The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-04-28 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 Minutes ITEM Oral Communications> Regular Meeting April 28, 1986 Approval of Minutes of March 24, 1986 Item #1, Resolution of Appreciation to Victor Nelson Consent Calendar Referral Action Item #2, Resolution of Appreciation to James Abler Item #4, Installation of Seismic Anchors on COIL ratio Substation Transformer Banks One .ind Two Item #5, Pretecti on of Palo Alto's Water Supply Interest - Peninsula Water Agency Item #7, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board' (ARB) Recommendation re Site and Design Review for Modifications and Expansion of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Located at 2501 Embarcadero Way.: Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #8, PJBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of Dr. A. I Haimson for a Zone Change from RM-1 and RN -2 to PC to Permit . Construction of a Nine Unit Condominium Project for Property Located at 145 and 165 Hawthorne Item #9,: PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of Dr. A. I. Haimson for a Variance for Property Located at 145 and 165 Hawthorne Recess Mayor Cobb on Completion of Agenda .Item #10, Planning Commission Recommendations re Changes to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Item 111, PUBLIC HEARING, Alapting Cosomnity Development Block Giant Program 1986-87 CITY OF Mt O ALTO PAGE 7 1 0 6 7 ' 1:>. 0 8 7 1 0 9 7 1 0 9 7 1 0 9 7 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 7. 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 9 7 1 2 5 7 1 2 5 7 1 2 9 7 1 0 4 4/28/86 ITEM Item #12, Finance and Public Works Committee Recommendation re Retired City Employees' Health Plan Item #13, Finance and Public Works Committee Recommendation re Utilities Cost of Service Rate Studies - Consultant Selection Item #14, Report from Council Legislative Committee Item #15, Ordinance re Prohibition of Skateboards in City -owned Parking Lots Item #15-A, (Old Item #6) , Amend„ie„t to Code re Oral Communications Item #16, Proposed Changes to the Electric Rate Schedule E-2 Regarding the Load Management Programs Item #16-A (Old Item #3), Design -Construction and Proof of Performance Test of a Broadband Utilities Local Area Network (ULAN) Item #17, Request of Councilmembers Bechtel and Renzel re Proposal for Birch and Ash Closures Item #18, Request of Vice Mayor Woolley and Councilmernber Levy re Official Naming of Scott Street Park Item #18-A, Request of Councilmember Levy re Pair Alto Airport Adjournment: 12:50 a.m. PAGE 7 1 3 0 7 1 3 2 7 1 3 2 7 1 3 4 7 1 3 5 7 1 3 9 7 1 3 9 7 1 4 2 7 1 4 3 7 1 4 4 7 1 4 5 7 1 0 5 4/28/86 Regular Meeting April 28, 1986 The City Council of he City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:39 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Pati tuccf , Renzel, Sutori us, Woolley. Klein. the Mayor Cobb announced a Special Meeting to interview Midpeninsula Access Corporation Board Members was held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ORAL C0mmumICAT X0 S 1. Brian Andersen, 679 Stanford Avenue, urged Council to consider the Sanctuary issue. Over a year and one-half period the University Lutheran Church, a Sanctuary church, housed one to three refugees intermittently. The issue was not ,lust one of government agencies and geopolitical situation, but rather one of people who needed help which could be erovfded. He believed it was an important issue and one Council should agendize. 2. Janice Wick, 568 Fifth Avenue, translated for Oscar, who was 12 years old. He was a refugee from El Salvador and the fourth in a family of seven children. His father was a secondary school teacher who denounced human rights violations committed by his - co =ntrv' c government and was pereeeeted and then murdered by the government. After his father was killed, he and his family hid in fear of assassination. The children were forced to leave their studies and decided to emigrate to the United States. When they arrived in the United States, his mother was alone with seven _young children, but with the help of the Committee of Refugees from El Salvador and the Sanctuary, they survived. He appealed to Council -to declare Palo Alto a Sanctuary city so families like his could live in dignity awaiting safe return to their country. 3. Miriam Spencer, 3221 Cowper, a member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, attended the March 24 initial preseetation of the Bay Area Sanctuary petition. She collected about 120 of the signatures on the petitions presented and said only four people refused to sign: one did not want to be i nvul ved, two did not feel they knew enough about the issue, and one felt it was illegal, which meant 97 percent favored taking the issue to Council. Two members of her community presently worked in El Saivadore Support for military solutions to the social justice problems still forced people to flee for their lives. The University Baptist Church in Seattle was one of the first Sanctuary churches in the country. To refuse to accept people as bona fide refugees cost the taxpayers to track them down, arrest theme jail..them, and deport them. Council was .reluc- tant. td consider the issue because it bel f eyed the issue was not local and was illegal,- The office of the .pastor at the University ;Baptist Church was. broken into more than once to get evidence against him for his Work with Sanctuary. In Ari xona, eleven -church workers were on trial for six -months for asst sting refugees. There were five Sanctuary, churches in Palo,Al to sad many Palo Altars who risked surest and trial for being: coapas:sivnate humarr beings. :The United Stites needed to emit -Ina the deporting of people_ whese l i-ves were at stake. -The Seattle Cf ty Council sponsored a study to ,determine the aerits of -public declaration of -Sanctuary,_ and, at a result, voted unanlmousiy to declare Seattle a City 0f Refuge. The people of Palo -.Alto requested the issue H receive a fair hearing. 7 1 0 6 4/28/86 4. Reverend Herb b Schmidt, 20 Pearce Mitchell Place, Stanford, Lutheran Campus Pastor at Stanford and Pastor of University Lutheran Church, recently arrived from Tuscon, Arizona, where he was a member of a Sanctuary congregation. Many deported refugees were imprisoned, tortured, raped and murdered. Sanctuary was started to bail refugees out of jail and help them fight deportation legally. Recently it cost $3,500 to bail a man out of jail who had two brothers killed by Death Squads in El Salvador and a third brother missing. He made it to the United States but would be deported without the bail money. The Refugee Act of 1980 clearly stated anyone in the United States who feared persecution should receive safe haven. Stanford's German motto was, "The Winds of Freedom Blow," and .he hoped the same also blew in Palo Alto. He prayed for Council to agendize the matter. 5. Dr. Harvey Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, spoke on political sci- ence and government regarding sanctuary. People were supposed to prevail in a democratic society. City Hall could be fought and defeated if necessary. If the Mayor and the City Council did not reflect the community, they could be replaced. If Council could not make a decision, the matter should be placed on the ballot. There was still time before the next election on June 3, 1986, to do so. It needed two public announce- ments, two weeks apart to be put on the ballot. 6. Peter Faulkner, 775 17th Avenue, Menlo Park, was Director of the Summit Youth Program, which served Palo Alto and adjacent communities since 1970. For six years they operated a sports camp with about 450 families each summer at Jordan and Palo Alto High Schools. In January, the 1986 camp was scheduled for -11 weeks, Monday through Friday, June 16 through August 29. With 14 sports including water polo, competitive swim- ming, .nary field sports requiring turf, as well as indoor basketball, hockey, and soccer activities their program grew to the point where both Jordan and Paly facilities were essen- tial. Since 1982, the Recreation Department scheduled other simultaneous activities at those sites on several occasions, but after pointing out their displacement, they were able to continue to use the facilities originally requested. Mean- while, the Recreation Department established a similar camp at Walter Hays and El Carmelo. The Summit Youth Program pro- tested it as unreasonable competition but to no avail. The Recreation Department repeatedly assured it was not interested in displacing Summit or driving them out of business but on April 23, 1986, the Recreation Department announced a sports camp for children for one week at Palo Al to High School from June 16 through June 20. If the program went through, it would effectively displace half of Summit's activities and compete during its critical first week .of the summer. Rec Department programs previously competed with Summit's and sometimes required Summit to reschedule, but it was the first time Summit was actually displaced by a City -sponsored program aimed at many of the same parents Summit served. He requested a policy whereby existing, on -goings healthy, private programs like Summit were not displaced by new City programs. The policy needed to address competition between private and pub- lic programs however seldom He also requested the Recreation Department be directed to stop its camp until Council reviewed the matter. Councilmember Levy asked sta+f to report back to Council on the conflict with the Recreation Department. City Manager Bill Zaner would provide a ,written report and ensure Mr. Faulkner received a copy. 7 1 0 7 4/28/86 7. Erk Reimnitz, 914 Van Auken Circle, opposed noisy low -flying aircraft over his backyard. He wanted to eliminate the loop which took low -flying small planes over the City and produced noise and a hazard. The San Carlos airport eliminated the pattern partially to abate the noise over the developed areas where people lived. In their effort to get the FAA to elimi- nate that half of the flight pattern, he requested Council provide a letter of support. 8. Louie Marincovich, 943 Moreno Avenue, was on .,,the Palo Alto Airport Good Neighbor Committee and updated Council or efforts to control unsafe, low, noisy airplanes that used the Palo Alto Airport. When a plane landed at Pao Alto Airport, it either came in over the Bay or over the Cit, Their focus was to eliminte landings over the City so all planes landed only over the uninhabitated Bay. The FAA and County acted slowly. That evening he reported a low plane which was the sixth report he made on the same plane. Nothing happened to the pilot or the plane. There were several crashes near Palo Alto in recent years: onto Highway 101 into the Bay, and into the Duck Pond. They wanted to eliminate unsafe flying procedures before tragedy occurred and should not need a Sun Valley Mall type crash to spur change. Procedures were changed at other airports_ , such as San Carlos. Their Committee wrote Council a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office), which favored change in flight plans which were given in the residents' report on the Palo Alto Airport Good Neighbor Committee,. Their Committee decided the Santa Clara County Aviation Director should be requested to investigate the feasibility of eliminating the left approach or community -side pattern at the Palo Alto Airport and believed such a request should come from the City Council. On behalf of the Palo Alto Airport Good Neighbor Committee, he requested Council send the request to the Aviation Director with all due speed and to ask for a reply before their next Committee meeting on May 20. .They were on the verge of achieving citizens' efforts to make the local airport a better neighbor, yet complaints to regulatory agencies by citizens alone were often given little attention. Council's support of their Committee might tip the balance in favor of making Palo Alto a safer and quieter place to live. Residents fought the. battle alone for years and now needed City support. 9. Dr. Michele S. Fisher, 410 Sheridan. Avenue, #335, referred to the Palo Alto Airport, and said she lived in a sound -proofed condominium. She was half a block from El Camino and a block from Page Mill, and only heard frequent and annoying aircraft noise. The noise woke her up and disturbed her studies. About two years ago she read an article in the Palo Alto Neekl about some citizens extremely concerned about the airport noise problem. The elimination of the resident area landing pattern seemed to pose no major problems and the City of Palo Alto could do something about a solution. She requested Council restore the citizens' peace, quiet, and sense of safety and security. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 1986 Councilmember Patitucci submitted the following correction: Pale 7019, first paragraph seventh line, the word "aperoved" s'houl a be changed to "proposed. °' NOTION: ' ' Ylce Mayer Woolley coved, seconded by Sutotiiit, approval of the Minutes •f March ' 24, 1986, as corrected, MOTION PASSED aoam1a. s_ly, Klein absent. 7 1 0.8 4/28/66 rte-:;� .�-�; �--.,:,..:..,� •.�-s-� ITEM #1, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO VICTOR NELSON (PER 4-2) Mayor Cobb said Victor Ferdinand Nelson served the City of Palo Alto from July 22, 1958, through April 5, 1986, as a Firefighter, Apparatus Operator, and Fire: Captain in the Palo Alto Fire Department and pursued his duties for the safety of their citizens with enthusiasm, thoroughness, common sense, fairness, compassion, and courtesy. He took an active part in Fire Department programs such as fire suppression, fire training, and fire prevention. Through the efforts and contribution of Victor Ferdinand Nelson, the City continued to occupy a position of respect in terms of emergency services provided to its citizens by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The Council of the City of Palo Alto commended the outstanding public service of Mr. Nelson and recorded its appre- ciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of the com- munity for the service and contribution rendered during his 28 years of employment with the City= MOTION: Mayor Cobb mowed; seconded by Woolley, approval of the Resolution of Appreciation to Victor Ferdinand Nelson. RESOLUTION 6508 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRt CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING. APPRECIATION TO VICTOR FERDINAND NELSON UPON HIS RETIREMENT" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. Mayor Cobb presented Mr. Nelson with a framed copy of the reso- lution. Fire Chief Bob Wall thanked Captain Nelson on behalf of the Palo Alto Fire Department for 28 years of service and contributions. Mr. Nelson had a tremendous amount of pride and was a role model to many firefighters. He overheard a comment by a junior fire- fighter who was glad he came oe board soon enough to learn under Captain Nelson, which summed up the impact Captain Nelson had on the Palo Alto Fire Deparment. They would miss him. Captain Nelson said he already missed the Fire Department. He worked under four Fire Chiefs, saw many Councilmembers come and go, and thanked all the City employees he worked closely with in the Fire Department, Police. Department, Apparatus Maintenance, Building Maintenance, Water, Gas, Sewer, for their unselfish cooperation end friendli; ess. He was proud to retire as a fire- fighter because his son -in -lair and son chose firefighting as their profession. He introduced his wife; grandaughters, Ashley and Alison; his son, a firefighter for Menlo Park; his daughter; and son-in-law, who was a captain in Central Fire District. Mayor Cobb said service like Captain Nelson's made Palo Alto a great city. He knew his family was very proud. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Cobb removed Item #3, Design -Construction re Utilities Local Area Network, at the request of a member of the public. Counci lmember Fletcher removed Item #6, Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code re Oral Communication . City Manager Bill Zaner said Item #3 would become Item #16-A, and Item #6 would become Item #I3 -A. NOTION: CoPeci loaab+e_r $etpriis moved, seconded by Waal l ey approval of the Ceesest Celemdar. Referral None 1 1 i Action ITEM #2L RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JAMES ABLER (PER 4-2) RESOLUTION 6509 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JAMES ABLER UPON HIS RET: REMENT° ITEM #4, INSTALLATION OF SEISMIC ANCHORS ON COLORADO SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER BANKS ONE AND TWO (UTI 3) (CMR:256:6) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute a contract in the amount of $24,800 with Power -Anderson Corporation and authorize staff to approve Change Orders of up to ten percent ($2,480) of the contract. AGREEMENT SERVICES AND MATERIALS FOR INSTALLATION OF SEISMIC ANCHORS OS COLORADO SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER BARKS ONE AND TWO Power -Anderson, Inc. ITEM #5, PROTECTION OF PALO ALTO'S WATER SUPPLY INTEREST PENINSULA WATER AGENCY (UTI 7) (CMR:254:6) In view of the purpose and function of the Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA), the needs for legislative action with regard to preserving San Francisco Bay Area water supplies and the potential usefulness of the Peninsula Water Agency (PWA) in protecting the City's needs and stated intent of the Palo Alto Water Utility Plan, staff recommends Council direct staff to enter into discussions with the existing members of the Peninsula Water. Agency and other interested communities, aimed at drafting an appropriate agreement for membership in the PWA. The resulting agreement would be returned to Counc i1 for review and approval, ITEM #7t PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) RECOMMENDATION RE SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR MODIFICATIONS AND EXPANSION OF THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT LOCATED AT 2501 EMBARCADERO WAY (UTI 7-4) The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) unanimously recommend approval, with conditions, of the applica- tion of the City of Palo Alto for Site and Design approval _ for expansion of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, located at 2501 Embarcade ro. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. AGENDA CHANGES) ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Councilmember Levy referred to the request of Council to send a letter to the Santa Clara County Aviation Board. He understood there might be controversy about the ultimate outcome, but asked if any controversy surrounded Council endorsement to study feasibility. Mr. Zane r did not believe there was any controversy, but staff wanted to check the matter out . and report back to Council at the next meeting if a. problem existed. If there appeared to be no difficulty, staff would move ahead. Councilmember Levy requested the item be placed on the agenda that evening to give staffthe authorization. Mr. Zaner said _ the. Palo Alto Airport issue would be Item #18-A. 7 1 1 G 4/28/86 MOTION TO COMBINE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR TPENS #8 and /9, 145AND 165 HAWTHORNE AVENUE MOTIOM s Counc i l.enber Pa t i tucc i moved, seconded by Woolley, to c;s,bine Public Bearings on Items -11 and IS re property located at 145 'aid 165 Hawthorne. MOTION PASSED unaniaously, Klein absent. ITEM 18 PUBLIC HEARING1 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF DR. A. I. HAIMSON FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM RM-1 AND RM-2 TO PC TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OV A NINE UNIT, CONDOMINIUM PROJECT POR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 145 AND 165, HAWTHORNE (PLA 3-1) ITEM 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF DR. A. I. HAIMSON FOR A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 145 AND 165 HAWTHORNE (PLA 3-1) Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said Item 48 was a rezoning of the property at 145 and 165 • Hawthorne to Planned Community (PC) zone," which increased the allowable density from six to nine units. Item 19 was a variance request resulting from the PC rezoning. The PC rezoning would increase the sideyard setbacks from six feet to ten feet. If Council chose : to deny the zone change, the development plan for the PC was void, and the ..variance became unnecessary in which event the variance application should also be denied. If Council chose to conceptually approve the zone change, staff recommended the application be referred back to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for design review. Council decision on the variance would become necessary that evening because it affected the design of the project. Planning Commissioner Ellen Christensen said the Planning Commission recommended denial of the PC zone on a 1-4 vote. The concerns related to guaranteed affordability of the units at ini- tial sale and in the long term. If the units were sold to single adults, existing parking problems in the neighborhood would be heavily impacted. If an additional below market rate (BMR) unit was granted, a variance for parking was required. The project would also increase density in an area where across the street and under the Downtown Plan, the Commission recommended density be significantly reduced. She said Commissioner McCown supported the idea of providing housing at, the low end of the market and believed market forces could be relied upon to guarantee affordability. She was unwilling to gran; a variance from any parking requirements for the project. Support for the PC variance was related to the specific design of `the . PC --its low height and townhouse character --and because the setbacks of surrounding properties would be the same under an RM zone as recommended under the variance. Two Commissioners were opposed because special circumstances did not exist on the property in relation to the property itself •nor was it a unique circumstance; and granting extra density justified the extra protection .found in the ten -foot setback. Councilmember Sutorius asked about differences between the proposal Council was reviewing versus the one tho Planning Commiseion reviewed and acted upon. Mr. Brown said since the Planning Commission meeting staff met with the developer and negotiated a BMR unit? . the proposal was for one of the three -bedroom ,:units in the project --1,100 square feet --to be made available t + the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for the BMR program at a price of $98,621. ` The 8MR unit satisfied the requirements of Pregraw 9 in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, the rental housing replacement program. The proposal before the Planning commission was for a tenth unit in the project and for a variance in terms of required parking for the unit. The BMR unit would become one of the; nine units proposed in the project. 7 1 1 1 4/28/86 As corrected 5/27/8 Counci member Sutorius clarified the current proposal was nine units including a BMR as opposed to the ten units which included a BMR. Mr. Brown said yes. The previous proposal was a ono -bedroom BMR while the present was a three -bedroom BMR. He said full parking was provided as well as the required one guest parking space. Vice Mayor Woolley asked whether the older or new units in Downtown North created the parking problem in the neighborhood. Mr. Brown said staff did an extensive study in the Downtown North area comparing on -street parking generated, from apartment buildings built prior to current parking standards and newer projects which provided full parking in accordance with present zoning standards about four years ago. The conclusion was on -street parking problems were mostly created by the older units. In that particular neighborhood an additional problem was caused by two commercial operations, Gymnastics West, which operated significantly in the evening, and Creative Initiative. Councilmember Bechtel clarified the BMR unit offered was part of the BMR program, and its resale, etc., administered by the PAHC. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Bechtel clarified the affordability, even though the unit was at the higher end of the BMR range, would be maintained. Mr. Brown said yes, there would be resale restrictions. Councilmember Patitucci said the process seemed convoluted. The Planning Commission saw one project and Council saw another which made it difficult if Council did not want to become a Planning Commission. He asked if it was necessary for Council to act on the issue before the Planning Commission made another recommenda- tion. Mr. Brown said essentially the applicant responded to concerns eepressed by the Planning Commission. He believed it was appro- priate for Council to take affirmative or negative action to provide some policy direction to staff and the Planning Commission. If Council chose to conceptually approve the project, it would return to the Commission and the ARB for design comments and return to Council in final form. Councilmember Patitucci said two years ago, a project was approved for six units which_ had more density and. lot coverage. Based on square footage, the ,subject project had smaller units on average which necessitated more parking. Mr. Brown said .Councilmember Patitucci was correct. In terms of building size, height, and lot coverage, the subject proposal we smaller than the previous proposal which conformed with zoning. Councilmember Patitucci asked if there was any obligation on the part of the developer to maintain the trees. Mt'. Brown said staff s .rongly recommended the two heritage redwoods be preserved. The project was designed conspicuously to preserve them, but the applicant was not required to maintain the trees. Councilae er Renuel referred to Program 14 and Program 9 of the Palo Alto. comprehensive Plan, and said one required guaranteed affordability of the units which increased density, and the other required full replace t of rental units on , a one -for -one basis. The latest staff. refit (C IRa252t6) only spoke to one of the prograras. 7 1:1 2 4/28/86 A$. corrected 5/;27/86 Mr. Brown said Program 9, Rental Replacement, did not require one - for -one replacement of rental units; instead, there were five. different ways the program could be satisfied. The applicant chose the first option which was 100 percent gain in unit count plus 10 percent BMR unit. He provided one of nine units in the project as BMR and clearly met Program 9. Councilmember Renzel was correct, in regard to Program 14. Staff grappled with whether the the project met the spirit of Program 14 but without clear guarantees of affordability. The applicant maintained he did not specifically apply under Program 14, and he met several of the programs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan above and beyond Program 14. Essentially, it was a call for Countii as . to whether other Comprehensive Plan policies and programs were of great enough significance where meeting Program 14 in detail was not necessary. Councilmember Renzel clarified it was essentially under Program 14 where a PC for increased density could be granted. Mr. Brown said than, was correct. Councilmember Renzel referenced the rental unit and asked about the formula which exempted one unit per lot. Mr. Brown believed the first unit in every .project was considered to be a single --family residence, and if not, it was an administrative decision to administer the policy. Councilmember Renzel clarified staff devised that method as a way of administering the policy. Mr. Brown deferred response. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said consistent with his recollection, Commissioner Christensen inter- preted the p'liicy to_ mean on a property with one unit or with multiple units. the first unit was treated as owner -occupied and not a rental unit because there was no: City control over the paresl with one unit in terms of keeping it rental on a property with, e.g., a duplex or triplex. There was nothing to prevent one of the units from being occupied by the owner -occupant. As such, the interpretation was consistent under the program in that the first unit on the property was not regarded as a rental unit in perpetuity. Councilmember Renzel clarified the policy was not in an ordinance or plan but was a way of conceptualizing. Mr. Schreiber said staff would check the specific wording indi- cating the force went back to the. initial Planning Commission discussions of the program and how to implement. it. Councilmember Renzel believed it was easy to ascertain an owner - occupant, and staff was really talking about renter displacement. The real concern was losing rentals on the market place. Mayor Cobb asked whether the variance request was still essential to getting the number of unite, etc., presently before Council. Mr, Brown believed the: answer was yes but suggested the question be posed to:. the applicant. Councilmember Levy asked if they could in fee stipulate the initial price of units and whether it was discussed with the applicant. Mr. Brown said there could, be an in fee stipulation, but the applicant chose not to pursue the suggestion. MMayor. Cobb declared the public heating . open. 7 1 1- 3 4/28/86 Alvin Hainson, 1240 University Drive, Menlo Park, a psychologist in Menlo Park and part time developer. There was a need for family -oriented housing and his plan was to provide reasonably priced housing --under $200,000 -,-in a smaller unit size. The PC zone concept was a way to provide public scrutiny and design con- siderations to mediate the increase fn density in terms of number of units required. They could not include a BMR unit at the time because of financial considerations in relation to the cost of the land. They worked closely with the owners of the property who realized there had to be some considerations, and they were pres- ently i n< a new joint venture posture which enabled them to share the risk and take some of the price out of the land. They were now able to return with a BMR unit and do an economically -feasible project. His architect, Mr. Calthorpe, was an internationally qualified person to design efficient urban housing. The guaran- tees on price were difficult in terms of marketability of projects and locking people into prices, although they were willing to dis- cuss some upper limits on sales prices. There was a direct rela- tionship between size of unit and selling price. They believed the project offered something to the neighborhood. Many people favored more middle -income priced and family -oriented housing. While they could not guarantee anything, the spirit was there, and he had a track record of doing what he set out to do and hoped they could work something out with the City. Councilmember Levy was concerned affordability of the units be assured for griddle -income buyers, and Dr. Haimson indicated his intent was an average price of $190,000. He asked if Dr. Haimson was willing to hold to that as part of the PC application. Dr. Haimson was willing to talk out some numbers. He had no plans to sell anything over $200,000 but di not know exactly what the lower -priced units soul d cost; they could be $191,00, $189,00 or $192,00. Councilmember Lev clarified Dr. Haimson would be safe 1' Council said $195,000. Dr. Haimson believed they would safe with $195,00 but wanted the opportunity to sit down with .e numbers before he committed. He clarified $195,000 would be the beginning sale price, but Council could not dictate the price in five or ten years. Council ember Levy said yes. Councilmember Renzel asked if Dr. Haimson would be willing to put the other two units --not his BMR unit --into some sort of price -controlled resale, e.g., right of first refusal for the PAHC, or something of that sort, in order to meet the Program 14 guidelines for affordability in perpetuity. Drs. Haimson said he needed to see what it looked like as they factored against the costs involved. They talked with both people who lived in the houses there, and one expressed interest in re - renting one of the units if they put it in the rental program, which was likely to happen with at least one unit. They talked about.; buying the units as shell units and finishing` them them- selves, including the possibility of people currently on site. They were happy to open their books to anybody who wanted to see what the project .amounted to. It was not the typical developer killer project so there was not an excessive amount of money involved. They were happy to try and make something work, and he assumed it had to be fair on both sides- of the coin. The project was small and basically took the place of something bigger. They already exposed themselves to the public process; as cooperative, and the balk was responsive to. the realities of .the situation as they returned to meet the public benefit issue with a BMR unit. he knew of no other project in the core of Palo Alto that was so responsive. The design was a major cons# derati on in terms of the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Peter Calthorpe, 20E Waldo Point, Sausalito, was excited when Dr. Haimson approached him with the project, even though he typically worked on larger projects and just completed 600 units in Brooklyn, New York. He did research and received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to study housing in Scandinavia. He looked at different scales and frames of reference of housing design across the world. The subject project was small and unusual because it attempted in an urban area to replace families in Downtown areas. Typically families moved to the suburbs, kids moved out of town, and• towns were reoccupied in condominium fashion. The market place always saw two -bedroom, two -bath condominiums and his typical clients had 80 or 90 percent "of the units in that category because that was what sold. They built no thee -bedroom, two -bath condominiums. Not only were Dr. Haimson and his friends interested in three -bedroom, two -bath units but asked how they could make the project work so children and familiea would possibly move back to the Downtown area. Private yards were configured into the site. Off every unit was a pri- vate, fenced yard which families needed. Kids