essential for the dis-
trict ,to ' purchase the Keystone Lot, particularly since there have
been zoning revisions which require any development of the site to
provide most of its parking." The report went on to suggest other
more viable procedures which could be done to solve the parking
situation now and for, perhaps, ten years or more at a great
savings to the City rather than to pay such a large sum for the
acquisition of the raw land known as the Keystone Lot. Faced with
the situation, the owners of' the property in May, 1985, entered
into a contract of sale :with purchasers and developers for the
development of the lot. He was pleased to say the developers,
after expending a lot of time, money., and energy, came up with a
plan for the development of the subject property which had under-
ground parking and otherwise conformed to- all Palo Alto ordi-
nances. The developers obtained the approval of the Architectural
Review Board (ARS) , and presented a plan for an office building
aesthetically and economically a credit to the California Avenue
area and to. the City of Palo Alto. He requested consideration of
the money it would cost in the event the City insisted on going
ahead with the condemnation on process. As a part of the process,
his clients received $825,000, but in the format of the sur-
rounding facts and economics appeared to be inadequate and unreal-
istic, and it -was -time to think about how much such an acquisition
would eventually cost. It was not like the customary condemnation
case in which five appraisers gave estimates, or testimony in a
court of law as to the highest and best use of the property.
There were other conclusions he believed the Ci ty should think
about. The firm tlrican and Sutliff, bond experts, called atten-
tion in the financial papers to the fact the House of Repre-
sentatives already passed a tax bill which did not exempt parking
facilities from the tax reexemption enjoyed by other facilities.
No one knew what would finally come out of it all, but an actual
bill passed by the House of Representatives took away the exemp-
tion for the type and kind of acil ity. He suggested considera-
tion to possible alter'nati`ves which might save the City a lot of
money. It might be in everyone's best interests to conti.nue'the
kesolution to consider some of the issues.
Michael Atherton, 289 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos,: was the
attorney •epresentiny the partners under a contract , of sale , to
purchase the land from Mr. Bloom's clients, the same people who
received architectural approval through the City administrative
process for the office building they desired to build. - They
realized Council already set in motion steps to acquire the prope
erty, but his clients wanted to continue to pursue alternatives.
Mr. Joshua already scheduled some meetings and would address
Council in a few minutes, and Mr. Carter, the architect, would
deal with the specific economics of some of the: alternatives. He
wanted an extension. He talked with Mr. Fred Caploe, the ,.special
counsel, regarding his suggestions in the event Council wanted a
legal npinion and some input from Mr. Caploe concerning some of
the proposals. His clients' first Choice would be simply to con-
tinue the matter another two weeks or 30 days without adopting a
resolution then. The situation was unusual because they had a) a
sl iyle-parcel project; and b) one in which the existing use was
also the proposed user A continuation did not change the status
quo and would not upset anything in the future except in the event
of rapid market appreciation, there could be a higher acquisition
7 0 1 2
3/24/86
T - the additional time could be granted his
clients would be willing to. _waive any increase in are,► ceiation for
the time period. 1n the event Council did not pastpote the adop-
tion of the Resolution of Necessity, Council could also give
direction to its counsel to withhold the filing of the actual
legal papers. As Mr. CapLoe could inform Council, Council could
rescind its Resolution to Condemn at any time up to six months but
it would put the show on the road as far as closing the Public
Hearing and adopting the necessary notice. If his clients could
have the two-week or 30 -day period if possible, prior to the
filing of any legal proceedings, they could explore the alterna-
tives. Another alternative was to adopt the Resolution if Council
felt it must do so and file the legal proceedings, but there
appeared to be no rationale to proceed to secure possession of the
property and to initiate any construction which would change
things. Parking was still available to the public and the contin-
uance would permit Council to determine the price tag on the
acquisition in. specific terms. He suggested Council consider
waiting since Council sat as a body which basically was a trustee
for Califorrsia Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA). Some-
body - needed to be concerned about the purchase pri ce and weight
versus another alternative. He recognized Council had an
appraisal and there was no dispute concerning the appraiser;
however, as Mr. Bloom said, the purchase price for the property
was considerably in excess of the appraisal which was made before
the expended time, energy, and funds securing approval of their
plans, and having architectural plans drawn. There was a legit-
imate valuation dispute. He requested two things: 1) a -little
time under any one of the three proposals; and 2) direction to
staff to work with his clients and CAADA to see if some joint
alternative could be worked out.
Virgil Carter, 4135 Briarwood Way, suggested a proposal for a
combination or shared use of the City lot and the Keystone Lot for
parking which included the 30,500 square -foot office building
previously approved by the ARB, two levels of underground park'ng,
and underneath the particular building an additional half level
bringing it up to two and one-half levels of underground parking;
surface parking; and an open -space plaza similar to Lytton Plaza
on the Cambridge Avenue frontage on the existing City parking lot.