could go out to play, and the supervision problem was much easier. The attached garage was also key for families. To drive right in and walk in the back door to the kitchen was important and distinctly dif- ferent from the standards found in most condominiums. The central open -space feature was a play area with a sandbox and climbing facilities surrounded by some of the units to allow surveillance and cooperation between families in taking care of the children. The design for the whole parcel centered around bringing families back into the Downtown area. The site had good solar access, and they were able to orient all units for passive solar heating. In the preliminary calculations they achieved about 70 percent of the home heating through passive solar means. They reduced the height of the buildings from 35 feet to 26 feet, welch was a significant. More importantly, they broke the building down into five separate buildings rather than three large ones and tried to maintain the scale of the single-family residential in the nei ghborhuod. The project was a transition between apartments to the southwest and the single family residences to the northeast. Mayor Cobb asked whether it was essential to the design to have the six-foot setback. Mr. Calthorpe said it was essential because of the parking. The building dimensions could probably be adjusted the four feet, but they had absolute dimensions for parking requirement. They had the full parking stipulation on site and placed more than 50 percent of the parking in garages so they were visually screened. The six-foot dimension was determined by the parking regulations which put it right at the edge. The six-foot setback was what the RM-1, RM-2 allowed in any case. Councilmember Patitucci said one of the problems with new con- struction was maintaining trees and foliage. He lived across the street from the Crescent Park School site and saw many trees developers tried to rave actually get cut down at the end of construction after structures were built around them. He asked if it was possible to build the project and maintain the trees. Mr. Calthorpe said yes, the essential redwood which was approxi- mately eight foot in diameter .at the base was extraordinary, and the design of the project focused on the particular tree Thn entry way was on axis with the tree, which happened to fall right at the property line between the two parcels and right on center. Councfliaember Patitucci appreciated the project was designed •round ` the tree bu.t asked if people with hammers and saws could work round it. 7 1 1 6 4/28/86 Mr. Cal thorpe said yes. The building cor;structi en was set back at least 14 feet from the particular tree, and the other significant tree was back to the rear corner with approximately a 14 -foot setback. With that kind of clearance there was no problem. Typically a construction fence was put up around a special object like the tree first thing. Diarmuid McGuire, 327 Waverley Street, was concerned families like his could not afford to live in Palo Alto. They were fortunate to have purchased their house several years ago. People they knew with children moved to Mountain View, Redwood City, or further away, so it was important to create affordable housing for people with low incomes and for families with children. It was a self- evident, good idea, but good ideas were not simple to achieve in Palo Alto. There was a thicket of good intentions expressed in various .programs in the Comprehensive Plan. Essentially, the programs created subsidies, not so much in terms of government subsidies but subsidies from private developers. The effect was to create housing for low- and moderate -income families at the expense of middle -income families. Developers took the cost- of the low-cost units out of the rest of the project which forced the price of the rest of the project up, and typically put as . little as possible into below -market -rate units. They believed it was possible to make market forces work to achieve the intentions expressed in the City Code and in the Comprehensive Plan. One way was to keep the size of the units small because it was clear the marketplace put a price on units directly related a the number of square feet in the unit. Artificial limits on the prices of. things and deed restrictions ultimately distorted the market. If a young family bought the unit wi th a price -deed restriction, they gave up the appreciation everyone else got for their house. When the time came to move elsewhere, they did not have the apprecia- tion or equity to move up. The units were essentially stepping stone homes for people to get into Palo Alto and as their families grew, they might move to larger homes. He realized the concept of BMR was engrained into the preconceptions of the whole process and there was no way it would happen without a BMR. They were only able to provide the BMR because of a new relationship with the owner of the property. The original philosophy still applied to the rest of the units. They were still oriented towards middle - income families and believed the best guarantee on the price of those units was their size and character in relation to all the other properties available in Palo Alto. There was support for the concept throughout Palo Alto frole people wh i wanted to live in the housing proposed and could not find it in Palo Alto. He believed the goal s of the Comprehensive Plan and the goals of pro- grams like Program 14 coul d be achieved although their application was not under the provisions of Program 14. He believed the pro- posed project was the best way to achieve the fundamental goals of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and vari ous; legislation. Councilrember Renzel asked about the difference in price between appreciation which might normally take place on a small three - bedroom, two -bath house, and a house selling at the prospective market price of $195,000 and $200,000. Mr. McGuire said property tended to appreciate in parallel. A 1,100 square -foot home would appreciate at about the same rate as a 3,000 square -foot hone but starting at a smaller base. He was concerned with an artifical deed restriction such as the one applied by the PAHC, people who bought the units might be stuck there because the rest of the market would go up unpredictably and they would not be able to catch ups Jim Baer, 532 Channing, believed the proposed project was a 'sheep in wolves clothing," Palo Alto needed affordable housing for elderly and affordable housing both rental and for ownership, for families with children. The first Planning Commission meeting focused on the definition of public benefit and whether something must be done beyond what was required from the zoning ordinance to achieve public benefit. 1 � The answer waS left uiirC fi veu but the notion was public benefit t was not doing more than the Architectural Review Board (ARB1 could impose or more than zoning required. It was whether the project was a positive contribution to the community which outweighed the detriments of a little more density. There was ea traffic problem. Without the cooperation of the present owners and financing arrangements, it would not be economically feasible to build a BMR unit. Notwithstanding the variance to provide a six-foot setback rather than a ten -foot setback; the day / 1 ght plane was less severe and made less intru- sion into adjacent neighbors' property than did others. Alan Marer, an attorney representing Iry and Joyce Fishman, under- stood approval of a PC required Council finding a substantial pub- lic benefit and compliance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan of which Program 14 was a part. The language of Program 14 addressed itself exclusively to Planned Community development zone changes. One statement in Program 14 read, "In return for receiving a greater number of units, the developer shall provide a mechanism to assure that the units gained will be affordable to low- and moderate -income households." He did not believe the foregoing language was discretionary to allow the Planning Commission or Council to apply or not apply Program 14 as it saw fit. Staff reports, dated January 25 and March 21, 1986, clearly stated Program 14 was applicable to the project and not complied with. The latest staff report, dated April 24, 1986, stated "Program 14, if applicable..." which suggested a completely dif- ferent view than ;the earlier reports. He saw no basis for an opinion of possibly nonapplicability of Program 14. The staff report stated it would probably be impractical to require compli- ance with Program 14 but stated no reasons. The question should be resolved. Regarding Program 9, staff believed the program was satisfied under the first of the four alternatives which was at least a 100 percent increase in the number of units with ten per- cent being BMR units. His copy of Program 9 contained a paragraph below the four alternatives, which seemed to say the first alter- native only applied if the applicant was not seeking a toning change. It did not seem the applicant could comply because he sought a zoning change by satisfying condition one. He believed it made sense because generally speaking if one did not request a zoning change, increase to the allowable density was not requested so the rear of the City's requirements was somewhat less. Those requirements were less than the second, third and fourth alterna- tives listed which seemed to be applicable if one sought a zoning change. He queried whether Program 9 was satisfied. Joyce Fishman, 1200 Harriet Street, was part owner of the house at 180 Emerson, immediately adjacent to 165 and 145 Hawthorne, and spoke on behalf of herself, Dr. and Mrs. Becks and Ms. Messepel l i , who were the most impacted by the project. During the two previ- ous Planning Commission hearings, many neighbors spoke against the change in zoning. The neighbors objected: to the PC and circulated a petition in the immediate neighborhood, which was submitted to the Planning Commission on t' arch 26, 1986, and subsequently lost. A zoning change to PC would allow improper high density in their neighborhood, would be detrimental and of no pvh11c benefit. Hawthorne Street was the first turn off from Alma avid when people wanted to get to the freeway or anywhere east, they usually turned down Hawthorne. The project would dispossess three families including several children and destroy four rental units replacing they with possibly one rental. At the time the developers talked about one rental unit and now there were none. Three families presently living in the four waits would be: displaced. The proj- ect would increase traffic problems on Hawthorne, aggravate noise problems and i ncr°esse parking problems because visitors to the PC units would be greater than present. If units were rented to students or other groups with more than two cars per unit, the parking problem would get worse. The problems were serious but none were adequately considered by the developer. There was no guarantee if the PC zoning change was made, any units built would i e 1 be sold to families with children or at what price the units would be offered or sold. It was not right to upzone Hawthorne while the City -considered downzoning on High Street because of traffic and parking problems which already spilled over to Hawthorne. The Zoning Administrator's decision graeeIng a variance from the usual ten -foot setback to six feet was wrong because it violated Palo Alto Mun4cipal Code Section 18.90,050 and would be "detrimental and injurious to nearby properties by causing deprivation of privacy and daylight." Granting the variance would allow devel- opers of other properties to seek to obtain the highest possible density i gnorni ng usual. needed and proper setback rules without any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances being present. Counciimember Patituccl said it looked like the side yard setback was adjacent to the rear yards of the properties and basically \faced garages. He asked if Ms. Fishman knew whether any faced a side yard along the side where the variance was granted. He asked about the previous project. Ms. Fishman said her rear yard was adjacent to the six-foot variance. With regard to the previous project, the neighbors tried to save the two houses they believed to be of historic significance. She took no position on the previous project. Vice Mayor Woolley sensed Ms. Fishman compared the present project to what was presently there. She asked if her desire was to see the status quo perpetuated. Ms. Fishman said if the developer desired to provide homes for people who could not afford the upper level homes, the Comprehensive plan said the best way to do so was to take old homes and refurbish them. There were presently four units which could be refurbished. One family who presently lived there would love to get a hold of Mrs. Noble's house and refurbish it. Vice Mayor Woolley understood if the project went forward under present zoning. the setback on the side yard next to Ms. Fishman's property would be six feet. She clarified the setback under the PC would oe the same as the setback under present zoning. Mr. Brown said yes. Richard Crewdspn, 438 Ventura, said he and his wife were trying to buy a house in Palo Alto. They both worked and had relatively high incomes. He liked Palo Alto, but housing was incredibly expensive. He favored any project which addressed the need for affordable housing. He resented anti -market schemes, like BMRs which only had the consequence of making a bad situation worse. Iry Fishman, 1200 Harriet, owned the house at 180 Emerson, and said the block of Al ma/Emerson/Hawthorne/Palo Alto was one of, the most densely populated blocks because of the PC at 101 Alma. Mot addressing the traffic and parking problems associated with a PC would only be exacerbated by the project. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, said next to the subject property was a ten -unit apartment complex and a five -unit complex on Emerson. Beyond that, the area was ba i cal ly single-family dwellings. The project represented a marked change in density and they were looking at a PC zone where they "had to show substantial public benefit." The question was whether the public benefit was sufficient to justify the PC ,.zone and override toe neighborhood objections._ He believed the existing duplex at 145 Hawthorne was visually large enough but provided a nice transition between the large ten -unit building and the other single family scaled buildings. He preferred to- see the existing units refurbished, and if the buildings at 145 Hawthorne could not be salvaged because of improper maintenance, small scale buildings such as the proposed project with below grade parking might provide _a better transition. 4/28/86 1 RECESS FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:45 p.m. MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, _con- ceptual approval of the propose PC zone change with the following findings, and refer the project design to the Architectural Review Board and Flemming Com*i ssi on for recommendation t0 Council: 1. The use proposed for the sits mine residential units) can only be accomplished or guaranteed through a PC zone district since RM-2 zoaing applied to the entire site would yield only eight waits, and _:RR -3 resold permit construction of up to eieven units; 2. De=e opment of the site under a Planned Community District will provide public benefits not otherwise attainable through application of general zoning districts in that the proposed project will provide units of a size suitable for families with children, will provide a three -bedroom BMR unit, and the units created will likely be priced in a range affordable to households of middle income; and 3. The proposed development is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Noosing Element Policy 7 and Prugraw 11 is that the project is designed to be attractive for family living and the size of the malts will result in prices affordable to middle income households. The project also complies with Program 9 in that a three -bedroom BMR unit is provided to compensate for the loss of existing rental units. Vice Mayor Woolley was pleased to see the project. She had long awaited the project as one of the co-authors of Program 14. The project did not exactly conform to the program but followed the spirit. Palo Alto was finally getting some family oriented housing --three bedrooms and play areas --and she believed 1,100 square feet was a reasonable accommodation for families. There was no guarantee there would not be students. .On the other hand, the units would not primarily be rentals so it was less likely ehey would be occupied by students. It was also unlikely singles would occupy the .units because there were not two master edroem suites with adjoining bathrooms as new condominium developments were being built. A chart in the March 23, 1986, staff report compared the project proposed a couple of years ago with the pres- ent proposal and the present proposal was clearly a smaller envelope with smaller site coverage, The project represented less visual bulk in the neighborhood. The City would receive a nice BMR unit which was rare because BMR units tended to be one -bedroom and one of the less desirable units in the project. In the sub- ject case, the BMR unit would be appropriate for families. It was far better the City actually got the unit .hen an in -lieu payment. The City would lose the four rentals. In terms of density, there were numbers ranging to 49 units to the acre at 101 Alma. She did not see an incompatibility. Downtown rezoning was related to commercial --not residential. Staff advised the new developments were not the ones which generated the on -street parking, but rather the older houses Which were divided into several units and adjacent commercial on Hawthorne. The only negative was the addi- tional traffic from the occupants of three more units, but she did nut believe it would be a significant detractor. On the other hand, : the public benefits of getting some units for entry level residents was significant. She appreciated the developers and the time they put into the difficult PC process. Councilmember Levy said ueless implied in the motion, he suggested the project include a B R i unit of three-bt-Arm ql5 , two -baths, as stipulated in the developer's letter of April 15 1486 . Mr, Brown said when the item returned to Council: and the Planning Commission, staff would hive a draft ordinance which included the provision. 