The proposal would provide the same number of parking spaces,
153, as believed possible by surface development and one level
above grade. It also provided 100 percent building parking at one
per 250 square feet gross --no credit . for being in the parking
district and having an undeveloped lot --for 122 cars, not the 90
approved by the ARS. He believed the approach would be substan-
tially chewier to develop parking for both the project on the
Keystone site and for the, City because it no land acquisition
costs we involved at all. It might save the City, and ultimately
those who bore the assessment, as much as 11,000,000 or more,
still had the same number of spaces the City would provide under
the acquisition procedure, and would provide an attractive plaza
as well. Also, the City would be able to retarin the air rights
use of its own City lot for future housing, .or any other use the
City might envision, which would maximize the investment potential
for the City. The California Avenue residents :would not . be: faced
with an ugly, above -grade parking garage which was .costly to make
attractive, if it could be made attractive, and, parking .garages
really . were not in keeping with the pedestrian -oriented zone in
any event. He believed people would use underground parking. To
find a parking spot n the Civic Center parking lot in the last
year or so, one had to show up, for lunch around i 10:30 a.m. 's the
previous speaker indicated, meetings were scheduled that Wednesday
with CAADA and City staff. They hoped to pursue the alternative
with additional City staff and hoped to report to Council some
results threuyh staff as ,early as their next meeting. .They
requested staff help to review, the proposal which might offer a
solution to the parking problem at, perhaps, 50. percent of the
current budgeted expense for acquisition and improvement. The
proposal was serious, workable, and ;would achieve the - desired
7 0 1 3
3/24/86
parking in the most cost-effective way, reducing the level of
assessment borne by the owners and merchants in the area. He
believed the- proposal was an excellent example of public and
private cooperation and he hoped Council would express interest
and encouraye staff to work with them. The issue was difficult
because it was sobroad and cut across a lot of areas of respons-
ibility. It was a interdisciplinary problem, and it was difficult
to find one single person to talk with. It took a lot of time to
cover the bases that needed to be covered. He hoped Council would
support the continuation of the study at least for a brief time to
see if it had merit, and then they could proceed accordingly.
Vice Mayor Woolley said the matter was before Council for a long
time and was more concrete recently. She had a hard time under -
Standing why Mr. 'Carter's clients were going forward then with
proposals.
Mr. Carter deferred to his clients for response. The property
changed hands Within the last 12 to 18 months, and since then,
there were studies. The project was going through the ARB pro-
cess, and as indicated, it was difficult because it cut across so
many lines of interest. There were informal discussions, but not
any really substantive <pr-oposal until probably the last four to
five weeks.
Albert Joshua, 14250 Miranda Road, Los Altos Hills, represented
the Keystone and Associates, the partnership who proposed the
development on the site. The meeting for Wednesday was postponed,
but they hoped to get together with CAADA and members of the City
staff probably by Thursday. In the last several months, there was
much discussion on the so-called Keystone parking lot, which
centered on the :feed to increase parking for the California Avenue
district during the peak -time hours. The partnership recognized
the parking problem in the district, and its aim was to propose to
the City and CAADA a joint development of the parking structure on
City Lot No. 3. They believed on one hand the district could con-
siderably Inc ease the number of its parking spaces and, on the
other hand, substantially decrease i.ts assessment expenses and the
financial burden on the owners and their tenants. In response to
Vice Mayor Woolley, the partnership presented a joint attempt for
parking in the meeting of March the previous year. Subsequent to
that, between March and July, 1985, they met on several occasions
with City staff, including Bruce Freeland, Dave Fairchild, Bob
Brown, and Irene Szmorl i nski , but there was no clear oirertion on
where the partnership could take its proposal. Subsequently,
CAAUA and City staff concluded they wanted to continue, or. begin
the acquisition process of the Keystone Lot, which in turn, e
the partnership in an adversarial position. They discussed the
matter again with. the City staff and it was noted that such a
process for a joint venture might take approximately 18 months,
for an answer from the City.. In the meantime, the partnership
proceeded with plans for the development and ARB approval with the
City. However, they also opined there was a parking problem and
felt they could maximize the parking in the district by providing
some sort of a joint venture on the particular site. They would
be happy to meet with City staff and CAADA.
MAYOR COBB NE COMPLETION OF AGENDA
Mayor Cobb suggested Council finish the agenda.
RETURN TO ITEM, '14 RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY RE EMINENT DOMAIN -
K E �i
Ms. Lee said Fred , Capice, the City's special counsel for the
eminent domain proceedi ryes„ would have some remarks to make at the
conclusion of Mr. Schrei ber' s .comments.