7 1,1 9 4/28/86 NekEQ Amn SECO D OF NATION A4aEEn TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE THAT THL PROJECT INCLUDE A E-MRUNIT OF THREE -BEDROOMS, TWO -BATHS AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, that the price for mom-BNR units will average $195,000 or less. Councilmember Levy said the developer essentially agreed to the amendment. The developer believed his average figure would be in the range of $190,000 so raising the price to $195,00 was fair with some units higher and others lower. It was appropriate to ensure the units in that area were affordable to middle -income families. Vice Mayor Woolley understood the applicant was willing to talk about the price and wanted the chance to figure out some numbers, but she did not believe he was willing to commit that evening to firm figures. Or, Haimson believed they could live within the $190,000 to $200,000, but would not commie- to $195,000 if the figure should be $197,000. He appreciated discussion within the below $200,000 figure. Councilmember Sutorius clarified Dr. Haimson wanted to keep all the units below $200,000. Or. Haimson said jes. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the following , words were , accept- able: "...not to exceed $200,000." Dr. Haimson said yes. He clarified $200,000 was the opening sales price. Councilmember Levy clarified no unit wools sell for over $200,000. Dr. Haimson said that was correct. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, secoeded. by Renzel, the price for ham-ENR units will not exceed *2©0,000. Councilmember Patitucci was troubled by negotiating with the developer on such an issue whey: Council constantly expressed its desire to not be an ARB, Planning Commission, nor substitute for staff. It was wholly inappropriate. Councilmember Levy wanted to fix in writing the developer's stated intention. He did not want to hold the developer to something different because sometimes intentions slipped before the finished product. The amendment Dr, Haimson agreed to was that no unit would d sell for abo, a $200,000. He assueed the three -bedroom units would be at the $200,000 figure and the one -bedroom units would have to sell somewhat below $200,000. He asked if Dr. Haimson was comfortable. Dr. Haimson said yes. Councilmember Sutorius said when Council reviewed a PC•situation, it took on a Pl enni ng Cammi ssi o'n and ARS role. Therefore, it was appropriate for Council to get tato considerable .detail. Whenthe issue returned, Council would look at design inc different role. Regarding the price amendment, he usually did no. t favor Council getting into a pricing limitation. It was aiproached with mixed reactions i n the community --via the OMR program, and he was concerned when Council approached _the issue further through orice stipulations. He clarified the developer understood Council's intention, what it wanted to accomplish, and to what Council was willing to stipulate. It was satisfactory the units would not exceed *200,000 because it was proposed by the developer. 4/1830S Councilmember Bechtel asked if the matter went through any preliminary ARB approval. Mr. Brown said no. Councllmember Bechtel clarified sometimes during the ARB design appro*al process, the ARB ended up adding requirements which increased the costs beyond what a developer envisioned. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Bechtel asked if the applicant was aware of the risk. She commended him for agreeing to the amendment but asked if it was wise to do so prior to ARB and final Planning Commission approval, assuming Councfl approved the motion. She wanted to see the units stay under $200,000 but queried whether it was unreason- able to require it until final approval. Mr. Brown said Council might want to indicate a preferred unit price in the range discussed that evening return to the Planning Commission and Council after ARB action. Staff would work with the applicant along those lines. Mayor Cobb asked if Councilmembers Levy and Renzel would accept the following language: "To target a price for the non-BMR units that would not exceed $200,000." Council always had final approval since the project was a PC. Councilmember Levy said the issue would return to Council anyway, and he wanted its statement to be as strong as possible. If Council specifically stated $200,000, the issue could still return to Council. He asked if staff agreed. Mr. Brown said yes, staff would draft an ordinance based on many Council conditions indicated that evening. Councilmember Levy clarified Council could amend the ordinance if absolutely necessary. Mr, Brown said yes. Councilmember Levy preferred to leave the amendment as it was. Or. Haimson said if some extraordinary circumstance occurred as a function of the review process, he would appreciate an opportunity to reappear and present the situation for Council consideration. Mayor Cobb said the PC process permitted the opportunity. Councilmember Patftucci respectfully disagreed with Councllmember Sutorius and believed Council was setting a bad precedent. He asked staff if Council ever regulated the price of units not under the PAHC MR or moderate -income requirements. Mr. Schreiber said not to his knowledge. Councilmember Petitucc •. asked what mechanism staff saw •to ensure the process and whether a staff person would have to review every contract. Ir. Schreiber said staff would develop a mechanism satisfactory to the City Attorney's office and require information be submitted to staff. Councilmember Patitucct asked how much staff time was involved in monitoring the prices over an eight- or nine -month marketing period, Mr. Schreiber said the time for monitoring would probably not be notable unless they ran into a problem where one of the units went above the number. At that point it could become time intensive. Councilmember Patitucci asked the City Attorney what would happen if someone agreed to buy one of the units at higher than the set price, or in the ease of a double escrow, if someone bought the unit as the primary purchaser and' two months later resold it to the person who actually occupied it. He asked whether there was a way to check the process and monitor each transactio.i. City Attorney Diane Lee referred to the double escrow portion of Councilmember Pat ucci ' s question and did not believe it could be monitored: Councilmember Patltucci said such a situation could occur. Even though the developer had the intent, somebody else could gain a windfall as occurred during the period when housing prices rose rapidly throughout the area and people stood in line for develop- ments, bought them, and then resold them within a short period of time. If Council was getting into that issue, it was necessary to regulate on a longer -term basis than just the initial sale and deal with the mechanics of how to carry it out. He worked at the State level in programs which regulated the resale prices of housing after the State made below -market -rate loans, and it was not as simple as sitting as a Board controlling the price. In fact, it set in motion a range of incentives and motivations dif- ficult to monitor, difficult to manage, had high staff involve- ment, and legal complexities. They were setting an unhealth precedent for the City Council. He was surprised Councilmember Levy would recommend price regulation. He had problems with the substitute amendment and urged Council opposition pending further study. Councilthember Fletcher was concerned about the possibility of resales for profit, but since the developer believed in the market rate ,he would realize because of the small size of the homes, it was net as much of a danger. It was not a State program. Council was closer to it and the developer knew the City would be monitoring. The trusted the good faith of the developer to conform to the requirements put on the approval, SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED by a vete 5-3, Pati teccl , Woolley, Cobb voting 'no,' Klein absent. Councilmember Levy said since Council incorporated Item #9 with iteme #8 in the discussion and the Public Hearing, it was appropriate to al eo include it in the motion. It was an integral part of what was going on. Ms,. Lee said different findings were ,{'equired for each of the actions, therefore, the items needed to be considered separately .for motion purposes. Councilmember Renzel said as appealing as many aspects of the project appeared, basically Council was. increasing density to get some $209,000 housing units. She was not sure Council accom- pl fished much for the community byl doing so at the expense of the general-envinonment and the severe traffic problems. The bizarre housing market in Palo Alto gage Council a funnily perspective .on what was good and not good, and $200,000 did not seem cheap to her and was not necessarily cheaper_ than many Ei chl ers presently for tale in' -Palo Alto, which were also family housing. .She was not sure Increasing density -to increase the price of housing was a fundamental public benefit. nStre did not mean to _be an elitist, Net Palo Alto had a bizarre housing situation since nobody. -who bought there was poor. She was not sure it justified changing the quality ty of -life i f the net community benefit meant someone not as rich -as someone else was able to buy in. Count_ i lmemher Pats tuc_ ci said notwithstanding the price regulation, he supported the main motion He calculated if the 18,000 plus square feet were divided into three single-family lots and the maximum house built on those lots, there would be more floor area than proposed in the subject development. The maximum square footage in house, excluding garages, was approximately 12,000 square feet given 35 percent coverage and the various other restrictions on the single-family house. Even though there were a few more units, he did not see the development as being physically imposing on the area, and the' design ,preserved the trees and some of the qualities In the neighborhood. Secondly, 1,100 square feet, as Councilmember Renzel pointed out, was about the size of many of the Eichlers built in South Palo Alto. He lived in one 12 years ago, and 1,100 square feet was enough for a family of four with young children. Lastly, $200,000 houses were a net benefit to Palo Alto. He would not regulate them, but believed the prices would come out at that because of the size. When the average -priced housing was $300,000 to $400,000 and any of the new houses being built was outrageously priced, under $200,000 housing was a net benefit to the community, and people would welcome and embrace it. For those reasons, he supported the project. Councilmember Fletcher supported the project although usually she was , sensi ti rte to the density issue. Even the argument Council was downzoning Downtown was irrelevant because the proposal was to give extra bonus for multi -family hones in the neighborhood as well as the rest of Downtown. She was always sorry to see the loss of rental housing, especially the low --income variety, but the property was owned by a bank and there was no way it would be refurbished with the present size of the homes. The owner would want to make maximum profit from his property, so Council was likely to see more bulk on'the property than the particular proj- ect provided. She was pleased a project --the first of its kind under multi -housing under the 8MR housing --which made a special attempt to accommodate children. It was a pet project of hers after seeing The Redwoods which teas a big development without one inch of play area for children. Council had to hope there would be no parking problem... In terms of traffic, she was cognizant of dense housing and the amount of traffic it provided. She lived at The Greenhouse overlooking a parking area, and it was nothing like the traffic which came from an employment area because the traffic trickled out slowly over a period of three hours or more in the morning, aid in the evening was spread out even further. She was not convinced the project would add to the, traffic problem. It was a project worth having and on overall benefit -to the City. Councilmember Levy supported Vice Mayor Woolley and Councilmembers Fletcher and Pati tucci regarding why the project would be a benefit to the ccmmunity. He was more optimistic in terms , of rentals. Historically in Pa lb Alto, 40 percent of all condominiums became rental units. Therefore, he suspected Council would find two, three, or four units would become rentals in the subject development. Regarding positive benefits to Palo Alto he looked upon the lower building scale as being positive, and the family orientation was another part of the benefit. .The project was well designed and, overall, one to be endorsed. Mayor Cobb associated with the comments of Councilmember Fletcher and noted any kind of entry-level family housing under $200,000 was rare. The Eichler he lived in was worth over $200,000 as were most such houses. Although he voted against what Councilmember Pati tucci called "price controls," he was concerned the price be under $200,000, and his view of whether he would approve the PC would be influenced by the ''price. He recognized the project as presented met parking requirements, but those were marginal at best, Anything 'to improve the parkingsituation would make the PC more appealing. 7 1 2 3 4/28/86 .4; Councilmember Sutorius supported the project. He basically con- curred with the opinions expressed by Vice Mayor Woolley and Councilmembers Patituccf Fletcher, and Cobb. Commissioner McCown stated the ,PC was an opportunity to work with a creative and innovative project proposal where the philosophy; and standards.of the applicant were in keeping with important concepts of the Comprehensive Plan and he agreed. 'He liked the elevations, the use of the materials, but was concerned with the fenestration, the elevations of the A units, and understanding the roof line. there. The north and south elevations. were excellent;_ the east and west elevations gave bill 'concern, 'but could be _.elaborated when the developers worked with the ARB. NOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote •f 7-1, Renzel voting *no,* Klein absent. Mayor Cobb said Council was ready to deal with Item #9. NOTION; Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt Pinning Commission recommendation to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve a Variance 84-Y-1 for the location and construction of a condominie■ project having six-foot side yard setbacks where tee -foot setbacks wield otherwise be ragas red at 145-165 Hawthorne Avenue, subject to the following fiodidgst 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumsta*ces or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to poperty in the same district in that the :rezoning of the site,to,Planned Community (PC), will alter the 1 de setbacks from six to ten feet, which is different from all nearby parcels which are zoned for multiple family use; 2. Tha granting.of the application is necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant, aced to prsveet unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the expended side setbacks due to the PC rezoai ng would significantly reduce the width of the residential units,„ which would most likely force an elongation of the building walls along the side property; and 3. The granting of the appl i cats oee will net be detri mental ' or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed building design under the PC application ;has 63 feet along the eastere side property line, as compared with a building length of 73 feet ender * previously approved project designed ender the ex'i sti eg RN -1 and RN -2 districts with six-foot setbacks. The proposed building is also of lower height them the p.revf oetsly approved project. The additional four -foot side yard setback Normally rego.ired' in the PC district wool d be appropriate 1 n a project -with building mass in excess of that allowed by the RN -1 and RN -2 districts, Newever, the beildfag mass of the proposed -.design, despite to increase in allowable ` aai ts, it substantially less bean the previously approved project and that permitted under RM-1 and MM --2 xooing. Also, subject to the f•l lewieg c•aditio,st 1. leis appr•val shall only be valid upon rezoning of the site to Planned Community (PC) by the City Cou aci-l; and 2. The six -feet wide .l andscappd 'area between the lento. •rea sod the taster, property l i ns Shall be continues aced shall apt contain garhagq recepteeles Councileeember Renzel believed the increased density justified a greeter setback froee the physical building, but -:the buildings were smaller per than the aormAl zone perm tted, awed , the setbacks were: the, same -as the nor.al ,zone required. She, supported the variant even though she was concerned about the density of the project, 7 1 2 4. 