7 0 1 4
3/24/86
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
since the February 24 Assessment uistrict Public Hearing when the
idea of a joint parking concept was raised, no one had contacted
him and he had asked staff to inform him if contact was made. He
went around the office that afternnon to Gene Brown, Assistant.
Building Official, in charge of the division in the absence of Mr.
Herman; Marvin Overway, the Chief Transportation Official; and Bob
Brown, the Zoning Administrator and no one was aware of any con-
tacts from any representative regarding the development of the
Keystone property. He had no knowledge of a meeting on either
March 26 or March 21. A meeting could have been 'cheduled for him
or some other : .aff person and put on their calendars without
their knowledge but no one that afternoon indicated any contacts
regarding a joint venture parking concept on the site. For the
record, a paragraph followed the material quoted by Mr. Bloom from
the 1984 Angus. McDonald report. Mr. Bloom quoted . a -part which
concluded it was not essential for the district to purchase the
Keystone Lot. The phrase was preceded by "based on economic
grounds alone." The following paragraphs, "However, the arguments
presented by the Parking Committee for purchasing the lot are
significant; they include the strategic location of the Keystone
in an area where a large increase in parking demand is antici-
pated, and it prevents the loss of existing spaces. Our purchase
itself aloes not increase the number of parking spaces available.
Combination of the Keystone Lot with an existing City lot provides
a suitable site for a parking structure,"
Fred Caploe reminded Council it had to make three specific
findings. The first spoke of public interest and necessity and
included along the aspects of public good not only cost factors
but also social, environmental, aesthetic, and other factors.
Council was entitled to take it all into consideration. The staff
report (CMR:222;6) presented a summary of considerations related
to the particular finding as well as the other two. As against
the extensive material presented by staff circulated to the owners
as well as a courtesy copy to Mr. Joshua and his partners, the
staff presented to Council an appraisal figure from Mr. Kleminger,
who was an appraiser. He was a qualified, independent appraiser
and gave Council a figure which was presented to 'the. property
owner as titng the .fair market value of the property, and the
figure was current. The presentation by the speakers assumed the
acquisition would cost more than Mr. Klerainger's figure. It was a
possibility, but presently and absent any specifics from the
speakers, Council was entitled to rely or the appraisal as far as
the cost factor was concerned and on the material presented by
staff as far as the other _considerations were concerned. The test
was whether the record before Council was lacking in evidentiary
support to make the three findings Council had to make. There was
ample evidence in the record to support the findings Council had
to make. With respect to Mr. Bloom's comments about the history
of the property, if there was any remedy for what he indicated was
some problem over the time period he discussed, which they dad not
concede at all, he was entitled to .raise the remedy, but he did
not believe it was the appropriate time to do so. . Council
requested from both Mr. Bloom and Mr. Joshua and his representa-
tives specifics about the contract of sale in 1985 but received no
specifics. Again, without it, the City was at a handicap in
responding. For purposes of the record, Council could continue to
rely on the figure Oven. The suggestion was made to continue the
matter. The valuation date for condemnation trial purposes would
be the date the complaint was filed, and he suggested the earlier
the valuation date was set, the more advantageous it was to the
publ i c of the City of Palo Alto. On that score, it was in the
ublic interest to proceed if Council was going to proceed with
fair dispatch which meant probably within the next couple ef
weeks, - He indicated to Mr. Bloom, after discussing the matter
with staff, some negotiations .might be : opened up within a relee
ti veil short .period of time if Council was to adopt the Resolution
Of Necessity that evening, prior to the filing of a complaint, but
the assumption was those would be negotiations and not a
7 0 1 5
3/24/86
discussion ohoet whether that particular lot would he acquired.
witn respect to the plans and the ARB approval, the City was
required to, and did, process the application. The application
proceeded to the point of architectural approval , but there were
other processes with which the application needed to comply. It
appeared if there were some specifics which could have been pre-
sented to Council that evening with_respect to the joint proposal,
there was adequate time to get them to Council that evening in the
following sense: First, he was not present at the Assessment
District hearing on February 24 but understood both Mr. Bloom,
Mr. Joshua, and their representatives were. At that time, it was
clear the present date would be set as the hearing on the resolu-
tion. Secondly, on March 5, a copy of the Notice of Intention was
mailed in accordance with the statute to Mr. Bloom on behalf of
his clients and a courtesy copy sent to Mr. Joshua, Mr. Cox, and
their partners, so there was at least two weeks when something
specific could have been brought to Council. Again, in the inter-
vening time, as Mr. Schreiber pointed out, there were no efforts
to contact staff. It appeared, as far as staff was concerned,
these would still be recommendation for adoption of the resolution
that evening; it was in the public interest to do so, and all the
evidence Council needed was presented to make the three findings
they were .required to make.