4/28/86 MOTIOM PASSED Wwsn1SC!!ly3 Klein absent Mr. Brown noted the design review for the PC would be forwarded to the ARP for the May 15, 1986, meeting. MAYOR COBB RE COMPLETION OF AGENDA Mayor Cobb queried staff on completion of the agenda. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said staff ,preferred Council consider Items #10, Changes to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances; #11, 1986-87 Community Development Block Grant Program; #14, Report from Council Legislative Committee; #16, Proposed Changes to the Electric Rate Schedule E-2; and #17, Proposal for Birch and Ash Street Closures. Mayor Cobb suggested Council complete the agenda. RETURN TO AGENDA ITEM #10 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE CHANGES TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION .owIFWAt m (PLA 7-9) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber introduced Associate Planner Joanne Auerbach. Councilmember Renzel asked about the definition of an "atrium" and whether it needed to be fully surrounded by building to qualify. Ms. Auerbach said in the final ordinance staff specified an "atrium" be referred to as a "court" to conform with the defini- tion in the Uniform Building Code which said it must be surrounded by walls and open to the sky. Staff believed the definition would accommodate the largest number of situations which presently existed in the Eichler houses. Councilmember Renzel referred to a courtyard with three sides and one open side where the remaining lot coverage was used to build a fourth side and asked if the lot coverage be exceeded to cover the atrium. Ms. Auerbach said under Section I of the ordinance, the definition of "court" referred to a space open and unobstructed to the sky. located at or above grade on a lot and bounded on three. or more sides by walls or building. Mr. Brown said the "court" would need to exist in the above - described form prior to July 20, 1978, so one could not add on to create a third or fourth side and claim it was a court. Councilmember Renzel as if the burden of proof was on the appli- cant to show the situation existed prioK to 1978. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Renzel asked whether some of the energy considera- tions could be addressed by walling off some of the window space. Ms. Auerbach said the owner of an Eichler house investigated the energy considerations with the City's Conservation Services staff and found a tremendously higher cost to insulate the windows ver- sus covering the area with a roof. Councilmember Renzel referred to the residential estate Change of the cottage definition to conform to the City's other cottage rules, and asked if the City assumed there would only be one addi- tional cottage on any of the larger lots. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Renzel referred to the top of pale 8 of the stuff report (Ct1R:264:6), "Staff Recommended Solution,...allowing vertical additions...," and clarified it meant a second story. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Renzel clarified _ .the statement projections or encroachments should not apply to special setbacks meant they should not be permitted to encroach within those special set- backs. Ms. Auerbach said yes. Councilmember Renzel referred to the statement on page 12 of the staff report (CMR:264:6), "Any projections or encroachment per- mitted by the zoning ordinance should not apply to special set- backs," and clarified encroachments allowed things to encroach within setbacks. Ms. Auerbach said it was not the same situation as an encroachment permit. It was, for example, a projection of an existing building into a required yard area. Councilmember Renzel said a statement in the report indicated a stairway could encroach but not be above one-story and she asked if it referred to a stairway to a basement, Ms. Auerbach said it would be a stairway to a second story deck or balcony. Councilmember Renzel said if a stairway could not encroach above one floor, it would not make it to the second story. Ms. Auerbach said it would have to be within the required set- backs. The City's present ordinance allowed a second story stair- way from a second: story deck or balcony to encroach into a required yard. Councilmember Renzel referred to page 7 of the staff report (CMR:264:6), "Horizontal Extensions of Existing Side Yard Encroachments" and the need to apply an eight -foot setback in the R-1(743) zone. She asked if it was such a serious problem it needed to be addressed in a general zoning ordinance fashion rather than the variance procedure. Mr. Brown said it was difficult to say how great a problem it was because when the Building Inspection Division administered the zoning ordinances it allowed the five-foot encroachment for the larger lots in R-1 zones as a matter of interpretation. When the Planning Department took over the interpretation functions, staff did not believe the ordinance was specific enough. It was diffi- cult to judge how many cases arose, but staff believed what was good for the R-1 district might be equally applicable to the larger lots where existing structures were built with five-foot setbacks. and there should be an alllowance fur some extension. Commissioner Christensen referred to Section 7B. 'Extension of the Maim Building into the Rear Yard." Three Commissioners believed prohibiting projections into rear setback was an important protec- tion for the neighbors and allowing encroachments to within 14 feet in the rear setback, pertacul arty at the second story, ren- dered the 20 -foot rear setback almost meaningless. _ Those who opposed the staff recommendation were concerned about limiting the development potential on small lots in the Downtown North area and that a tightening of the regulations might have unintended conse- quences and decrease the flexibility of certain homeowners. 7 1 2 6 4/28/86 Councilmember Levy referred to the RE and OS zones and clarified the change still permitted pool houses or dressing rooms to be built. Mr. Brown said yes. If the units did not have kitchens, they would be permissible as accessory buildings. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Thomas J. Gracon, 747 Holly Cak Drive, spoke regarding the City's. energy programs specifically related to the solar hot water heating systems and support programs. An energy audit of their Eichler home concluded the major heat loss was through the 1,000 square feet of window. Windows had an R-1 rating: which meant each pane was the equivalent of leaving at least one square foot of window open. Representatives of the City's Energy Department said over half the square footage were the three plus walls which circled the interior atrium, and by putting some kind of roofing structure over the atrium, they became internal walls not external exposures and essentially went to the highest R" rating. If done with appropriate solar panels, the entire atrium became a passive solar collector which added to the heating of the house. Their lot was built to the maximum in terms of the footprint and a vari- ance was necessary, but energy conservation, their main motivation for the activity, was not an acceptable justification to apply for a variance. The City had a major program which encouraged optimal energy efficiency by covering an atrium while another part of the code prohibited the activity because energy savings was not a per- missible basis for a variance. Stanley Parry, 1157 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding Item. 7B, Extensions of the Main Building into the Rear Yard,, In the spring of 1984, Mr. Brown told the Planning Commission the section only applied to first floors, but when he received his building permit, Mr. Herman said it applied to second stories a multitude of times but mentioned no negative comments. the zoning ordinance and variance procedure were amended many times in a piecemeal fashion and the procedure was complicated and difficult to get through. With the number of second stories and modifications in Palo Alto it was time for the Planning Commission or a committee to look at the entire procedure and the way in which decisions were made. Presently, the prscedti 'e •pol ar.i zed the community. He urged Council to follow the Planning Commission recommendation and retain the section of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Chri stensen' s comments were "new construction could go into the 20 -foot rear yard setback," and a compromise might be to not apply it to new construction. Re recommended Council refer the i s sue back to the Planning Commission. He showed three slides to pro- vide an overview of what it could .mean to have a second story projection Into the rear yard. John Vaught, 1549 Channi.ng Avenue, spoke regarding projections into rear yards and balconies in general. He owned a home at 3072 Price Court, and currently a three-story condominium was being constructed at 3065 Middlefield Road, which was 40 feet above the Stern and Price Court nei ghbcrhood grade. Surrounding neighbor- hood homes were ten feet above grade as measured to their rooftop heights. The second story .balcony and the privacy problems were_. a major issue. A balcony towering over a neighborhood completely destroyed the rear yard, living room and bedeoom privacy of three hoes, as well as the front yard and dining room privacy of two others. He pointed ,out four other units in the same project with identical floor plans, _ but which faced other buildings in the project, would create a privacy problem but were designed with no balconies. Palo Alto residents were "being deprived of their pri- vacy and property values. Adjacent single family property owners deserved better. Mayor Cobb declared thepublic hearing closed. 7 1 2 7 4/28/86 Mayor Cobb said essentially the staff and Planning Commission recommendations were the same with the exception of Item #1, Projections Into Yards. He suggested Council trcat the item like a Consent Calendar and only deal with any exceptions to the larger set of recommendations. - MOTION: Courcllmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the Plaenlag Commission recommendations finding that the proposed ordi Hance ,changes will not hove a significant environ- mental impact and approve the changes contained in the ordinance, except that staff recommendation be adopted instead of the Planning Commission recommendation for Item 7(B). Further, that Item 2, Calculation of Daylight Plane, be referred back to the Pl aini ng Commission for reconsideration. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE CAL OF TAE CITY Or PALO ALTO ANENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) AND 'TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISION CODE) REGARDING DEFINITION OF LOT COVERAGE, COTTAGES IN THE RE AND OS ZONES, INTERIOR SIDE YARDS AND _VERTICAL ADDITIONS IN THE 1-1 ZONE, PROJECTIONS INTO YARDS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SETBACKS IN PC DISTRICTS, NONCOMPLYING FACILITIES, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS' Countllmember Sutori us clarified the motion should also differ from the Planning Commission recommendation in that staff recom- mended the daylight plane calculation be withdrawn and recon- sidered because of a complication. He supported the motion with the exception of Item 7(B), and in that regard, he agreed with the najority of the Planning Commission.. He requested Item 7(B) be sAlla444a4 for purposes of voting. Regarding horizontal extensions of eXi sti ng side yard encroachments, he preferred it be three feet because it was the distance of his garage was from the property line. Councilmember Fletcher referred to Item 7(B) and said the intent of the setbacks was to protect the privacy of the neighbors. Protrusions originally did not include humans, and in the case of small lots where there might be a hardship, there could be a vari ance and the burden of proof it did not invade the p} i vacy of the neighbors should be on the developer. Neighbors should not have to put up with encroachments into their privacy. She supported the staff recommendation because there was a way out in those unusual situations where the protrusion would not be harmful to the neighbor. Counci l member Renzel said some second story encroachments relied extensively on the neighbor's lmndscaping as a buffer because there was no sunny space to grow any buffering landscaping on the remaining property on the house with the overhang. The City's zoning ordinance was designed to make each property handle its: own problems on i t 3 _ own site. To take advantage of another neighbor's setback was not fair. Staff made a good recommendation. She asked about the daylight plane issue. Mr. Brown said the daylight plane issue referred to measurement on properties where a grade differed at the common property line. Staff wanted to return it to the Planning Commission to include a perspective from the building inspectors. Mayor Cobb clarified;; the motion included the findings. - ITEM 7(3) TO BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY - FIRST FART OF NOTION EXCLUDING ITEM 7(1) PASSED uaaaimessly, Klein absent. Councilmereber Sutorlus clarified a "yes" vote supported the staff recommendation and a "no" vote was for the Planning Commission recommendation: i/8%81 SECOND :BART OF MOTION QFGARnIM6 ITEM 7(B) PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Setorius voting 'rev,' Klein absent. ITEM #11, PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTING 1986-87 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 1 ROGAAM (VLA 2-1) UMR:25$:6) Chairperson Sutorius for the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee said citizens did an excellent job reviewing the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for fiscal year 1986-87, and together with staff presented recommendations to the F&PW Committee essentially common between staff recoMaendatibns and the Citizen's' Advisory Committee. The significant difference was with the Housing Improveient Program and Rental Housi rig Acquisition Programs. MOTION: Corncilmeober Svtorins for the Fi once and Ratblic- Works Committee moved approval of the Citizens' Advisory CoMai ttee recommendations Items 1-18 of staff report (CNR:204:6), and to direct staff , to w rk with thy- Citizens' Advisory Committee to con- duct a comprehensive analysis of the Mousing Improvement Program and its implications and report back to the Finance end Public Works Coamitee. Further, that Item 6, page S, of the .March 13, 1986 staff report (CNt&204:6) be reworded to read "owe space could be set aside for a .resident of Palo Alto ea a priority basis.* In addition to the recommendations of the Finance and Public Works Committee, adopt staff recommendatioe to approve the following items: 1. The resolution establishing feeding allocations for the 1386-87 CDB8 Program, as recommended by FUN, authorizing staff is submit the appropriate application document to HUD; goo 2. That notice of additional CDBG funding by HUD for 1986-87 Fiscal Tear shall be referred to the Citizens/ Advisory Committee for recommendations to Connc i l . RESOLUTION 6510 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Tf CITT OT FALL) ALTO APPROVING THE USE OF 1986-87 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i€LOCN GRANT FUNDS' Councilaember Levy was pleased with the job done, particularly "given the significant reduction in the funds likely to be avail- able. He was troubled there was no reduction in the administration costs either for City staff or the Housing Corporation staff. He understood the need for the costs but con- ceptually. was troubled there was less money all around yet the administration costs stayed the sane. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the time it took to a dmi ni Ster the program was substantially the same whether they were dealing with a $600,000 budget or a $400,000 budget. The Citizens' Advisory Committee recommendations were consistent with staff's. Councilmember Levy asked whether staff considered a simplified use of COBG funds so more of the money could be directly put to work and the cost of administration reduced. Mr. Schreiber said HUD did not have simplified administrative pro- cedures, and compliance with the federal requirements, monitoring and reporting, were an ongoing weekly and monthly affair which was what drove up administration costs. Mayor Cobb declared the, publ it hearing Open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. POTION PASSED eallimmuslY, ltldlr1 •bseat- ITEM #12, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE Rei IREO CITY EMPLOYEETi K AlT} ',LAN (PL ! Z -b) Chairman Sutorfus of the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee said retired employees were concerned about increasing financial impacts for many years. The F&PW Committee believed staff's response to the provisioning of health care.for retired employees was appropriate. Director of Personnel Jay Rounds was available for questions. NOTION: Councilmember Sutorlus for the Finance ari4 Public Works '-Committee moved, that Council adopt the staff recommendation to install the rate structure indicated in the Proposed' column of Exhibit 1 of the staff report (CNR:201:6) for the Reti rad City Employee's Health Plan and Premium ReimbursementPian, effective July 1, 1986. Also, that staff prepare for Council - approval a Medicare supplement Plan to become effective July 1, 1987. The increased annual cost of the proposed rate stricture is estimated at 165,684, the funding of which will be _provided 1a the FY 1986-87 budget. Councilmember. Renzel said it appeared the City had about 262 retired employees under the two kinds of reimbursement plans. She asked if the number of retired employees was stable or whether there was a trend toward more retired employees over the past ten years. Director of Personnel Jay Mounds said the tread was toward more retired employees over the past ten years. In 1973, the City had 73 retired employees under one of the .two reimbursement plans. By 1981, the number rose to 128. Staff did not expect the current number to rise much beyond where it currently was. Only as people lived longer did staff expect the number to rise. Councilmember Renzel clarified there would not be, a major shift such as was seen in the previous decade. Mr. Rounds said no. Mayor Cobb clarified the retired employees supported the changes, Mr. Rounds said yes. Councilmemher. Levy asked, about the historical subsidy in 1978 as compared to what it was currently. Mr. Rounds said the subsidy in 1978 amounted to just under 1100,000. By 1981, the subsidy was 1254,000; and the current sub- sidy, including the reimbursement plan, was 1513,000. Councilmember Levy clarified the subsidy went up five times in eight years. Mr. Rounds said yes, but it represented maturing of the group who participated as well as inflation under the. plan. Councilmember Levy asked if staff projected the City's obligations i n five or six years given the number of people retiring, getting ready to retire, etc. Mr. Rounds said no. Age limitations on -eti rement age were removed by the federal 9oYernment so the City was starting to see a trend of people working longer. Medicare went into play for new employees as of April 1, and the City would be into a Medicare supplement mode which would reduce costs. The City was about to introduce cost containment measures and believed costs would be reduced by the amount of inflationary increase experienced over the past few years. In the near term, he costs would stabilize. 7 1 3 0 4/28/86 Councilmember Levy referred to families where two people were employed. When two people retired, they had the choice of using the City's coverage or the other party's coverage. He asked if the City provided some sort of incentive so people. were more likely to use the City's coverage -or the coverage of the other party. Mr. Rounds said the only incentive the City offered was a reim- bursement to buy the other party's plan. If retirees had another plan available subsidized by another employer, it was to their advantage to take that coverage and the City's subsidy which helped buy that other coverage. The City prided itself in building up a good medical plan for the retirees, so that was an incentive to go with the City's plan rather than some other plan.. Councilmember Pati tucci supported: the issue .but believed they had a. difficult. long-term problem. The Aelan cast the City approxi- mately $90 per employee per month and $178 per retiree per month, so the current employees and the aggregate rate of $110 Were sub- sidizing the retirees to a large amount. The ratio of retirees to existing employees would continue to increase. The City wanted people to live longer and their health program encouraged that. Council might consider sending a message --probably in the budget process --that there were limits to which the City could continue to deal with 60 and 70 percent increases in costs of such a program every two years. Basically, that commitment was open- ended. Council might want to consider the total dollar amount they were willing to spend on retirees and a different way of allocating that amount than the flat type of program equivalent to that of existing employees. The issue was a tough one, but costs which went up. five times were unacceptable during a period in which inflation averaged approximately five to six percent. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out the increase in medical costs was universal. All health plans were confronted with the problem, especially public agencies with retirement plans. There was nothing unique about the :situation in Palo Alto. Although they could wish otherwise, she saw no way out. Councilmember Levy appreciated Councilmember Patitucci's comments and believed the area needed to be carefully addressed, but the City had an obligation to its retirees to continue to provide them with medical care. It would be a crime if retirees were left to drift in that regard. Councilmember Patitucci was correct that people would stay alive longer, and the cost of medical care went up as one aged and, in addition, the sophistication of medical care was such the -cost would continue to increase faster than other elements of the cost of living. However, it was morally the right thing -for : the City to continue to provide medical care to its retirees. He asked that staff be sensl ti ve to -the realities of. who the reti reel, were at there would be more situations where the spouse of the retiree also worked or had access . to coverage. Coverage should be tuned more to that reality so the City was not merely subsidizing the retirees but also providing the retirees with an incentive to bring spouses to the City's plan rather keep the spouses with their own plan. Fir. Rounds appreciated the concerns expressed by Councilmembers but noted two important factors that amel ,orated the probl e . One was the advent of Medicare for public employees, which was man- dated and would cost the City 1.45 percent of payroll and would cost the employees a like amount. That meant the City would pro- vide Medicare supplements in the future and not furl coverage. The cost. of Medicare supplements was approximately half the cost of total ccverageo :That coupled with the City's cost -containment efforts, should help in terms of the concerns Council had about the cost of the plan. 1 7 1 3 1 4/28/80 MOTION PASSED raanfmously, Klein absent. ITEM f13, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE S (UTl fl MR:20:6) Chairman Sutorius of the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee said staff negotiated a contract with the designated firm of Economic & Engineering Services to perform utilities cost of ser- vice rate studies at an amount not to exceed $58,000 for items budgeted at a total of, $60,000 out of the FY 1984-85 and FY 1985.86 budgets. MOTION: Councilmsmber Srtorlms moved, seconded by Bechtel, to direct staff, re Utilities Cost of .Service Rate Studies - Csnsel ta.t Selection, to proceed with"\, negotiations with the first -inked firm, Economic and Engineering Services, and to nego- tiate with the second -ranked consultant. Price Waterkoese, shoal d it fail to reach an agreement with the first -ranked consultant. AGREEMENT - UTILITY AND RATE STUDIES COK ''LITER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE Economic & Engineering Services, Inc. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. ITEM ;,14, REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (LEG _ 4-2) TC4R:26&:6T NOTION: Corucllaeesber Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the recommendations fro■ tie Council Legislative Committee: 1. Oppose NR 4089 (Lehman) which is detrimental to the Notch Wetcky system and Palo Alto°s feture water supply, and direct the Mayer to convey that opposition to gar representatives in Congress; 2. Adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 46 which 'mold restore general obligation bond authority to local voters; 3. Adopt a resolution in support of Preposition 47 which 'mid guarantee the vehicle license fee as a local government revenue . source; 4. Adopt a resolution in support of Preposition 49 which would restore the spirit of nompartisenshlp to nonpartisan local electlees; 5. Adopt a resolution reaffirming its support for Proposition 51 which mould reform .the 'deep pockets' law; and 4, EncomOile the Corecileeee;bers, iendsvidealiy, to participate actinkliy i e providing i nfer.atioa to ci ti ens and community groups on the si gni ficasce of Preposi ti men 644. 47. 49, and 51 to loCal got*,.aunt. RESOLUTION 6841 entitled *RESOLUTION OF . THE COUNCIL ' OF ALTO= SUPPORTIMO PROPOSITION 10. 44 RESTORATION OF GENERAL WIOATION BOND AUT$ORITT TO TOE 'VOTERS" RESOLUTION 6512 ENTITLED 'RES _ ION OF THE COUNCIL OF EO ALIQ SUPPORT C PROPOSITION Rua 41: GUARANTEEING THE YENICLE LIC NSE FEE AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SOURCE' RESO -UT$ N 6513 ENTITLED `RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Tree ;ITV Ui )ALN ALTO SUPPORTING PROPOSITION NO.' 49: NONPAAT I SAN ELECTIONS* 4/1s,$): wick coral= RESOLUTION 6514 ENTITLED ngESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP PALO ALTO ENDORSING PROPOSITION NO. 51: THE FAIR RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1986° Councilmember Renzel asked that No. 1 be divided out because she did not agree with that recommendation. ITEM 1 DIVIDED OUT FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING. Mayor Cobb said the previous week he, along with the Mayor of Sunnyvale, presented the position of the Legislative Committee to the editorial board and the publisher of the Times Tribune. Councilmember Levy referred to Proposition 49, and said the fourth "Whereas" in the resolution singled out judges and appeared to slight school, county, and city officials. AMENDMENT: Coeocllmember\Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, to add to the fourth WNEREAS,' °and school, county, and city officials" aftdr the word judges. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. Councilmember Levy asked that Proposition 49 be divided out. He opposed Proposition 49 because it did not change the character of the elections which would still be nonpartisan. On the ballot there would not be party affiliation listed. The Proposition simply gave parties the right to endorse officials who were running. For those parties to endorse offir_iele wee almost self- destructive. When he first ran for City Council in Palo Alto, the Democratic party held an endorsement meeting, and the indi- vidual who got their highest vote;: was a Republican which led to confusion and backtracking on the- part of the Demo+ratic party. He recalled only one of the people endorsed ,did well in the election. On the other hand, if parties wished to use their free- dom of speech to get in the nonpartisan election business,;. that was the essence of the system. in the interest of free speecn, he believed Proposition 49 should not be endorsed and political parties should be allowed to go their own way. Councilmember Bechtel supported nonpartisanship at the local level. While some central committees had prohibitions against involvement at the local level, some groups became involved which she believed was something that was not part of the local system. She therefore supported Proposition 49 and encouraged her col- leagues to du so. Councilmember Fletcher reminded Council they voted to oppose partisan elections. She also felt strongly about the issue. At the local level the issues were basically nonpartisan. In the past, the most progressive on the Council were Republicans and, conversely, some of the most conservative were Democrats, and at other times not. She believed the issue had nothing to do with the political parties to which they belonged., and local :elections should be based on local issues. RESOLUTION RE PROPOSITION 49 DIVIDED OUT FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING. MOTION AE :TNE LEGISLATIVE COMNITTEE'S RECOMMEMOATIOI OF SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION 46, 47, and E1 Pit TNE JUNE $ALLOT;:PASSED unanimously, Kldfa absent. NOTION AS WOW RE PROPA$ITION 49 PASSED by a vets •f 7-1, Lowy; voti•, 'iW.tleia absent. Councilmember Ren_eel said in regard to Item 1, consistent with concerns she expressed on a regular basis about Council exporting their environmental problems to .distant parts, while she did not object to the inclusion in their water plan to a second pipeline from Hetch Hetchy, she objected to Council's opposing an act to protect national parks and monuments because they wanted to raise the dam at Hetch Hetchy, For that reason, she opposed that posi- tion of the Council on Item #1. \ Human encroachments on natural features throughout the United States were devastating. The bur- den of the uphill battle should be on those who wished to encroach rather than those who wished to protect those precious places. Councilmember Patitucci agreed with Councilmember Renzel on the question of expanding the dams at Hetch Hetchy and taking up more of the canyon for water use. However, the item was not a question of whether or not the environment would be affected, but the pro- cess by which decisions would be made. The proposed legislation had Congress in the decision, which was a dangerous precedent. He believed the processs without political involvement would better protect the environment in that instance. He supported the motion. Councilmember Bechtel concurred with Councilmember Renzel. Councilmember Fletcher mentioned the matter was discussed in some detail at the Legislative Committee, and the vote was unanimous based on the arguments --some of which were presented by Councilmember Patitucci. The permitting proposal which was a periodic, regular permit system would increase costs to consumers, and the Committee believed the bill as written was not of benefit to Palo Alto and not overly harmful to the environment. Councilmember Levy concurred with Councilmembers Renzel and Bechtel and also believed that, except for Hetch Hetchy, the measure did not directly affect the City of Palo Alto. Although he felt very strongly about it as an American citizen, consonant with his personal beliefs. Council should not be involved except with regard to Hetch Hetchy. SUBSTITUTE MOT ION: Co aci l member Lowy moved, that Council go on record with regard to HR 4089 to recomm ►nd no change rti►.gardi ig the approval process for changes regarding the Hetch Hetchy project. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. NOTION RE MR 4B89 PASSED by a vote of 5-3. Bechtel, Levy, Renzel voting "no," Klein absent. Councilmember Bechtel asked that the fact the vote was not unani- mous be indicated in any letter the Mayor signed conveying the Council's position. She hoped policy was to state the vote on all such letters. Mayor Cobb said he would ensure that was done. ITEM #15, ORDINANCE RE PROHIBITION OF SKATEBOARDS IN CITY -OWNED P RK''C LOTS (LEG 5) (CMR:257:6) Mayor Cobb asked how the City .would penalize the teenagers caught raiding their skateboards. Captain Bruce Cursing said the offenders would either be warned, issued a citation, or given a small fine. Tice Mayor Woolley asked if the change meant additional signage. Captain. Cumming believed the change could be shade without addi- tional signing. 7 1 3 4 4/28/86 MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolsey moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the ordinance to prohibit skateboard use in City-ownad or controlled parking facilities. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL -1r THE CITI Or PKLO ALTO AMENDING PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.64.240 TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF SKATEBOARDS IN CITY OF PALO ALTO PARKING FACILITIES* Counci lmember Renzel said, since the natter appeared to be a cur- rent problem and they had no effective date on the existing ordi- nance, was there any point in treating the issue on an emergency basis, City Attorney Diane Lee did not believe the issue was one where Council could make the findings to pass it on an emergency basis. Councilmember Renzel asked whether it was so even though someone could break a neck the next day. Ms. Lee said that situation had been going on for a considerable time. The fact that Council was only now dealing with the matter mitigated against the fact it was an emergency. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. ITEM #15-A, (OLD ITEM #6), AMENDMENT TO CODE RE ORAL rATRUNICATIONS (COIF 3--5/COO-Ti -- Counciimember Renzel said Section 2.04.050 (2a) "If more than six persons indicated they wished to speak to Oral Communications, the Mayor should divide the cards by subject and randomly select one speaker on _4 -eh subject as indicated until the 30 -minute period was exhausted," was ambiguous. She asked if that meant if there were five speakers on one subject and one speaker on the other subject that only two would be al P owed to speak or whether every- body would be allowed to speak, City Attorney Diane Lee said the intention of the section was to indicate there could be varying subjects and, until one person on each subject had an opportunity to speak, no one would be heard frois On a similar subject, Counci l ember Renzel clarified there was no ambiguity with respect to the fact that, e.g., if there were only; two subjects, the ,full 30 minutes could still be used by people on the subject. She :hypothesized f.f there were 19 subjects19 or more people Wishing to speak_- subjects would also be randomly selected. ls. Lee sal -d yes,: Herb Borock, 2731 Byron. Street, was surprised the subject was before Council for discussion and believed it occurred because Council typically tried to write a general ordinance -when faced. with a specific problem. He understood the issue arose because: there were a lot of speakers before Council on the issue of Sanctuary. What, distinguished that subject from other issues before Council on Oral Coa unicatlons was, first, the speekers came_ before Council at many .aaeetings rather than .just one, He looked at Oral.: Conraunications for over a year, and recently there were :ten speakers' on 8orOnda Lake at one meeting; but they had not returned, and nobody suggested Council change the procedures for Oral Communications. Another difference -was Council's unwilling nest to agendire the particular subject. , When a _number of speakers went to Council on the Winter Lodge or problems in var1.: ous parts of the community, -Council was willing to agendize the topic. Third, many people Were _interested in -the issue of Sanctuary. . Harvey Roth spoke during Oral Communications at four. Out of the past five 10eetings -end was the Only .speaker at two -` 7 1, 3 '5 4/28/86 1 other meetings that year, but nobody suggested agendizing changing Oral Communications because Dr. Roth went to Council on the same subject for so many meetings. Ir. fact, under the proposed proce- dure Dr. Roth could speak at every meeting if he wanted to. Finally, he believed there already was something in Council's procedures to take care of that issue. In the Code, Section 2.04.130(b) Spokesperson for a group of persons, said when any group persons who wished to address the Council on the same sub- ject cotter, it should be proper for the presiding officer to request a spokesperson be chosen for the group to address the Council. He believed that should have happened with the Sanctuary issue on March 24, 1966. He understood two weeks previously the Mayor informed the group only four people would be allowed to repre4ent the group. He was surprised when another Councilmember made a motion which put the matter in a confrontational situation, with seven cards from the pro side and one from the anti side, trying to limit the group to four speakers. If Council tried to use the existing section of the Code, two problems would arise: first, people who wanted to speak might claim not to be a group and it would be difficult to chose a spokesperson for all of them; second, that application of the Code could be arbitrary, depending on who was Mayor. Since there was already a provision for spokes- persons for groups, he urged Council to consider applying that provision in the case causing so much difficulty. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, sympathized with Council's frustration at being approached repeatedly on the same issue when Council had spoken loudly and clearly it would not agendize the issue. People were not listening and clogging the system. That was the way democracy worked: Everyone could be annoyed, but people had a right to speak under the First Amendment. Council was going after a flea with a cannon and leaving Council, particularly the Mayor, an unnecessary amount of discretion and allowing the issues to be fuzzed. For example, what if three people wanted to speak on a similar issue but worded the topic in such a way the Mayor decided they were three different topics. Would Council feel they had been "had" that people had not been honest in presenting their subjects, or that the Mayor was less than diligent in separating out the subjects. In either case, Council was creating an unnecessary conflict. The issue was temporary and would go away, but the ordinance would be around for a long time. That was not the first time tt,e Oral Communications issue was changed. Several years ago it was standard policy for Council to hear Oral Communications both at the beginning and the end of the meeting. On occasion people stayed until late and spoke at the end. After a number; ;of months when almost nobody spoke at the end of the meeting, one o.f the Councilmesabers: suggested dropping that from the procedure. Council could intelligently address the issue by deleting the proposed Section 2.04.060(2a) which referred to how Council handled more than six people speaking on various topics and return to allowing people who could not speak within the earlier time limit to speak at the end of the _meeting. The 30 -minute time limit and five minutes per speaker was a realistic coapromise considering the circumstances. NOTION; Csaac i 1 member Leery sired, seconded by D,cktel . to adept time ordinance. OROINAIKE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE C$ I OT TIT CITY IT )ALO - ALTO AIIEDDYMC °SECT)*a 2.04. S(.) UNITING ORALCOMMRRICI T1OMS AT THE BEGINNING OF TNE-NVETIN6 TO A TOTAL OF THIRTY 01111 TES., Councilmember Levy was sorry Council was attacked for a generous procedure regarding Oral Communications. To go before the City Council to speak on any subject that one wished was not a First Amendment_ right. The Congress of ` the United States, did not have Oral CAa muni cations, The City Council wanted, to hear . from their constituents. Constituents could write and telephone Council, and did so, but some felt mere comfortable going before Council in 7 , 1 3 6 4/28/86. person. The process could be abused. Council was not curtailing Aral Communications which would continue as an open-ended proce- dure under the ordinance. The essential difference was Oral Communications would be limited to 30 minutes and would continue at the close of the meeting for an unlimited time. The problem was should people be given that right at the beginning or the end of the meeting., Heretofore, Council made the right alai l ab.l a at the beginning because that was easier for people; however, it was also the time when members of the public liked to see the City's business being done. Many people went to the Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. and wished to speake,or hear what was occurring -on agendized items. Council owed the greater commitment to those members of the public. and the formal agendized items. It was appropriate for Council to limit itself to a half-hour at the beginning of the Council meeting for Oral Communications, then move on to the regular agenda. Council rarely heard from the public for more than a half hour, so the new ordinance would only go into effect on rare occasions, but on those occasions when the process was overloaded, Council needed an orderly system for taking care of the issue. The change was by no means muzzling the public, nor aimed at one issue, but aimed at making the process orderly. Councilmember Fletcher gave the proposed ordinance a lot of thought and had two problems: One was Council advertised Oral Communications at 7:30 p.m. and people could, because of time con- straints, tye told after waiting thirty minutes, they had to wait another four or five hours. She did not want to impose that on members of the public. On a controversial item, there might be more than one viewpoint to be expressed and, if Council selected one or two speakers at random, they might not get a sample of both sides of the story. She recalled attending a Council meeting in Menlo Park when a large number of people wished to speak on a particular item, the Mayor said a certain number of people could speak on the pr.o side and a like number on the other side. The groups chose their representatives and then debate was cut off. She believed that was a fairer way to handle the matter and still be within the half-hour constraint. SUBSTITUTE NOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, that .staff be directed to return to Council a change in tie. Ceummmci l procedures for Oral Communications to permit the l owi mag: In the event a large group wishes to address the 'hollowing: under Oral Commrtuaications on the same tepic, the Mayer be given the aothori ty to ask the group to choose a specified number of speakers to represent the others, cad to solicit a like number of speakers who may wish to offer amw opposing viewpoint. Councilmember Fletcher believed the substitute motion was a fairer procedure and took care of the problem of limiting the time if many speakers would take up an inordinate amount of Council's time. Mayor Cobb asked if a group with a larger number of speakers-, plus the normal Oral Communications, would be exempted from the proce- dure. Councilmember Fletcher said that was why she did not put in a specified number of people that .should be asked to speak on the big topic, because: the Mayorwouldhave be se --him the cards with the subject matter, and could determine how Auch time there .was to hear all the topics. If -there wereonly speakers on one issue, the Mayor could choose to hear more. If there were five Other topics, the -Mayor could say only onespeaker froM each Bide. She hoped there would be no more than six _topics in one. evening. Councilmember Bechtel said much as she :agreed with; Councilnmemm,ber- F1etcher,.with -regard_ to hearing oppo*ing viewpoints, Council would not know if a large crowd of -people was an organized or unorga- nized group who came to speak on a particular subject.- When asked 7 1 3 7 4/28/86 to choose a spoke ;person, the people might not even know each other. She understood tho concept, and could see the substitute motion would work more appropriately on a residential building project; or the Evergreen Park traffic barriers, but would oppose the substitute motion and support the main motion. There was no reason to limit Oral Communications to six people if people spoke for shorter periods of time. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Bechtel people who went under Oral Communications often did not know each other and would not know how to select a spokesperson. She opposed the substitute and the main motion, which she believed had a chilling effect on public participation and was specifically designed to respond to one particular difficult political problem for some Council members. Mayor Cobb favored some sort of limitation on Oral Communications because of his growing frustration with the filibuster which Council faced over the past several weeks; however, he had a lot of respect for the basic idea of Oral Communcations and was troubled with the idea of a limitation. The substitute motion was an interesting effort and tempted him, but he preferred noted on the agendas, as part of the public process, Council at any time reserved the right to limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes and could take that action on any night. Vice Mayor Woolley asked Councilmember Fletcher if she would con- sider using the present ordinance before Council but asking staff to return with wording substituting what was said about large groups for the (a) section. Essentially, the difference was Oral Communications'wovld be limited —to 30 minutes at the beginning and allow people who had no opportunity to speak at the end. instead of going through the very specific process of choosing speakers, Council would use Councilmember Fletcher's system for a large group. City Attorney Diane Lee said she read Section 2.04.1:0 and essen- tially believed the 'layor had the power to do what Councilmember Fletcher suggested in her substitute motion. Some of the prac ti e :cal issues were discussed, but the power existed. MISTIME NOTION -WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND. Councilmember Patituccl agreed with Councilmember Levy. One of the options Council had was to waive the 30 minutes and continue. He believed Council was doing a lot of people a disservice by posting an agenda and then asking them to wait until Council got to.the items listed. Thirty minutes was a reasonable compromise. If Council believed it was important to hear more people and topics, the 30 minutes could be waived. A#EMDNENT: Vice Nayor Woolley moved to delete section (a) ANENONEOT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Sutori us . wou"i d continue to oppose the main motion. He believed the power existed and could be exercised: Councilmember Levy supported the motion because it was not. arbi- trary. To suddenly introduce power through the Mayor';; fiat was unexpectedly arbitrary. A definite ordinance and statement put the public on notice of Council's procedures and rules. MOTION FAILED by a vote •f 4-4, Reese1, Cobb, Suter#es, Fletcher. Voting ° no. " NOTIOilv Mayor Cobb moved, **Voided by LevCy, to add to 'tho forted lerieted Wade, oiet 1 -reserves the riht to 1 unit Oral Compeeicetioos 10 thirty (30)-0111141,R... MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting no, Klein Omit. ITEM #16 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ELECTRIC RATE SCHEDULE E-2 tEGAROiNG' THE LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS (IJTI 3) Councilmember Renzel asked about the reimbursed telephone yharges. Director of Utilities Richard Young said certain types of instru- mentation required a telephone line for transmitting data back to the central processing unit. The original contracts contained an. agreement whereby Palo Alto preferred toreimburse as an item was received as a cost to an individual customer. He introduced Blake Heitzman, Utilities Department Load Management Engineer. Councilmember Renzel referred to the dollar kilowatt voluntary credit, and asked how the City measured whether someone actually did something. Load Management Engineer Blake Heitzman said many voluntary custo- mers had metering instrumentation on their facilities which was owned by the City. There were also customers with their own energy management systems which produced output data the City could review. Councilmember Renzel clarified the data showed a sudden drop at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Heitzman said that was correct. The City could see changes in performance patterns compared to previous and following days. Councilmember Renzel referred to avoided costs and the estimate of $180,000 to $540,000. Tie $180,000 was referred to as the highest, level of cost to the City of the incentive program and it was the lowest number on the range of avoided costs. She asked hnw the numbers were estimated. Mr. Heitzman said the numbers were not related. Regarding avoided costs, staff looked at what it would cost if the City had to buy partial power requirements, subtracted out the program costs and City costs, and the remainder was avoided costs. Councilmember Renzel clarified the costs were what the City would pay Pacific Gas and Electric Company for extra power beyond the City's allocation but did not figure in costs if the City had to develop additional power. Mr. Heitzman said that was correct, MOTION: Mayer Cobb move4b seconded by Pati tocci , apprevai of the re sol etIea.. RESOLUTION S51S entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COVIICii. OF Tmt cut OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SCNEDIOLE E-2 OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RATES AND CHARGES PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL RATES AND LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS' ITEM #16-A (OLD ITEM #3) DESIGN -CONSTRUCTION AND PROOF Of " ltomMANCE 1t Turn) (UTI T-8) (CMR:253:61 Councilmember Renzel asked why the matter of coaxial cable was not bei not done. in conjunction with the entire cable process throughout town. Director • of Utilities Richard_ Young said there were two different applications of °a .similar .technology. The type of coaxial cable being used by the Utilities Department was not compatible with 'the television signal and the 'type of information being transmitted 4/2886 could not withstand the type of interferences it would receive. The Utilities Department also worked on the traffic control sig- nals and would place its cable in existing underground