Councilmember Levy inquired about a two -track approach. He was
well satisfied he could make the three findings relative to
Keystone, at least, unless dissuaded by discussion before Council
voted. He asked if it was possible for Council to move ahead, on
the Keystone acquisition and, at the same';. time, give the owners
the opportunity to go forward. If the owners could present a.plan
that was more advantageous to the City economically, socially,
etc., then Council would still be in a position to accept their
plan.
Mr. Caploe said it was possible, but to some extent there was an
inconsistency in the sense Council made a decision to proceed by
adoption of the resolution, which as Mr. Atherton pointed out, was
possible to rescind up to the point Council filed a condemnation
complaint. If Council decided it should adopt the resolution and
leave the staff free to file the complaint hoping to negotiate the
acquisition, then it seemed the second track of a possible plan
that would not require the acquisition ran headlong into the first
track.
Councilmember Levy asked for clarification of running headlong
into the first track and whether it gave Council legal or timing
problems.
Mr. Caploe clarified the approach might do both.
Councilmember Levy as'b ed . for clarification of the legal risks.
Ms. Lee recommended if Coy+nc i 1 spoke to the legal problems of
Mine a lawsuit, it adjourn to Executive Session- where staff
would be happy to answer questions in all candor. She did not
believe the City, staff, and the City Council as the trustees of
the City should be exposed to dealing with the strategy of how to
handle litigation when parties against whowhom they would be trying
the case were sitting in the audience.
Mayor• Cobb asked if Coueci l;member Levy wanted to pursue that line.
of questioning.
Councilmember Levy said yes, he was interested in leaving the
option open to Council if the applicants had something to offer
the City which was as good as they said and they said in 30 days
they could prove it.
Mayor Cobb clarified the proper move was to adjourn to an
Executive Session.
7 0 1 6
3/24/86
Ms. Lee said it had to be a Council decision, She only recom-
mended it was the appropriate course to follow.
Councilmember Levy did not want to make a motion to adjourn to an
Executive Session at that time. He wanted to hear the other ques-
tions from Council and the other comments from staff before making
such a motion.
1
1
Councilmember Sutorius said Council had Rosti 1, Rosti 2, Pack 1,
and Rosti and the Administration agreeing, now they were up to
Committee disagreeing with Pacwood, and so things had changed day
after day. From his vantage, September 1, 1986, was a crucial day
in terms of financing. If parties of good faith wanted to proceed
with financing, he asked what kind of a scenario was involved
calendar -wise.
Mr. Schreiber believed they were looking at approximately 60 days
with both sides proceeding expeditiously.
Mayor Cobb asked whether he was correct in understanding that :i f
someone wanted to pursue some kind of parallel track, as far as
the other parts of the process Council had undertaken, they had to
go all the way to the beginning of the process and repeat .1l the
steps.
Ms. Lee said there would need to be a change in modification pro-
ceeding under the Assessment District proceeding which would
require essentially starting all over again with all the notices,
hearings, etc., with the 30 -day period intervening between the
notices, and all those steps Council took the last time. In
regard to the tax bills and the respective advantages or dis-
advantages of the way Council was going, and the way it was pet, -
posed, on the advice of the City's bond counsel , the bone's for the
Parking District Program were tax-exempt and would be tai. -exempt..
As she understood what was proposed, the bonds were for a public/
private project which was definitely in jeopardy. Under the
pending tax proposals, the project would not be eligible for tax-
exempt financing; there was a difference.
Mayor Cobb said if Council was to return to square one, the time
span was approximately 60 to 90 days to redo the process, and then
another 60 days to get into the Bonding, etc. He asked whether
the correct number of days was between 120 and 180.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Councilmember Bechtel said Council had excellent reports from
staff and counsel and extensive materials. The findings were
there that Council could make and justify.
MOTION: Csenci lmeo+ber Recbte1 moved, seconded by teazel„ to
adopt staff recommendation finding that the acgpi s i t loan of 325
Cambridge (the *Keystone Let") will haws no significant adverse
impact oa the sariirosseat and (providing negotiations to aequire
the property are not successful) appreve the Resolutioe finding
and determing that the P"sblis Interest and Necessity Regeire. the
Acgrlsitio. of Certaie Land and Sirectimg the Filing of Eminent
Donal* proceedings, and include the following findings:
1.
The public interest and Necessity require the proposed public
parking. facilities, considering the oariois social, economic,
add etker factors di scessed
2. Tho cooparissai and e,aleatiea establish .the necessity for the
`partisrlar plan and 1scabeo proposed ,(1a other roerds,-- to
Other site would pramde as egoal sr Neater pob'1-ic good and' a
loess* pri - 0e iaJtryji and. ,
3,. Tae- Ktjstoae- Let 1s reaseerbly suitable, desirable, :end ■sefol
for the coastr.actiea and use ef the prcpesed oublic,parkiNg
facilities,
7 0 1 7
3/24/86
MOTION CONTINUED
RESOLUTION 6603 .eetltled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE C.hTT OF PALO ALTO FINDING ANO DETERMINING THAT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST. AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF
CERTAIN LAND AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS"
CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-1
Councilmember Renzel concurred with the remarks of Councilmember
Bechtel and also suggested if Council were to go to any other
alternative for dual -track, etc., there would be a variety of
other environmental reviews, etc, that would need to be addressed.
The motion was a preferred way to go. Council already saw in the
California Avenue studies congestion that was also a factor to be
considered and a pure parking facility was a preferred alter-
native.
Councilmember Levy supported the acquisition of the Keystone Lot.
He was satisfied to support the acquisition and if no better
opportunity was available, then the opportunity was acceptable,
and the need was there. Ouviously, the owners of the Keystone
property knew and had the opportunity for many years to get their
act together and to work with CRADA and staff. The fact was they
had not done so, and Council could, not wait forever because the
concerns about financing were real. However, the description
Virgil Carter gave of what possibly could take place there was
appealing. For one thing, an above -ground parking lot was not the
most attractive of structures and was not conducive to an attrac-
tive pedestrian -oriented cityscape. If the City had an attractive
building there with all the parking underground and a plaza as
described, it would be nice. The Keystone owners they wanted to
return to Council and move rapidly to be able to provide the com-
munity what the acquisition sought to pro'iide, he welcomed . an
opportunity to look at it. Failing that, the need was there and
must be met, and the acquisition of the Keystone Lot was the best
practical opportunity available.
Councilmember Patitucci also wanted to see a proposal that might
save a lot of money and be acceptable, However, he did not want
to delay the project and, therefore, would vote in favor of the
motion. He asked if the date 4c, which the valuation of the prop-
erty was established was the date at which the papers were filed.
Ms. Lee said yes. -
Councilmember Patitucci clarified the papers were filed sometime
after Council approved the resolution.
Ks. Lee said yes.
Councilmember Patitucci asked how long after approval was normal.
Ms.. Lee said one _or two weeks, as soon it was possl bi e . to estab-
lish a valuation date.
Councilmember Patitucci said if there was any support from his
colleagues, he was happy to discuss the issue further in Executive
Session.
Mayor Cobb clarified by looking at alternative tracks Council
would build into the project a four-, five-, or six-month delay.
He preferred the papers be filed sooe to get on with the project.
It was a long time cominy. If something else developed; he would
consider it if and when it showed its advantages over what Council
had. The proposal before Council was essential, and Council
needed to proceed.
7 0 1 8.
3/24/86
Cuunc:ihnember Patitucci sold titre of the tiliugs which concerned him
was the valuation date. He was told by the City Attorney if
Council had in writing the agreement on the part of the attorneys
for all the parties, the present date could be established as the
valuation date. Then Council could approve the resolution and
delay the filing of the papers until staff had an opportunity to
review and make recommendations on the pro osed project, which
appealed to him. Counc`1 had to get something in writing before
voting, but if Council wanted to see the other proposal, it might
be an option which gave an opportunity to fix the valuation date
and see the proposal He would not make a motion but would
support one.
Councilmember Levy asked what language the City Attorney suggested
Council add to the motion if it was an alternative.
Ms. Lee suggested nothing. She suggested to Councilmember
Patitucci the way to preserve the valuation date was to get a
stipulation at the time from the various parties involved that the
valuation date would be as of the City Council meeting, and also
the parties would cease processing any applications which they had
on the property. She added that then because the parties would
agree to do it before Council motion. Why make a motion which
would not bear fruit. If the parties involved would not agree to
do it, there was no sense in pursuing the course of action.
Councilmember Levy asked about the effects in terms of the time-
table Council would be on.
Ms. Lee sai o one of the things would be to preserve the value of
the property as of the present date and, therefore, delay would
not affect the value Council had to pay for the property theoret-
ically.
1
1
Councilmember Levy said the other question was the one mentioned
by Mayor Cobb of getting .financing together.
Ms. Lee clarified the other_ dates were still going to be a
problem.
City Manager Bi 1 1 Zaner said it ,Might affect ',the financing dates
and might also affect the City by a longer delay on the project.
The applicants would have to provide Schreiber and his staff
with some rather detailed material to review in order to report
back to Council. The level of detail might be significant.
Mayor Cobb clarified the City Attorney said if the kind of agree-
ment took place before the papers were actually filed, there would
still be time, and it was something which could happen independent
of —Council's action that night. In other words, Council could
vote on the motion:, deal with it, and as long as the other activ-
ity were to take place and return to Council before the papers
were filed, it would accomplish the objective stated.
Ms. Lee said that was correct, and the City would still not be
losing lime with respect to the financing issue.
_Count 1 1 member Levy did not want to ,delay anything but felt all
Co -until was doing that day was. determining the public interest and
necessity required for the acquisition and directing the -filing if
the eminent dome n proceedings, He was not clear how f e motion
should be amended in .order° to take that aspect into constde
eratf oe.
Ms Lee' said unless Council had an indication from' the various
parties involved they were willing to stipulate as specified,
Council it should not delay. She understood from Mr. Caploe, who
spoke with the other attorneys, the parties "involved were not so
willing.
7 0 1 9
3/24/08
As corrected
4/28/06
Councilmember Levy had the indication the parties would be
willing. The first question might be to ask them if they were
willing to do it, but he was still unclear if they were willing,
how it affected the timetable involved.
Mayor Cobb said Council was getting a long way down the road w1th.-
out any real motion. He was tolerant because of the nature of the
proceeding but believed a motion should be made if there was to be
further discussion on the matter.
Councilmember Patitucci believed the Mayor had the issue in hand
when he said Council should just proceed with the issue. If some-
thing the City Attorney could accept was presented before she
filed papers, then it might be expressed as the intent of the
Council to look at it before she filed the papers. Council should
proceed and not clutter the' issue any further.
Mayor Cobb urged Council to continue or else make a specific
motion, which he was not prepared to support at that time.
MOTION PASSED ■aaeimeasly.
Mayor Cobb clarified Council had concluded action on the item.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Councilmember Fletcher wanted to go on record regarding the issue
before people were led down a path which the majority of the
Council might not support. She was against the whole idea of the
so-called joint venture. She was not in favor of another office
building in the area.
Mayor Cobb said Council should not be discussing the issue once
the vote was taken. He encouraged the parties involved to speak
to Councilmembers to find out how they stood.
ITEM #15, CABLE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
- CLOSING AND EXECUTION
RE 1 3) (CMI::189:6
Councilmember Levy asked when people would start seeing Cable
television on their screens.
Jeanne Moulton, Cable Communications Coordinator, said there were
members of Cable Co-op present, and she deferred response.
Lisa Van Uusen, Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto,
Inc. said there were also members of Pacific Bell present. Cable
Co-op's contract stipulated they commence construction within
eight months of the signing of the agreement. Should Council
decide to execute the agreement the following day, it meant Cable
Co-op should start by the end of November, 1986, providing
service to subscribers shortly thereafter. She knew Councilmember
Levy's New Year resolution was to see some Cable television in
1986. They had not done a revised construction plan and had a lot
of work in the next few months to finalize it but it was conceiv-
able they would start construction in the fall and have sub-
scribers on line in 1986. It was also conceivable they would have
them starting ' in early 1987. Cable Co-op would continue to pro-
vide monthly reports to Council and would have an answer in the
next few months.
MOTION: Vic: Mayer Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, is adopt
staff rec:m men ati os aethsri x 1 mg the Mayor to sign, on behalf of
the ■eawbers of the Joint Exercise of : Powers Agreement, the
Franchise Agreeseat end -Appendices !ti th the. Cable Communications
Cbaperatiss of eatr Alta* Inc, The Franchise Agreement lacer's -
rates the revisionsi1 ice sed in stiff report (CMA:1M9:6) .
MOTION PASSES eaaanimeeslya
7 02.8
3/24/86
1
1
1
Mayor Cobb announced the signing of the franchise Agreeme€it would
be at 6:30 p.m., on March 25, 1986, at Five Palo Alto Square,
Suite 400. He urged his colleapues to be part of the ceremony.
ITEM #16, PAYMENT TO ARNOLD AND PORTER (PRE 7-3) (CMR:198:6).
NOTION: Corrrcilmember Klein moved, seconded by Suteries, to
adopt the staff recommemdatioe adopting the Budget Amendment
Ord1aaectauthoriziag the amount of $56,000 to be paid to Arnold Al
Porter for consultant assistance in cable franchising, performed
Bering April, Nay, and June of 1984.
ORCINANCE 3676 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
Ch Y OF 'PALO ALTO ANENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1585-8S TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR MOULD AND PORTER, CABLE
CO$MUNICATIONSR
Councilinember Levy would vote against the motion. If he remem-
bered correctly, the Arnold & Porter original estimate was
$140,000, and they were already been paid twice that 'amount. As a
matter of fact, the overrun almost equalled the $140,000 they
reported to Council in July, 1934, when it was clear, in all of
Council's discussions with them, public and private, Council did
not want them to overspend their estimate without first going to
Council ahead of time and indicating where they were and what
their needs were. It so happened Arnold & Porter, in addition to
being their cable consultant, was a sophisticated law_ firm; the
people involved were lawyers who should have known whit the agree-
ments were and should have adhered to the agreements. He heard
over and over from his constituents City government and govern-
ments -generally seemed to be patsies, paid too much for the
services received and were always taken advantage of. He did not
believe.it was generally true, but in the subject case it might
not be far from the truth. He did not believe in, good faith
Council should pay ,the extra $56,000 and would vote against the -
motion.
Counc i l number Klein said with all due respect, Counci l member Levy
was asking Council to violate an agreement which; would be an
mnfortunate precedent. He shared some of his criticism of the
overall Arnold & Porter fees, but the $66,000 was really part of a
settlement where they agreedito eat some of: their fees and:Council
agreed ultimately to pay. Staff reminded Council in the staff
report (CMR:19d:6) in the last paragraph that payment was money
withheld from the prior agreement pending Arnold & Porter's com-
pletign of the work in Addendum #3 on time and within budget,
which was completed. In his judgment, the item was not a discre-
tionary one but a matter of honor. He did not want to see Council
90 back on its word.
Vice Mayor Woolley said when the motion was made originally, she
was with Councilmember Levy in voting .against paying Arnold &
Porter. In the year which elapsed since the cost overrun, Arnold
& Porter stayed well within the prescribed costs. Council could
well ask if it ways the doing of Arnold & Porter or the result of
staff's watching. She believed clearly it ..was the result of
staff's takidg on more of: the burden and being cee'eful in . what
Arnold_ & Porter was asked to do and, therefore, how much was
spent. If Council carrieu it back to the original s tuation - when
the cot overruns first occurred, at least part of the responsi-
bility was with staff; therefore, at that point she was satisfied
the fees should be split and would —support the motion:
NOTION PASSED b ; g vete 14 41-1, Le,,Y ..'WINO
ITEM 17 OESIiNATIO$ OF MID -PENINSULA" ACCESS CORPORATION AS CATV
Cwin
Acting Director of Telecomaieicatiens' recogni zad. the presence of
members of Mid -Peninsula Access Corporation (M -PAC).
7 0 2 1
3/24/86
NOTION: J 1c�tL.�r. . J � _ �
Caurec � member Levy m*ved, skin aled by $ilteri is, to
adept the resel wt i errr designating iii d -Perri ose 1 a Access Corporation
as the community access organs zatf ea to administer public and
educational channels on the cable system in the service area, and
to direct staff to contract with N -PAC pursuant to Appendix E.I.B.
of the Francine Agreement.
RESOLUTION 6504 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
(ITT OF lfAO ALTO DESIGNATING THE 1lID-PENINSOLA ACCESS
CORPORATION AS THE CABLE ACCESS ORGANIZATION FOR CABLE
TELEVISION"
NATION PASSED waanimoosly.
Mayor obb said Council welcomed M -PAC to their task and .looked
forward to some excellent community programming on the cable
television system.
ITEM 118 REPEALING CATV LOBBYISTS AND CODE OF ETHICS REGULATIONS
r3$
Councilmember Fletcher asked if Councilmembers. would have a con-
flict of interest regarding items if they bought shares in the
Cale 'Co-op.
City Attorney Diane Lee said it would depend on the nature of the
shares and the amount of ownership relative to the total ownership
available. Under the provisions of 1090 of the Government Code
and with -respect to the Political Reform Act, under certain cir-
cumstances Councilmembers would, in fact, be disqualified.
NOTION: Coencflmember Renzel moved, seconded by Sutories, to
adopt the ordinance repealing the Cable Television Lobbying
Ordinance and adopt the resolution repealing Cable Television Code
of Conduct.
RESOLUTION 6506 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
a ALTO REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. 6146,
6274 and 6314 ESTABLISHING DISCLOSURE AND OTHER CONDUCT
REQUIRENENTS ON CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES`. BURI11HC THE
CABLE TELEVISION PROCESS"
ORDINANCE Fit FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL " TNT CTTT OF PALO ALTO REPEALING CNAPTER 2.11
OF TPE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CABLE
TELEVISION - LOBBYING"
MOTTO' PASSED umanimeusly.
ITEM 119, Pi UEST OF VICE MAYOR WOOLLEY RE SANTA CLARA COUNTY -
HARV 'T OF CHANGE (PRE 3- )
Vice Mayor Woolley said the county put out a county history in . the
1880s and repeated it in the `1920s. After 50 years, the county
intended to put out another county history. They used ,.to call
them : dug.. books because they contained a lot of pictures of
people who paid to have their picture put in the book. They
became considerably more sophisticated. The books were valuable
1n terms of research and helped the Historical Association and the
Historic Resources Board (HRB). She did not believe Palo Alto
wanted to be left out but questioned to what extent the City
wanted to participate. The Easiest way to determine it was to. ask
the Mayor to appoint a committee.
NOTION: Tice Mayor sertIoy. :waved, seconded. by Fletcher, to
direct the Sayer to appoint a subcommittee *f the Couecil (three
numbers) to wart with Nr. WIlI Leo of the Ui stork Wittig*
Commission and the City C1•rk, ;t• make rem*datie.s regarding
the scope of the text. the esmier of pages. pictures awnd/er
graphics; the cost; and the- member of copies 0e City should pur-
chase.
0 2 2
3/24/86
Councilmember Levy asked if there was a reason why the matter
should not be referred to the HRB, and they should be the
cceemittee.
Vice. Mayor Woolley said the HRB was ,more of .a board dealing with
the architectura.l history of the City rather than the history in
general. If Council referred the matter to a group, the
Historical Association would be more appropriate, but it was not
an official bode' of the Council.
Councilmember Levy endorsed the Jnotion but suggested '.the Mayor
approach the HRB and .the Association to see eif - they. were
interested.
Mayor Cobb clarified he would do both if the motion passed.
Councilmember Bechtel said when she saw the item, she wondered
whether three Councilmembers would be willing to give the amount
of time required. If it would not require much time, and if the
Mayor was persuasive in getting Councilmembers to do it, she would
support the motion.
Councilmember Patitucci asked why Council did not have a single
delegate instead of a committee. He recommended Vice Mayor
Woolley be the delegate and return with some inexpensive budget
proposals.
Mayor Cobb asked if it was acceptable to Vice Mayor Woolley as an
amendment to the motion.
Vice Mayor Woolley said no, it was not acceptable because more
Councilmembers needed to -..be involved when questions arose. The
matter might involve one meeting and would'not be terribly burden-
some.
MOTION PASSED nna.imeesly.
ITEM #20, REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS'FLETCHER, KLEIN AND LEVY RE
NATIONAL Lun CfTits A-NNUAL CONGRESSIONAL CITY in KFERENCE Aiit
RECOI4MtNDArius Rr FtDERAL LEGISLATION MATT lB crltr 6-2)
Councilmember Klein said he and his colleagues who attended the
National League of Cities meeting in Washington, D.C. stated what
was intended in their report before Council. From talking to
delegates at the meeting he sensed almost panic -bout some of the
cuts being discussed in the President's budget and which might
also be required by Gramm-Rudman. Similarly, the state of the
municipal bond market was such that people were scratching their
heads and saying it was not something to be tolerated. The depth
of the emotional feeling was far more than the ordinary policy
differe�ace between one group of office holders and another. He
sensed a feeling of desperation in some of the issues. Palo Alto
was not dep€ dmet on federal moneys and was not so concerned with
the issuance of municipal bonds; but Palo Alto was not immune, not
isolated, and issues which concerned its sister cities also con-
cerned Palo Alto. For those reasons, he hoped his colleagues.
would agree with those who attended the meeting and to have the
City go on record with regard to the programs which should he cut
or not cut, and .with regard, under the tax bill, to the municipal
bond issue and the continued deductibility of state and local
taxes.
MOTION: Coanci lore et Klein moved, . seconded by Reezel o that the
City go es record and seed letters to their Ceagressi aI repro-.
seatativas indicating that the Oremaa Nedaaa,/deficft Reolactiara net
cat tae: Comeeeity - Merel apmeet Nletk " Greet, transit ford# ag, or
heasiat (Pads.
7 0 2 3
_3/24/86
Couricilmember Fletcher asked if Council could add housing to the
motion, because the housing subsidies would be completely elimi-
nated under the President's proposal.
MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE HOUSING FUNDS IN THE
MOTION
MOTION PASSEb .smaaimossly.
MOTION: Coemc$l•e•ber Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to appose
MR 311311 and indicate the need to preserve, prevision deal i*, with,
•wmlclpal bonds sad direct tot le lsiation to keep the tax deduct-
ibility for local and state estit1e$.
MOTION PASSED eman1Moesly:
Councilmemaer Patitucci called Council's attention to a report the
City Manager put in their packets on the use of contingency funds.
He had not studied the report closely, but it helped deal with the
questions he raised in the past about how often those matters went
before Council. Council should all take a look at the report, and
he thanked the City Manager for getting the report to Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
7 0 2 4
3/24/86