conducts and across existing power poles. The data the Utilities Department needed to move through the coaxial cable system were required by the fall of 1986, and the television cable system, even if they worked in tandem, would mean a longer process to get into the areas they needed to reach. Councilmember Patitucci referred to the cable contract and said there were many promises of interactive communication and a new generation of potential. He asked if the Utilities Department reviewed the promises and judged its needs would not be met. If the Utilities Department's needs would not be met, he queried whether the needs of industries, universities and others who pro- posed to eventually get on the cable system could be met. Mr. Young said there was a lot of coordination between the Utilities Engineering Department and those concerned with the cable access problem. Considerations were given to access space, technologies involved, and types of data to be transferred from one place to another. The type of specific data being moved by the Utilities Department versus communications -type data the tele- vision represented were incompatible. The data transmitted by the Utilities. Department represented digital patterns transferring data from a substation back to a central location for processing. Rather than ooing through voice and visual transmission, the digi- tal patterns were high-speed, pulse coded pieces of data which did not mix with television signals. City Manager Dill Zaner said staff carefully reviewed the possi- bility of combining the two systems because the Utilities Department began its plan and implementation before the cable system. The Utilities system needed to be a separate system. Its compatibility with a regular cable television system was marginal at best. The Utilities system allowed the City to control its electric system, traffic lights, and information it needed for load management critical func ions. Since the match was not a good one, staff believed it made more sense to go separately. Councilraember Patitucci believed the cable system was promoted as a revolutionary communications system, and now a major application would not be on the system. Mr. Zaner assured Councilmember;Patitucci the CATV system being put in by the franchiser was capable of two-way communication and would provide the promised services when economically feasible. Regarding whether the Utilities application coy=1 d have been put on the cable system, staff carefully studied the matter, and at best, there was a marginal fit. They would need to "squeeze" from a.. technical and engineering point of view which staff believed was inappropriate. The existing communications system operated by the Utilities Department for 20 to 25 years needed to be replaced which was what the request represented, but it would in no way limit the effectiveness or capabilities of the other system. Stanley R. Smith, 610 Wildwood Lane, Director, Cable Communications Cooperative (Cable Co-op). said when the franchise agreement was negotiated with the Co-op, charnel space was allocated to the City for the Utilities application. The Co-op was ready to offer the service to the City. The City proposed to spend $500,000 to string 15 miles of coaxial cable and money could be saved by taking advantage of the contract already negotiated with the Cable Co-op to have the data service on the existing cable system. As a taxpayer, the request was a considerable i nvestaent and it was prudent for the City to further investigate the possibilities of working together on the application. The cable system was general purpose and could handle many kinds of signals. It was not limited to the entertainment -video services and was designed to handle data. 7 1 4 0 4/28/86 John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, appreciated Mr. Zaner's calculations and the different needs required of different cables. He sue- Bested money might be saved if the cable _pulling effort were combined at least in those areas where both entities would even- tually -run cable. He hoped staff could discuss the matter with the Cable Cooperative and see if a mutually compatible time schedule might be worked out. Mr. Zaner urged Council net, to refer the matter to the F&PW Committee and allow staff to proceed with the project. Staff com- n!enced the project in 1981 and it was a well -established Capital Improvement Program. The alternatives were carefully reviewed to see whether the project cau?:d be more. effectively accomplished with the cable television system and staff was convinced the recommendation was the best-, safest, and most economical way to provide .critical services for the Utilities Department. Staff committed itself to $1,000,000 worth of expenses for a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, and -the proposal _ was designed to help implement it. Part -of the system was already in the ground and operated all of the traffic lights in the community through the computer located at the Municipal Services Center. Staff did not believe it was appropriate. to put the critical operation, on what was essentially a business and entertainment system subject to someone else's control. Staff believed the daily, critical and ongoing functions for the community needed to be protected in its own cable system. The bid from the contractor was good and he recommended Council not refer the item and allow staff to proceed with the project to completion. MOTION TO REFER: Co.acflmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Re zel, to refer. the matter of Design-Coastroction and Proof of Performance Test 'of a Broadband Utilities Local Area Network to the Finance and Public Works (FAWN) Committee. Councilmember Bechtel referred to a letter, dated April 14, 1986, where the contractor said the figures would be good for sixty (60) days. It seemed to her Council had some time. It was true the City worked on the SCADA project since 1981, but she had not seen anything before F&PW on the matter of 15 miles of underground coaxial cable. The F&PW Committee should take some time to dis- cuss the matter. The staff report (CMR:253:6) onli contained two pages of information which did nothing to justify why Council should approve spending $500,000. Shesupportedthe motion. Councilmember Levy believed Council should' support the City Manager if he went out on a limb to say the proposal to utilize the Cable Co-op's facilities were unwise and inappropriate. Council would find out soon enough whether the City Manager was right because the people from the Co-op would be able to make a strong case to disprove or prove the situation. If the City Manager was convinced Council shouldgoahead with the program as laid out, he supported him. Councilmember Patitucci agreed with Councilmember Levy. The ques- tion of whether the proposed use by the Utilities Department fit with the Cable Cooperative's cable system was a highly technical question, and he did not believe a committee could answer the question any better than was done at the Council meeting. The project was budgeted and approved and was part of a continuing program. If Council- was going to review the matter, it should be done in the budget process. He did not support the motion to, refer. Councilmember Sutori us concurred with Councilmember Pa ti tuccf . He encouraged his colleagues to defeat the motion to refer. It was too much of a delay factor when he .believed the evidence would support the proposal from a timing standpoint. While there might be ways and means to provide the system via the Cable Co-op's 7 1 4 I 4/28/86 installation and at a lower cost, there were costs associated with time and the City already had a system with seven miles installed, and the proposal would complete it. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6, 'teazel, Bechtel. Fletcher voting Naye," Klein absent. MOTION: Couecflmember Patftucci moved, seconded by Sutorfrs, to adept the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with RFI Commuaicatiens, Inc. in the amount of $536,137 and authorize staff to execute change caters of up to ten CIO) percent ($63,600). AGREEMENT - DESIGN CONSTRUCTION AND PROOF OF PERFORMANCE TEST OF A BROADBAND UTILITIES LOCAL AREA NETWORK (ULAN) RFI Communications, Inc. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Reuel. Bechtel voting Klein absent. ITEM #17 REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS BECHTEL AND RENZEL RE PROPOSAL MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel .moved, seconded by Renzel, that staff be directed to forward to the Council the evaluation of Evergreen Park proposed design for closures at Birch and Ash Streett. Councilmember Pati tucci asked for clarification regarding Council's action. Councilmember Bechtel said staff was being asked to evaluate a suggested proposal. Council already agreed to a closure of Ash and Birch Streets, but the request related to how to implement the closure. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the proposal went forward, whetNer the property to be landscaped or changed would be deeded over to existing property owners. David Schrom, 302 College, said according to information received from the City's Real : Estate Department, adjacent property owners already owned the street to its center line. The street was dedi- cated to public use for as long as necessary, and the City had an easement to build and maintain whatever public facilities were necessary to sustain the uses. When the closure was approved, the surface street and sidewalk became superfluous to provide access to adjacent properties or through travel. By abandoning the ease- ment to the adjoining property owners, the City comld escape the responsibility for maintaining street and sidewalks which no longer served a purpose. Councilmember Pa ti tucc i saw no sidewalk from College Avenue to Birch Street. Mr. Schram referred to the sidewalk on Birch Street and said the proposal was to lift up the sidewalk, curb, and pavement and replace it with is curving sidewalk and provide a right-of-way of some width down the center . of the existing street allowing the remaininy pavement for pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency vehicle access. Jim Stapleton, 214 Oxford, said the barrier on Park Boulevard worked well. It would cost approximately $11,000 to make the change in the street design, and. the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association's proposed .design would benefit the .neighborhood as a whole: 7 1 4 2 4/28/86 Councilmember Pati tucci asked if _ there was any increased value to adjacent property owners as a result of the easement vacation, and if so, how much. He asked about the cost of landscaping versus the City's proposal and who should pay the cost. He asked about restrictions to keep the open space in perpetuity to preserve the City's easement if it wanted to do something different. He requested his questions be made a part of the referral. MAKER ,AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE COUNCILMEMNER PATITUCCI'S QUESTIONS AS PART OF THE MOTION Mayor Cobb referred to increased value to .adjacent property owners, and wanted the report to include information regarding whether property owners would pay market price for any gain in property values. The cul-de-sac on which he :lived had a large turnaround area at the end which the proposed drawings did not indicate. He was interested in .the Fire Chief's reaction as to whether a turnaround was needed to make a permanent cul-de-sac. If a cul-de-sac on the particular streets was a good idea, he asked about other potential cul-de-sacs created ..in Evergreen Park. Councilmember Levy said the proposal was not merely one for design, it was also an economic and ownership change proposal. The questions of economics and ownership were complex and he hoped staff would address those questions and look for alternatives as well as the specific proposal before the Council. Councilmember Bechtel asked when Council might expect the report. She understood staff was in the process of designing the barriers for the area and wanted to move quickly. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said the additions were not minor and would take some time. She anticipated two to three weeks before the report went to Council. MOTION PASSED unae.ntmoasly,._Klein absent. ITEM 418, REQUEST OF VICE MAYOR WOOLLEY AND COUNCILMEMBER LEVY RE ZTFTCIAL 1A i NG OF SCOTT SYREET AR (PAR 2-15) MOTION: trice Mayor Woolley mewed. seconded by Levy, that the Frocedere for naming City -owned land and foci l i ties as set forth in Council Resolution ile. 6211 be followed for determining the au. of Scott Street Park. City Attorney Diane Lee said section 22.08.310 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code included a name for the subject park. It was named in 1978 by ordinance. Councilmember Fletcher opposed a new name for the park. It was good to have the location of the park in its name. Councilmember Levy said while Scott Street Park was officially named by the City Council in an ordinance, it was not named using subsequently adopted procedures. Staff recommended the name generally used be ratified by. Council which was done. Council. had an opportunity to be c,'eative and honor.- the history of Palo Alto. It was not. =significantly important the name was familiar to people. For example, what was once Green Gables School was now Duveneck School and what was once Wilbur School was now Jane Lathrop Stanford School. Councilmember Renxel agreed it was redundant to rename the park. She was more concerned there were portions of the park which were not yet park dedicated. She had discussions with - the City Attorney and wanted to see Council pursue the park dedication. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 S Petitocci, Woolley! Levy vette, 'aye," Klein absent. 4/18181 1 ITEM #18-A, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER LEVY RE PALO ALTO AIRPORT 1-1) i 1 MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, if staff upon review, found no problem with the request, to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Director of Santa Clara County Aviation supporting the Palo Alto Airport Good Neighbor Committee request to investigate the feasibility of eliminating the left approach pattern it ,Palo Alto Airport. If staff had concerns abort seeding such a letter, then the letter shored mot be sent and the item agendized for a future meeting. Councilmember Patitucci was concerned about procedure. He queried items under Oral Communications were not agendized. In the past two months, Council agendized two items on two different occa- sions. If Council intended to agendize metters for the meeting, he requested the Mayor not make an announcement at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Cobb clarified any Councilmember had a right to agendize 'a ratter as an emergency item. The 1 ssue might be whether the 1 terns agendized qualified as emergency items. Councilmember Patitucci supported the motion. Councilmember Sutorius said a recent round-trip out of Palo Alto Airport had both departure and return over the Bay. Emphasis was given to staying away from the residential area and east of Bayshore in the take off and landing process. He asked why the matter needed to be acted on so expeditiously. The Good Neighbor Committee had a meeting on April 22, 1986, and would have another meeting on May 20. Assistant City Manager June Fleming spoke to Mr. Marinkovich before he left the Chambers who believed it would help to have some response i'rom Council before May 20 ,i n order to present it to Mr. Jasco at the May 20 Good Neighbor Committee meeting. Councilmember Sutorius saw no need for all due haste. He would not fight the motion. A lot Of cooperation was being given to the problem and he was sure it would continue. Councilmember Fletcher said County staff was not responding to the requetts of the Good Neighbor Committee." The Committee wanted a response from the County staff in tine for the ' May 20 meeting and believed an immediate response from the Council would provide the County sufficient lead time to respond by May 20. Mayor Cobb responded to Councilmember Patitucci's question and said the previous item Council agendized from Oral Communications was an emergency item. He shared Councilmember Sutorius' concern the subject item was not an emergency. In the past Councilmembers objected to agendizing something without enough information. His instincts told him the motion was appropriate to vote on, but he was doing so on the basis of no information. He believed an item shee.d be a true emergency before being agendized from Oral Communications. Councilmember Patitucci queried asking fors a staff recommendation to return Cie following week. Councilmember Levy said the request was to investigate the feasi- bility cif something which made sense for the community. Staff knew about the problem and if staff had no problem, he believed Council should do something expeditiously. MOTH* PASSED unanimously, Klein abseet. - 7.1 4 4 4/28/86, As corrected 5/27/86 ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:50 a.m. ATTEST: �t`y tT e r APPROVED: