HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-25 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
MINUT€S
Regul ar Meeting
February 25, 1985
ITEM
Oral Communications
Minutes of December 17, 1984
Minutes of January 7, 1985
Minutes of January 14, 1985
CITY
O�
PALO
ALTO
PAGE
5 5 0 3
5 5 0 3
5 5 0 3
5 5 0 4
Item #1, Resol ution for Palo Al to High School Drama 5 5 0 4
Students' Visit to the Soviet Union
Consent Cal endar
Referral
Item #2, Hazardous Material s Storage A Consul tant
Selection
Item #3, Human Rel ations Commission re Recommended
Human Services Priorities
Item #4, 1985-86 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Appl is ati on
Action
Item #5, .Pl anning Commission Recommendation re
Appl ication of Robert and El Ise Cl ark for Site and
Design Review for Property Located at 4022 Page
Kill Road
Item #5, Palo Al to Municipal Golf Course Cart Paths
Item #7, Animal Shelter Improvements
Item #8, Removal ` and Repl acement of Three
Polychl arineted Bi phenyl Transformers at the
Regional Water . Q! a1 ity Control Plant
Item #9, Resolution Authorizing Signatures for the
City' s General Checking Account
Item #10, Amendment to Housing Mitigation Ordinance
re Enforcement and Penal ties
Item #11, Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Office
of the City Attorney
-Item #12, .PUBLIC HEARING.: • A.rastradero lOa;d
Underground Conversion Project .. Ordinance
Establ i shi ng th Di strict -
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 5
5 5 0 6
5 5 0 6
5 5 0 6.
5 5 0 6
ITEM
Item #13, PUBLIC HEARING: P1 anning Commission
Recommendation re Appl ication of Cortana
Corporation for a Change of Zone Di strict for
Property Known As 3801 East_ Bayshore Frontage Road
Item #14, PUBLIC HEARING: Pl anning Commission
Recommendation re Appl ication of •Marek Development
Company for a Tentative Subdivsion Map for Property
Located at 4270 Suzanne Drive
PAGE
5 5 0 9
5 5 1 1
1
Recess to Closed Session re Li tiga!tion 5 5 1 9
Item #15, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Application of. Harrington
Financial Corporation for Modification of PC
District .for Property Located at 744 Ramona
Item #16,; Planning Commission Recommendation re
Existing Chemical and Hazardous Material Storage
Facilities for Property Located at 4001 Miranda
Avenue
Item #17, Modification of Noise Ordinance
Item #18, Hazardous Materials Program
Item #19, Agreement for Transfer of Rights to
Capacity and Energy of Geothermal Generating
Project No. 3
5 5 1 9
5 5 2 5
5 5 2 6
5 5 2 1
5 5 2 7
ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 p.m. 5 5 2 8
5 5 0 2
2/25/85
Regul ar Meeting
February 25, 1985
The City Counc it of the City of Palo Al to met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California at
7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher,
Klein, Levy, Renzel , Sutorius, Witherspoon, Wool ley
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Dolores Furman, 1070 Cambridge, Menlo Park, was concerned that
smoke stacks at Stanford would be made higher because the smoke
caused nausea and headaches to persons working and living in sur-
rounding buildings. A few weeks ago she heard Stanford was
importing nucl ear waste.
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17 , 1984
Counc it meeber Woolley had the following correction:
Page 5351, third line, "siting" should be "siding."
Section 1(a), first line, of motion: Delete comma after wore
"emergency" and insert word "for" and insert a comma after word
"wastes" and insert word "only."
Councihmember Renzel had the following correction:
Pa e 5335, third paragraph from bottom, third line, word "thing"
s ou T1iI "work."
Page 5336, first line, word "incorrect" should be "correct."
line three, "many mill ions of dollars" shout d be "a mill ion
dollars."
line five, last word on line, "acres" should be deleted;
line six, first word on line, "of" should be deleted.
1 ine thirteen, insert word`;"rain fal l" after "District's."
line fourteen, word `some" sho'tld be "considerable."
Page 5341, third paragraph, second line, "the agenda" should be
°their agenda."
Caurcilraember Klein had the following correction:
Pa a 5328, second from last paragraph, third line, word "referred"
ss ouTd "deferred."
MOTION: CeencIlsember Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley,
approval of the NI sates of December Os 1984 as terr*cted.
MOTION PASSED ■saa1seesly.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 7.,_1985
Councilaober Renzel had the following correction:
Pace 5370, last paragraph, third line, first word should_ be
vofi:y.'
MTifls Cevot ilriI bar Stenzel moved, s C®e4e4 by. Isitbsrispbbn,.
approval of the Aimetes of 4410valvp:.1, IOU as correct .
MOTION PASSED onentmONO1Y.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 1985
Councilmember Bechtel had the following correction:
Page 5414, fifth paragraph, second line, word "table" should be
Page 5419, second to last paragraph, second line, word "toad"
should be inserted after word "al so."
NOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Re*zel , approval of the
Minutes of January 14, 19$5 as corrected.
MOTION PASSED smaRi■ously.
Mayor Levy reminded Councilmembers to submit corrections to the:
minutes in writing ahead of the Council meeting in order to save
time.
ITEM 11, RESOLUTION FOR PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL DRAMA STUDENTS'
VISIT TO THE SOVIET UNION (PRE 8-)
Mayor Levy said the City of Palo Alto was committed to fostering
goodwill peace, and friendship among the nations of the world,
and that 1985 was declared the international year of youth by the
United Nations General Assembly. The students in the Theatre
Department of Palo Alto High School were preparing a visit to
several Soviet cities in June, 1985, with their Spring production
of "Romeo and Juliet" as a gift to Soviet teenagers. The Palo
Alto High School Theatre Angels were formed to support the effort
of people- to-peopl a contact and all participants believed it was
imperative that such efforts be undertaken in the name of world
peace and international intercul tural understanding. The Palo
Al to City Council endorsed the under taking of the Palo Al to
Theatre Angels and the Palo Alto High School Theatre Department,
and urged the community to support the project and help the group
realize the goal of transporting the cast and crew of "Romeo and
Juliet.' to the Soviet Union as a goodwill gesture. The City of
Palo Alto declared the month of March "To Russia With Love and
Shakespeare Month" in order to call attention to and celebrate the
project.
NOTION: Mayer Levy ■sued, seconded by Cobb, approval of the
resolution.
RESOLUTION 0351 entitled `RESOLUTION OF THE CODICIL OF
Tilt CITY i3+ PALO ALTO ENDORSING THE PAL! THEATRE
DEPARTMENT='S PROPOSED VISIT TO THE SOVIET UNION IN JOIE,
1905°
Reties PASSED unanimously.
Michael Kass, Director of the Palo Alto High School Theatre Drama
Department, thanked the Council and members of the community. He
appreciated Council endorsement of the project. He said they
appeared before the Council in October; 1984 with the seed of the
idea and the hope that the project would get off the -ground. They
currently had weekly Russian language and cul tural lessons for
members of the cast to prepare for meeting their Soviet counter-
parts. In addition, over half the money was raised to get the
trip going. A lot of the money was from parent pledges, some
foundation promises, and some community donations.
Mayor Levy presented the framed resolution and said he could con- -
ceive of few projects es stimulating. He looked forward to hear-
ing about the trip
.5.5 0 4
2/25/85
CONSENT -CALENDAR
NOTION: Coumcllneaber Sertoria:: moved, seconded by Renzel,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
ITEM #Z HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE - CONSULTANT SELECTION RtTER E Xlaii PUBLIC WOKS •(FO'P.W) comma fSA' 5)
(CMR:157:5.
ITEM "3 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION RE RECOMMENDED HUMAN SERVICES
N E AN PURLS WOiIkS (F&PW) .COMMITTEr
(SOS R) {R:192: Sf
ITEM #4 1985-86 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
APPLICAT16( - ura T A P R W EE
(PLA 2-17r1INETITTST
Action
ITEM #5 , PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF
ROBERT ANO ELISE CLARK FOR fITE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR -PROPERTY
)
ITEM #6, PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE CART PATHS (PAR 4-1)
(CMR:170:5T
Staff recommends that Council:
1 . Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract wf th Lorenz
Construction Company for $133,196 for base bid work and add
alternates one and four; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up
to $1658003
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Lorenz Construction Company
ITEM #7 , ANIMAL
SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS (SAF 3 2)(CMR:168:5)
Staff recommends that Council :
1 . Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract +wi th Britsch
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $102, 987; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up
to $16,000.
AWAR4 OF CONTRACT
Britsch Constriction, Inc.
ITEM #8 REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THREE POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL
1RANSFOi 4RS AT THE REGIONAL WATER Wain Ct1MOtLAi1T um 7 -
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to
execute the contract with Westinghouse Electric Supply Company in
the amount of $153,050 to provide complete turnkey service to
remove and replace the three PCB transformers at the Water Quality
Control P1 ant.
AWARD`Of CONTRACT
Vostinikooso tiotetric topply CNewsy
5 5.0 5
2/25/85
1
ITEM #9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES FOR THE CITY'S GENERAL
CHECKING A UN M MR: :
Sta ff recommends that Counc (1 approve the resol ution authori zing
Gordon B. Ford (Financial Planning Administrator) , Barbara P.
Frembl ing (Accounting Supervisor), or. Ronald E. Garrett (Acting
Manager of Accounting) as co-signers to be effective immediately.
RESOLUTION 6352 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE EIT? br PALO ALTO DESIGNATING SIGNATORIES ON
ACCOUNTS OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO HELD 8Y CROCKER
NATIONAL BANK!'
ITEM #1.0, AMENDMENT TO HOUSING MITIGATION ORDINANCE RE ENFORCEMENT
AND PPuALYIES (PL
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
alnirIC OF T1lE CITY BF PALO ALTO A►NEKNINO CHAPTER 16.47
REGARDING APPROVAL OF PROJECTS WITH IMPACTS OM HOUSING
TO ADD PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
ITEM #11 BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
wrnwr, C 7) -
ORDINANCE 3600 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
O ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1384-$5 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
LITIGATION EXPENSES IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE"
NOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #12 a PUBLIC REARING: ARASTRADERO ROAD UNDERGROUND CONVERSION
PR-OJECT - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE i)1STRICT NT! 8 i
1CifR: 172 151 -
Mayor Levy said the vote of the residents of the proposed district
was 18-16 in support. He asked how that compared with votes for
other undergrounding dtstr'icts'.. Chief Electrical Engineer Jack Taylor said a formal. vote was not
taken in Crescent Park I, but 48 peopl e signed a statement in sup-
port. At the public hearing, there were two letters in opposi-
tion. In. Crescent Park II, there were 199 properties, 171
responses, 102 in favor and 69 opposed. In Downtown I, there were
116 properties, 52 responses, 27 in favor and 25 against.
Mayor Levy asked if the residents on Arastradero paid substantial
amounts for the initial connection of their service.
Mr. Taylor said only if the services were already undergrounded,
in wh i c h case they were installed at their own expense.
Mayor.. 1,,evy cl arified that the above -ground service was not
installed at the residents' expense,
Mr. Taylor said the ones with overhead service drops were put in
by PG&E years before Arastradero was annexed, and the ones put in
after annexation either paid nothing or $100, dependent on 'whether
they were put in before the .City' s. policy changed from zero; to the
MO fee.
Mayor Levy said it appeared most of the pro rties al ong
Arastradero Road were - close to where the power was now and where
it wo u1 d be Mean under9ro#4Ided .. Therefore, the costs of' connec-
tion would be less than the Crescent Park areas, where the power
was behind the properties and had to be moved to the front, which-
resul ted in longer trenching, etc. for connection.
Mr. Taylor said some houses had short connection `.runs and others._
were in the rear of deep lots .and would have fairly long runs.
5 5 0 6
2 /25/85
Mayor Levy clarified that most were fairly short.
Mr. Taylor said yes.
Mayor Levy said this was the time and place set for the public
hearing on the matter of the formation of Underground Utility
District No. 26. The purpose of the public hearing was to hear
all protests and receive evidence for and against the proposed
formation of the Underground Utility District. The ultimate ques-
tion to be determined by the Council, based on the public hearing,
was t;nether the public necessity, health, and safety required the
establishment of the District and the removal of poles, overhead
wires and associated .overhead structures and the underground
installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric commu-
nication or similar associated services in the proposed District.
To that end, Council was required to take evidence and consider
the question of whether such undergrounding was in the general
public interest for one or more of the following reasons: 1) Such
undergrounding would avoid or eliminate unusually heavy concentra-
tion of overhead distribution facilities or the reconstruction of
an existing pole line; 2) Streets within the proposed District
were extensively used by the general public and carried a heavy
volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic; 3) Said streets or
rights -of -way were scheduled for major new roadway construction,
reconstruction or realignment; and 4) Said streets or roads or
rights -of -way adjoin or passed through a civic center. The
reasons applicable in the subject proceedings were the first two.
The effect of the formation of the District would be that no per-
son or utility would be allowed to erect or construct within said
District any pole, overhead line or associated overhead structure
used or useful in supplying electrical community or similar or
associated services. Anyone interested was invited to present
protests and evidence either for or against the formation of the
proposed District with particular emphasis on the foregoing mat-
ters. He declared the public hearing open.
Edward G. Yierra, 693 Arastradero Road, said his connection was
110 feet, at a cost of approximately $6,200 for two houses. He
was concerned that residents had to pay for a service they already
had because more power was needed in the industrial park.
Richard A. Dirks, 677 Arastradero Road, vepresented Mrs. Verna
DeWitt, who resided in Arkansas. Mrs. DeWitt opposed the project.
Her cost was something over $7,000 according to the City's esti-
mate. She submitted a letter to the City Council (which was on
file in the City Clerk's office).
£ . W. Sa1 sberry, 653 Arastradero Road, asked who benefited from
the underground conversion, and if it was the industrial park, why
residents had to pay. He .: believed protests were meaningless
because Council would act as it saw fit.
Mayor Levy, having no further requests from the public to speak,
declared the public hearing cloyed.
Mr. Taylor said more power was needed for the Industrial Park and
the street had to be dug up and feeders put in to get the power
there. If only that were done, there would be no expense to resi-
dents. The cost would be borne in the City's Commercial
Industrial rate base and recovered by customers who paid those
rates. By adding a relatively mail amount of money to the job,
they could get rid of the poles on Arastradero Road and the bene-
ficiaries would be those who lived there. If the residents did
not mind the poles, they might not consider the undergrounding a
benefit. The City Council's policy was to someday : have all of
Palo Alto undergrounded,
Vice Mayor .Cobb said the report cited a cost between $1,400 and
$4,300 per connection and two members of the public indicated a
cost more like $6,000 to $7,000 for their particular connection.
He asked for coiment.
5 5 0 7
2/25/85:
Mr, Taylor said staff requested an estimator go out for the casts
involved in the conversions who was advised to he conservative and
come in high, if anything,- but not low. He believed most of the
estimates were too high, but by what fraction would be unknown un-
til an electrical contractor actually bid the job.
Councilmember Renzel said from the descriptions given by two mem-
bers of the public, it sounded as if there was more than one prop-
erty involved. She asked if there were houses on all the address
numbers or whether they were subdivided properties with only one
house on them.
Mr. Taylor responded they were large properties with more than one
building and service. Thirty-four properties had a total of 41
services. Each of those cases had more than one service to the
property, and in both cases presented, the properties were fairly
deep and the cost of trenching was estimated at $15 a foot. If
the residents got the trenching done for less, the undergrounding
would cost considerably less than estimated.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that it was approximately $3,000
per unit or less.
Mr. Taylor said that was correct.
MOTION: Coencilwember Swtor#as moved, seconded by Renzel,
approval of the ordinance for first rlading.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE
PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
12.16.020 OF CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY
DISTRICT NO. 26°
Counciimember Sutorius believed the cost effectiveness of the pro-
posal was sound and as pointed out by the staff report, the cost
would not get less expensive for undergrounding. Aesthetically,
the pole line had four fully loaded cross bars running the length
of Arastradero Road, and there were two aerial telephone cables.
Because it went down one side of the road, there were the aerial
crossings along the length of the road. The visual improvement
would be an immediate benefit for the property owners, and the
users of Arastradero Road, in addition to the service protections
cited by Mr. Taylor and possible savings of electrical outages due
to the occasional accidents where a pole was clipped and service
or distribution lines brought down. During stormy weather and
high winds, there were many outages in electrical distribution
throughout the Bay Area almost without exception due to a tree
limb falling or such high winds that damage occurred without a
limb hitting a wire. Service improvement was an importantfactor
in undergrounding both in terns of continuity of electrical ser-
vice and continued availability of dial tone for telephone ser-
vice. He urged his colleagues to support the motion.
Councilmember Woolley concurred with Councilmember Sutorius. She
asked that staff explain to the public why theCity did not pay
the cost of the hookup between the undergrounding part and the
homeowner's house.
City Attorney Diane Lee said an expenditure of City funds could
only be made where .there was a public benefit. An improvement of
private property did notconifer_ a benefit on the public to justify
the expenditure of public moneys. In some situations where the
City was undergrounding, the property owners were not only re-
quired to pay for .their own connections, but i t was determined
there was a . benefit to their property by the improvement of the
public property, and they were assessed for that, which was not
the case for the Arastradero Road Underground Conversion Project.
Councilmember Bechtel cl arified that the estimator overestimated
the cost, and she asked if Mr. Taylor had follow up experience
based on what happened in Crescent Park.
Mr. Taylor said Crescent Park was different. The nearest to the
situation on Arastradero was encountered .on Orme, and those ser-
vices were converted at about $800 each.
0
Councilmember Bechtel bel ieved $800 each would be more comfortable
to people living along Arastradero Road. She realized there were
some properties wi th mul ti p1 a connections or long . distances
between the road and their homes, which would be more expensive.
The issue was not just aesthetics, it was al so a matter of better
service because high ends or a storm would be less likely to
cause outages, and squirrels would not chew through the lines.
Regardless, the City would have to spend about *1.3 mill ion, and
the request was for a service conversion cost of approximately
$100,000 spl it between 4.5 property owners.
Councilmember Fletcher said correspondence was received from resi-
dents on Arastradero strongly urging the undergrounding. There
were long-term, low .cost loans available for the residents so it
would not have to be paid at once. Arastradero was a designated
scenic. route, and there was a 200. foot setback to make it more
attractive, and it would be more attractive without the pot es,
Councilmember Klein said no municipality or utility. paid for the
hookup from the house to the street. It we.s al ways at the home-
owner s expense. He bel leved there was the matter of continuity
and fairness to the other neighborhoods. Arastradero was treated
no differently than other neighborhoods in the community if the
motion passed. In all neighborhoods already undergrounded, the
homeowners paid for the connection from the street to their hones.
He was not necessarily comfortable with imposing the costs on a
particul ar neighborhood unless it wanted it. If there was a
majority vote opposed to the undergrounding, he might feel differ-
ently. He reserved the right in some situations to not agree, but
the Arastradero Road neighborhood was not faced with that ques-
tion. The narrow majority supported the undergrounding. He asso-
ciated himself with the comments of Counc iimember Sutorius, and
supported the motion.
MOTION PASSED emanimessly.
ITEM 113, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING- COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
PPM,' 'MVOF CORTANA CORPORATION FOR A CHK )=
FWPT 'AtE R010 (PIA 3-11
Planning Commissioner John Northway said the Commission supported
the zone change and believed it was an appropriate use in that it
coincided with the uses immediately surrounding the property. The
one .dissenting vote was based on the fact that it would provide a
slight increase to the jobs/housing imbalance, which one Commis-
sioner believed was enough to be inc onsi stent with the Comprehen-
sive Pl an.
Councilmember Renzel asked if it was possible for Council to en-
courage a change in the permitted uses in the PC zone. She pre-
ferred to continue a PC zone on the property because it appeared
from the illustration that it was a prominent feature adjacent to
a major publ is parkl and and it -was al so adjacent to a major part
of a regional trail system
Ms. Lee said generally the answer was yes, but there weee pro-
visos. She believed Council needed to give the property owner
some reasonable use of their: property and the existing PC was very
narrow. The range of uses allowed under the PC would have to be
considerably expanded in order to provide reasonable use of the
property. With that parameter, Council could encourage the PC
zone.
5 5.0 9
2/25/85
Counc ilmember Renzel said there used to he a two- story 1 imi t in
the Bayl ands and she asked whether that was still in effect, or
whether it was just the zoning height 1 imits.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland responded that there was
only the zoning height limits.
Councilmember Renzel cl arifled that if the property were rezoned
to LM(D ), the City would essentially deal with Site and Design
review within the parameters of the LM zone.
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said that was correct.
Mayor Levy decl ared the publ is hearing open. Receiving no
requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing
closed
NOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Woo11ey, approval of
appliceties of Certaaa Corporation for a change of zone district
from PC (P1 *mood Ceaeaool ter) to LW(1) (0) (Limited Industrial/
Research District) .
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
AL0 ALTO AMENDING SECTION
10.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING
NAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY
KNOWN AS 3801 EAST DATSHORE ROAD FRON PC TO L$(1) (D )1°
Councilmember Renzel was concerned that the particular site was a
narrow property and the existing office building, even though it
received Site and Design review, was prominent. To her, it was
critical that the design of anything built on the rear parcel be
sensitive to the area. She asked if there was a way to further
control the height further or size through the present process, or
whether it would require defeating the motion and inviting a PC
appl icati on.
Mr. Brown said staff advised against pl acing conditions on the
zoning related to further restrictions on the height. If Council
wanted something along those lines, modification of the PC would
be the best way to go.
Counc ilmember Renzel asked whether it woul d be prefe-:abl e to vote
down the motion'" and then invite a PC or make a substitute motion.
Ms. Lee believed it was preferable to, vote down the motion and
then move for amendments to the PC.
Councilmember Renzel said she would be more comfortable with a PC
because it was a sensitive area. Site and Design provided limited
review only, and she urged that Council deny the application and
urge the applicant to make application for a PC, which would be
subject to more careful review.
Councilmember Sutorius understood Councilmember Renzel s concerns
regarding sensitivity toward the particular location. While he
was there, he observed approximately 18 individuals, officers and
employees of the firms`noused in the existing building in front of
the site being discussed, on their annual bird watch tour con-
ducted by Pei Al to employees. Hebel leved that sensetivi.ty would
benefit the Site and Design process involving the building that
was eventually proposed because they were talking abOpt one and
the same group of people. He looked" forward to the ,non al Site
and Design review process which applied in the l.N(D) . zone and,
bel_loved that future owners and developers of the site would have
a high regard for the _ site, and their . design, ile supported _ the
notion.
Councilmember Fletcher asked what the height 1 %nit and si to cover -
ago al 1 owed
MS1/80
Mr. Brown said the height limit in the LM(0) District was 35 feet,
and the site coverage was 30 percent.
Counc flmember Fletcher shared the concerns regarding the location
and what might go in because in the past Counc f1 approved projects
that seemed less ominous than they turned out to be. She sup-
ported the motion, but urged the ARB to be sensitive to the loca-
tion in the particular instance when reviewing the proposal .
NOTION PASSED by a vote •f R•1, ReAzel voting "no."
ITEM #I4, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPQIC T i -OF MAREK DEVEL
/ NE 15
Planning Commissioner John Northway said the Commission approved
the tentative map wi th specific exceptions.. The opposi tion
believed that with the exceptions, the density was such that it
would not be as good a subdivision as if there was one lot less
although the majority supported the map as proposed with the
granting of the exceptions.
Associate Planner Sarah Cheney said the Public Works Department
said the proposed sidewalk sections were not acceptable because
they would delete portions of the sidewalk that would create a
problem for the handicapped. The recommendation was that the
sidewalk sections be located around the trees. Staff recommended
the following condition:
"Condition 12. Sidewalk mod fications proposed in order to save
trees shall meet the approval of the Department of Public Works,
Portions of the sidewalk may not be deleted, but must be located
around trees on the lot side of the sidewalk. Additional ease-
ments may be necessary to accommodate possible sidewalk encroach-
ment into lot areas."
Counc it member Bechtel referred to the letter from Marek Building
Company (which WO s on fil e in .the City Clerk's office), and asked
about the differeices between the Planning Commission recommenda-
tion and Mr . Marek' s proposal .
Councilmember Fletcher said on page 5 of the report, the Trans-
portation Division said that if parking was to be restricted on
only one side street, vertical curbs were a must to control parked
vehicles, The back of the report in the sketch said "rolled curbs
are preferred by the Public Works and Fire Department." She asked
about the discrepancy.
P4s. Cheney said the Transportation Division recommended vertical
curbs to prohibit parking, and staff believed it was better to go
with the recommendation of the Fire Department and Public Works
Department to allow rolled . curbs which provided greater flexi-
bility for the fire vehicles making curbs and for handicapped
access.
Mayor Levy decl ared the publ ic- hearing open`.
Jack Van Nuys, 4258 McKellar, said he and a group of neighbors
first objected to the proposal because the homes would all be two -
Story and the tract was all single- story. The developer and
arc hi tect showed them that the homes would almost 1 ook 1 ike
single -story homes. The a eave lute ►a,uid not be 'much. above the
normal earve line for -a single story home; the maximum roof height
wo ul d be less than the normal _.roof height for a two- sto ry home;
and the roof axis would -be perllel •to the. street. There would
not be much exposure of the second story windows to the tract.
Al hough the neighborhood ,preferre!. ,,1ntle;,story, the proposal was
good, and they supported the project,
5 5 1 1
2/25/85
Donald C. Marek, #1 First Street, Los Altos, said the piece of
property was unique and had many problems to overcome in, order to
achieve an adequate development. As a result of their commitment
to the design process and to saving the trees, they achieved a
straightforward appearing subdivision plan filled with carefully
created nuances to permit the saving of all but a few of the
mature trees. They bel ieved their pl an was the best that could be
achieved on the property wi th five, six, or seven 1 ots. They were
a few days away from submitting their total level opment pl an to
the Architectural Review Board (ARW) . The proposed project was
compatible with factors existing in the surrounding single-family
neighborhood. The street section proposed would conform physi-
cally, functionally, and visibly to the established City stan-
dards. They deviated from the established right of way in terms
of the dedicated portion of the right-of-way being reduced by ten
feet and the substitution of that ten feet of reduction by a five
foot public utilities easement, and requested an exception. He
referred to two recently approved subdivisions where Council
approved street sections less than established City standards. In
the case of the Ortega School site subdivision, there was. a dead-
end street of approximately 550 in length which would serve 18
lots, which required by the City standard, a 60 -foot right-of-way
with 40 -foot improvements curb -to -curb. The City Council approved
a 50 -fact dedicated right-of-way with two, five foot publ is util s-
ties easements on each side. In the case of the Ross Road School
subdivision, the street length was 560 feet and likewise 18 lots
would be served by driveways off that street. According to the
established ordinance, the standard required was 60 feet of right-
of-way wri th 40 feet of improvements from curb face to curb face.
In that case, Council approved a 50 -foot right-of-way instead of
the 60 -foot required and also approved a 30 -foot paved right-of-
way curb -to -curb instead of the 40 feet required by the ordinance.
Council used its discretion in both those cases to apply modifica-
tions to the established standards where the justification to do
so was seen. He bel ieved there were well- establ ished findings to
support granting the street. exceptions. Granting the street
right-of-way exception would not increase the subdivision density,
as seven standard subdivision lots with a minimum 6,000 square
foot size could be established and supported on the property wi th-
out the exception. It should be noted that if Council did not
approve the 50 -foot right-of-way reduction to 40 feet, the 1 of
buil ding areas woul d be substantially reduced and what was al ready
a challenging design criterion for appropriate housing on the
properties would be made considerably more difficult. He
reque sted approval of the plan as submitted together with the
exceptions.
Vice Mayor Cobb asked:. for cl arification of the neighborhood' s con-
cerns.
Mr. Marek bel ieved Mr. Van Nuys' conditional endorsement rel 'ted
specifically to the condition of limiting the mass of the build-
ings in terms of keeping the eave line to a one-story height. The
language of the proposed condition specifically addressed that
concern.
Mayor Levy asked to see the l ayo ut by which the seven lots could
be achieved wi thout the need fora variance.
Mr . Marek said the layout that was the relationship of the lots to
the street was exactly the same with .a 50 -foot right-of-way or a
40 -foot right -of -stay. The difference was that in pushing the
front property 1 ine of ,the lot with a 50 -foot right-of-way, they
cut into the buildable area of lot. There would be some minor
lateral adjustments between lots in terms .of side property lines .a
few feet back and forth. Some of the lots were of extra size and
those lots would be reduced somewhat bythe shifting of the lot
lines to overtone the lot areas that were reduced in the smaller
lots as a result of the ;right -Hof -way being increased.
Mayor Levy clarified that the lot pattern was essentially the
same. He asked if the lots were now 100 feet by 60 feet.
Mr.• Marek said- no. They still required a lot depth- exception.
The difference was that the width of the lots, which were now con-
siderably greater than 60 feet, would be shifted and reappertioied
between the lots so that each lot had at least 6,000 square feet
in area.
Councilmember Renzel said the staff report indicated a five lot
subdivision, which would not cause major probl ems with the tree
system, and she asked for an illustration of that subdivision.
Mr. Marek said no. The five lot subdivision would ,be economically
infeasible and was not one they considered. i. It would probably
have little impact on the net savings of trees.
t::ric Richert, an architect, 535 Ramona, addressed the lot coverage
issue, Condition 11. The Planning Commission ;expressed concern
about density and mass of construction with reference to the con-
struction at Crescent Park and elsewhere in recent subdivisions.
He believed the Commission took appropriate action by reducing
permitted height r and coverage in • the spirit • of protecting the
property from overly dense development. Subsequent to the meet-
ing, they analyzed how best to approach the house design for the
property and whether it should be two- story buildings conforming
to 'the 25 -foot- height and its impact on the neighbors who
expressed a concern about invasion of privacy. ; They' real ized that
by using that approach, they could easily fit into the 31 percent
limitation. The problems existed wi th the two- story study model s
with, two-story walls which appeared massive, and would invade the
privacy of neighboring properties. They looked at two-story
buildings with one-story eaves. He showed . a sl ide which compared
the two approaches. The' 28 -Moot wide, two-story building, two -
foot high walls would generally abut the daylight plane. In the
building wi th one-story eaves, or where the roof 1 ine went down to
the first floor line, the second floor was sucked in so it only
covered about half the floor area of the full two-story building.
The problem was that as its- took floor area out of the second floor
and put it in the first floor, it started pushing building cover-
age. They found that they could easily conform to the typical R-1
coverage of 35 percent wi th that approach, but it was difficul t to
conform to the 31 percent coverage. He believed the design tool
was valuable in .lieu of the 31 percent 1 imitation proposed by the
Planning Commission. Another advantage of the approach was that
the bull dims generally would be parel 1 el. to the e_roade = with the
roof ridges parallel to the road. Because of the narrow second
floors, most exposures would be out the ends of the buildings
:rather than ,out the faces :towards the neighbors4 - He urged
approval of -the 36 percent. lot coverage. r
Councilmember Kl ein cl arified that the major difference appeared
to be that there was not an overall . limit of -31 _ percent as
approved by the Planning Commission with some individual varia-
tions:
Mr. Richert sold that was correct. They requested the R-1 limita-
tion on coverage.
Counc il-member Klein asked for a figure of the aggregate coverage.
Mr. Richert bel ieved they were hovering • at 32 to_ 33 percent.
Ms. Cheney said • the- main .'-dffferennc.e :between the = appl lc ants s pro-
posal and the condition applied by the Planning :Commission was
that it allowed the *axinum lot coverage to go to 35 percent, and
they were grilling to' place greater control=: on the :bui=lding design
thus the ill -foot maximums eard_, ight- Staff. did:>notu'ubject:tO the
35- percent lot coverage, =and '-preferred, that},over-(:44-, different
standard as compared, .to -the ;standard R-1 lot. Staff di.d not
5 5 1. 3
2/25/85
recommend that additional conditions be placed on building design
on the homes for future development on the lots. Staff found that
whenever unique standards for single- family homes were estab-
lished, there were long-term enforcement problems. She deferred
to the C1 ty Attorney for the differences in how special conditions
could be imposed and enforced either through deed restrictions or
CCSR's.
Ms. Lee said the condition provided for deed restrictions to pro-
vide as fol1 ows:,' She commented that deed restrictions usually
ran between property owners in the area, and the City would be
unab E e to 'enforce them. If the- Council wanted to use deed
restrictions as a condition in the subdivision, it should be
worded as a condition. She was not sure what the project propo-
nent had in mind wi th the suggestion that the condition be done as
a deed restriction, but the appropriate mode would be to make the
development techniques a condition and, to provide that they be
incorporated into deed restrictions. That way the City and pri-
vate property owners could enforce the deed restrictions.
Mayor Levy declared the publ is hearing closed .
Councilmember Bechtel clarified the deed restriction was part of
one of the conditions from the Planning Commission. If Council
changed the wording to make it a condition as well as attaching it
to a deed restriction, she asked how it was enforced, and what if
a property owner 20 years down the road decided to build out their
house the entire distance. -
Ms. Lee said one method of control was to put restrictions on the
actual subdivision map, which was recorded. ' Another technique
was mutual covenants for adjoining property owners. After a cer-
tain passage of time, the City did not keep track of them and
those most interested in protecting some of the conditions were
the adjoining or surrounding property owners.
Counc ilmember Witherspoon said there was always the possibility
that the developer could not continue with the prof ec t and indi-
viduals would build their own houses, on the lots, and she asked if
the subdivision map and deed restrictions would still be in
place.
. Cheney said the deed restrictions would still be in place.
Count: ilmember Witherspoon cl arified that it was, one: reason for not
having too many restrictions the City could not enforce in the
future.
Mr. Freeland said staff bel ieved it was generally a bad practice
to have specific conditions that were unusual for individual prop-
erties. Staff did not want the burden of enforcement. In the
long run, It probably could not be tracked and there would be a
problem wi th enforcement.
Councilmember Witherspoon said Crescent Park had an enormously
wide street, small lots, and enormous houses. She preferred a
smaller street and more greenery around the houses especially
since they would be oriented parallel to the street, which was
unusual in Palo Al to .
NOTION: Ceoresils.*helr Witherspoonmooed, weeded by Levy, to
adept the Pl auuie': Commission recominenitations that they City Cells-
ell approve the sebdieis1aa as submitted end groat the exceptions
for reduction is let depth and street ri '. - y, with the hil-
lsides finite's:
The City Conseil approves tine proposed ss iitisisit: *d aiopts . a
motion fieding that, the subdivision will t b*** e'tit®tfi valet
imptt ea the a vireoeeet, _and that t. ot.t, _ its conditioned,
including the design end isprrove t :.$tote, ths<.at et
MOTION CONTINUED
alignments, drainage and.' sanitary facilities, locations aced sizes
•f all required rights-of-ways,lot sizes aad configurati•s, 'rad-
ing sad traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehen-
sive Plan, ceaspl les with the Ssbdtvi soon Map Act and Title 21 of
the PARC; that the site is physically suitable for the type and
density •f the proposed devel•pe• t; that the subdivision is not
likely to result to serious public heal th problems; = and that there
are no conflicts with prbl is easements and finding that for the
exceptions for let depth `on Lots 2-7
Let Exception piadings
t 3 .
I, There ears:=rapeecial circumstances *To conditions affecting the
property in that every reasonable lot and access canf1geration
reselts in seed ef lot depth or 'width exceptions of some type,
and- as - optimum lot/street-configuration cannot:be =achieved by
strict adherence to the ,Seneral Design requirements. • In addi-
tion, the proposed comfiguratien allows re.tevtie a of -greater
numbers of existing trees
2. The exception 1s necessary - for the preservation and 'element
of a substantial property right of the petitioner in that two
fewer lets would be yielded by the subdivision. Any other
layout would result in a less pleasing streetscape, a loss of
neighborhood" identity and less street parking capacity
3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or. t*Jeeriens Ito other property in the territory
..where eke property is situated, 'since no. sebstandard .lots wi l 1
be crested by the grswt1 ,l.of the exceptions. :,i11'1:' '#efts° will
contain the minimum required area and will be 7-24 feet wider
this required; _ • _: -
= •i •
4. - -The greening of the exception ,wil:1 - not : vie'at. • •require-
. ,. .. meets,- goal=s, policies or spirit of t -he law, in that only the
• width/depth Frei-attsishi p :ef the lots w•eel d be affected; and as
designed, the lots will provide the egeeivalent 'buildable area
as lets •f standard configuration.
$traet • f -Maur E s..tretare Fi
The smell member of lets served by this subdlvi siaa, and probable
tat:a>e►ee ; traffic deed opskeeeati are =such t• justify a r.dserttee;.of .the
required- rigtetIoy.way frers t6O feet to d• feet-itR that the proposed
street is a dead-end street of less them:350 feet Mdse =a:ngth,� •which
will provide access to only five lots aced will haV a so feetere
development pbteet$al beeyend ,one :.siegleafasily • residence- ova each
lots. -Acteeal street improvements aid on -street- porting -equivalent
to current standards cane be provided,and the practicalt -#unction
of the street and: ieecessary :eaxo•eats -will bit ties see*
The above fled fogs are- mode for the: proposed •subdivtsion sabJect
to the feelloiring conditions:
, r.
;midi tf pas j.;-_ .
I. Tile, appl ieamt-..gieal1 : Offer .•fee! 'dedI ati•a :its r the C1 ty' Pala
Alto, .two S feat:mide _ t seniolits borderiag Vet: (proposed -street
fee! peerpsse.s .•f 1a-st3i ia+! ,street tree 4 ed util'3.ty -�l -Des.
The : street ispr veas*ts ::sb.T1, goiter!' ; to 'City standards fur
00- darts -street s ( seen -:C4ty r$taei llard f 8001 ;15414) t, f.
Z. The street Mull be domed to perwtt 'parking se ors* side only,
ietlth no parking permitted le tite, =cot-eietsane eras. sSpeclfie
stow -text mid 1eeetien shell be deterrleafd by the Treesperte-
t1+en Dlv1sloae,
r. !
1
i
MOTION CONTINUED
S. The subdivider shall grant -fee ti tl e • to - the City fer the
!,street : sh•w n - oa the map and shall :offer thei street for dedlca-
,ti oa to ►theopubl is lee , the r owner{ s certificate on -the v scab;
4. The subdivider shell subml t ° coestructien • pleas; for the
improvements ,proposed to ;the City Engieeer 'for approval ,= Tke
.;improvements -shall be taistrected prior to• 'the. recordation , of
the Heal Map or be goaerenteed in. --a sabdiviatov agreement
entered into with the City of Palo Alto;
5. The developer shall improve the street frontage al •eg McKel l ar
Lane (approximately 1/4 of the street section) with curbs,
gutter, sidewalk and tie in pavemeeit (street sectf•n);
-b•1 Tentative approval of the seebdivisioe shell be conditional
upon a satisfactory sell report, to be sabmltted prier to
flea] map approval. The approved soil report -shall' be the
basis of the proposed (street desige,
7. Developer.shall be regnired te retain existing nature trees,
which have been identified as• significant by the -.City Arbortst
(see Plant Section ' 84-E IA -113) , except those itrees which are
in conflict -with the street' right-of-way or building areas.
The services •f a qualified tree specialist sbaht be required
to evaluate the condition of the existing meters trees and
wake recommendations on how to assure the continued health and
retention of the trees tiering aced after site' ;censtrewction.
The tree specialist's recommendations sha►l l be adhered is drr-
tme:constructions saad;.resp•nsitilltles shall -- include en -site
taespecti•ns •during grading Operations;
` F
8. Any on -site well(s) shall be properly registered with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCYWa) and shall be either
- f maintained or abandoned in accordaeice with -District Standards.
Contact Mr. Nicholas Lyn of SCYWD, at (408). 265.26.00, exten-
siee 382, for information regarding permits and registering or
9. One street fire hydrant shall be instal i ed eeear the beginning
of the cul-de-sac. The specific design and location of the
hydrant shall be determined by the fire Departneeet,
10. Construction activities and instal l atiiae •f sabdiwi stun
improvements shall be sabJect to the reluirememts •f the
City's Noise 0rdleeaaee;
11. i oximum lot coverage for each lot :#a the : swbdivi-si•* Asieatl =ant
exceed 31 percent •f the lit area. lee the: eveet ' that :4poci fic
devel•rment playas fer each let are reviewed:,, and! approved Eby
the Architoctoral. Review Board ,prier to the filing of. the
flaeal map-, see aggregate mada= lot coverage of 31 percent -for
tba _.entire tsabdivisi•a will be perait‘ede The maximum beild-
1 eg height permitted ion these lobs: The
above restric tiers shall be deed restrictiees applicable to
all future -development on the I stn s -,eyed
tZ S1dowel k #ficatiens i pvoposRd 1' order--tales,sas+e� .trees :shso11
000 the-- apprOvel of the =0epnr newt sf fshl is Werkd.:: fsrtisns
of tki side ttt ory net be :deleted, buti Oast be` 1sceted--•rsared
tktt `trs•s ea a ,tom:: I of - stN! of = tbe. - sidewsI k t Addlti•:aiul esse-
meMts aap r b , ,:ns get y .►te 4ctuumidusii=g tut rT sldewal k
sacroachueit lots let areas.
Ceunc flmeeebee °Fl etcher - svppe? ted- narrows streets 1n a1;1 'develop-
- ments; but_ understood -the street mind be -- ti < ne 444-th 'egard--
less -of whether -the. "exception was granted,- and it', - ia:_aatter -of
whether the easeoei t -was `counted in the lot size-. -If ache appl ica-�
tor Was den'edA-. she -asked if seven units could still be built,
6 5 1 5
2/25/85
Ms, Cheney said staff would have to evaluate the proposal.
Councilmember Fletcher saw no reason why seven houses had to be
crammed on the lot, She said there was considerable frontage from
Suzanne Drive, and estimated that three houses could front on
Suzanne without building a new cul_de_sac, and two; houses could
front on McKellar. She saw no reason to grant exceptions for the
sake o f getting the maximum number of houses onto the 1 ot. She
did not see how it could be termed "a loss of housing" when there
were only two houses on the property currently. She opposed the
motton..
Councilmember Renzel understood that staff did not want to have
unusual specific conditions for future regul ation put on the prop-
erties. Where the City created substandard lots with substandard
depths and widths, it appeared the City invited variance appl ica-
tions-, and the, weird shaped lotsbecame a _basis for .granting vari-
ances. She did .not bel ieve- the neighborhood was done a, service by
granting sub strind and lots with -current restrictions -that required
the first buil ding to meet certain standards•,. ;and . sub sequentl y
another owner could do whatever •they wished •to the property. In
the absence of structuring a subdivision approval ;that fixed the
amount of devel opment to occur .on. the property for some period of
time, the City created a situation! where the neighborhood would
not necessarily - see what they thought they were getting, under the
subdivision. She believed _ it behooved the Council to request the
developer to return with lots which snore cl osely conformed to the
C1 tys s lot configurations,, The sole criterion was -not -the area of
the lot, but also depth and width and the other considerations
upon 'which the Ci ty' s zoning ordinance was structured. She
opposed the notion. The Council always wrestled --wi th variance
applications, and if it was going to create situations, it should
know and acknowl edge them right away. She did not: choose to
create the special circumstances.
Councilmember Kl ein supported the motion and bel ieved ;the subdivi-
sion was sensibly designed wi th creative sol rations. Constituents
requested more single -fancily housing in the affordable range, and
he bel ieved the project ful filled that request. Council should
recognize that its lot coverage rules- were not handed down from on
high and would not necessarily cover every particul ar situation
especially when considering that Palo Al to was a community with 9
percent devel oped and the 1 eft over parcel s would frequently be
difficult to handle. The 'design of the devel opment - treated well
the restrictions under which i.t had to labor. He bel ieved it made
sense to grant the variances: The applicant was on -the .right
-track wi th hi s proposed language to change, !item 1I, and. he
bel level: it was more of a .cl can up than a change in the -detail .
•
iilEMimErr: Coons member el olelrsd, secesdad by Cobb, to
delete Comdttioa 11„ and insert Ow fel 1lwing Cs ditlen 11
t
11. Maxieoe building height shall be 25 feet; maximum building
ceversge fer each lot shall sat exceed 31 percest of the lot
area ,orov toed, • however, that the maximum ,lot coverage far
each lot cssi d be increased to 35 percent for each l ot. i f:
o. Specific, dovelelrseat plus • far all lets ere approved by
the architectural Review Board (ARI) prior to , Mimi the
final subdivision rap en the property; and
b l die$. nave Haas for' structeres en : all lots are
I Salted to at height, of 1 feet above the Mgrs soy= with the
aggregate horizontal - length if sesead ':stery -:formers met
eaceedial 31 percent of the total perimeter length of the
structure. Additionally, that the above restrictions on
building height and )let coverage shall be deed restric-
thank applicable to all Patera development as the lots
and -the language .e f snob deed restrictians shall be sub-
jec t . ti r s flbl a approval of the City, Attorney. -
5 5 1 7
2/25/85
Councilmember K1 ein said his amendment was a condition to be
enforced by the City. In addition, i t was a deed restriction, but
from the City` s. standpoint it was a condition of approval and it
could be enforced.
Councilmember Witherspoon' understood that if the proposed project
did not go forward; the City Attorney recommended that there be a
covenant among the adjacent property owners. - If' en individual
made application to develop lot 21, they woul d not have an ARB
requirement. , a •
Councilmember Klein bel leved hi s amendment met the Ci ty Attorney' s
concerns.
Ms. Lee said yes because the Ci ty had enforcement powers under the
condition as well as the subsequent property owners in the area.
Vice Mayor Cobb bel ieved the- proposed project . provided = a reason-
able ,.buffer to ;the nearby dense developnnnente • s: Councilmember
i:1 On' s comment • about the single*: family homes wars" correct and he
believed the restrictions,: o f which the amendment was an important
part, went a long way towards assuring people like Mr, Van Nuys
that they would get a prr'ject they could comfortably :live with.
The alternative. coul d be the kind of enormous hoaising on :smaller
I ots such as'. that on the. Crescent Park site. • He .bel ieved the
neighborhood would accept the proposed project, and that it was in
better scal e.
•
Mayor Levy cl arified that Council was voting on a maximum building
height" of 25 feet in 1 ieu of the 30 feet normally permitted in an
R-1 zone and that the total lot coverage could be 35 percent. The
deed restrictions would lock in all the el ements in perpetuity.
Councilmember Klein said yes, but from the- City's. standpoint it
was of secondary concern. Deed restrictions provided a mechanism
only for the neighbors to enforce things, and as a City, the pro-
tection was the condition of ;approval•.-
Mayor Levy cl arified that the: condition appl ied to add-ons.
Counc i1 !ember Klein said absolutely.
Mayor Levy ,asked if the Ci tyr Attorney concurred:,
Ms. Lee said yes.
Mayor Levy sapid lie supported - the amendment and agreed with Coun-
cilmember Kl ein that the concept of smaller homes in Palo Al to was
a good one. He was concerned about the shape of the lots and the
fact that it. aright result in homes that were intrusive into the
neighborhood . and if -the City-. was going to;°hay e°differentlyi shaped
lots. it, was -:necessary, to —review -coverage =of all :other lots f and
height and dayl fight plane characteristics to ensure that what wet
in was appropriate for the different configurations, The PI a€nning
Commission: recommendations" with the' Council P s ,refiinearen is were
proper,: and he believed the result wo&1 d be houses with weight,
density„tend scale similar to ._the- houses. that were currently buil t
on R-1 hots that were 5,000 square feet or more and which ,had the
ware- general configurations throughout !the! Ci ty.. - He: supported the
main:notions
Councilmember Woolley asked about the potential arg ent in 20
years that- other single family properties wee* allowed: to build to
a greeter -extent She: 'a eke* how then •Zanilg Adaeinistrator.- would
hap dl a that argument. - _ ; _ {
ler grown was not=certoin stiff nnou1 r realtize , the oonditions were
on the property in.. I5 years. F Configuritie`n of: the lots and
respective depth and : width ware_ considered= es a= factors in e,the
Unique circumstances •of the"t;1`otee and .i eight, bor.' taket variances
could be granted,
6 5 1 8
2/25/85
Counc i1teieu bar Wuul l ey agreed wi th Count iimembers Fl etcher and
Renzel about the problems down the line. She appreciated the con-
cept to avoid the massiveness being experienced in Crescent Park
and believed the specific rules developed were good right now.
She was concerned about the mess the City might get into in 10 or
15 Years because of the spec ific rul es, and woul d not support the
amendment or main motion.
Ms. Lee said with regard to the question of subsequent building
additions, she responded that they were covered, but in, reading
Condition 1 , "Speci-fic devel opment pl an for all dots were
approved by the ARB prior td filing of the final subdivision map
on the property," would not by its language apply to an addition,
but the second portion would.
Councilmember KI ein was disappointed by Mr. Brown's remarks and
hoped that staff would have a system where a marker was put on
various lots to show that conditions were imposed. He could not
believe that if someone made an application in 10 years, staff
would not find out that a condition was imposed as it would al so
show up in a title search. If staff did not have a system to mark
the file, he hoped one would be imposed immedi;3tely. Further, he
hoped that anyone reviewing the request for a variance in 10
years, would take into account the actions taken that evening. He
did not mean to tie the hands of the Zoning Administrator in 10
years because conditions changed, and everyone might agree with
the variance proposed but he believed it was a relevant factor
that any Zoning Administator should consider in 1995 how the par-
ticular property got there and the trade offs made. did not.
bel ieve it would be a usual variance or that Council was creating
the problems referred to.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote sf 8-1, Wsol l ey voting
Counc 11 member Sutori us supported the amendment because he believed
ft was sound. He concluded that as the City reached build out,
there were few situations to permit the economies of scal e that
came from a subdivision and that they were at a stage where some
of the creativity and control associated wf th a PC a ppl led in a
residential subdivision as there was give and take between the
P1 anning Commission and the appl scant, the appl scant and the
neighborhood, and now at the Council level with a further round of
give and take. As a resul t, he supported the main motion knowing
that staff had some concerns about its impl ernentation and that
some reacted to the design concept. It would go through for ARB
approval and he was satisfied, with it recorded as a condition,
that the City would be able to administer the condition in the
future and he supported the main motion.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 6-3, -Fletcher,, Ismael,
V.•lley voting amp.°
COUNCIL RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION REGARDING LITIGATION FROM
ITEM #15 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPLICKTIO1f or I1ARRIliGToN FIIJANCIAL CbRPORAtIO( FOR i46DIFiaCAT!ON
H d41 l AMONA.. (PLA -f l
(CMR:193 5)
Planning Commissioner John Nor•thway said the Commission believed
that nine months was a a0ore proper period of time to allowfor the
start of construction on the project rather than the proposed time
period by the applicant. The project head, been around for . a long
time and there were some problems with the existing structures on
the site that should be taken care of.
Chief Planning Official. Bruce Freeland said he received a phone
call that afternoon' from Lo'uis Grendane who intended to , speak on
behalf of several nearby .property owners. Mr. Grendona asked that
5 5 1 9
2 /25/86
he state his concern on beha' f of Mr. Schmidt of Richco Janitorial
Service and the antique shop or Homer. Mr. Grendona was with the
Cardinal French Laundry at 260 Homer, and his concern was that the
people were satisfied with the project, but wanted no extension of
time beyond that which the Planning Commission recommended and
hoped that some measures could be taken to clean up the property
which was presently in a state of poor maintenance.
Vice Mayor .Cobb said construction was supposed to be compl eted in
15 months, and he asked what happened if it was not.
Mr. Brown responded that they would be back with another amendment
to the PC zone.
Comic ilmember Renzel did not recall seeing the particular design
plan before and asked whether Council had seen it.
Mr.• Brown said the design was reviewed by the ARB and Planning
Commission, but Council had not seen it before.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that in addition to the extension
of the time period, Council was also making decisions about the
design pl an.
Mr. Brown said the three units at the property of 744 Ramona were
redesigned. _ There were more bedrooms than the previous •approval;
the structure was modified and the. design changed substantially.
Councilmember Renzel asked what Council had to do if it did not
1 ike the design.
Mr. Brown responded that _a referral back to the ARB for a recon-
sideration of design would be the best course.
Councilmember Renzel asked if there were any time constraints.
Mr. Freel and said the prof ect was al ready in application for a
1 ong time period and .he would not recommend actions to drag it out
for a much greater 1 ength of time.
Councilmember Renzel asked if Mr. Freeland was suggesting that
Counc it should accept an unacceptable design rather than insi st on
something compatible with the neighborhood .
Mr. Freel and said if Council bel iev.ed .the design was unacceptable,
staff wou1 d .not recommend it be accepted. There might be probl ems
wi th the statutory time limits for the appl ication.
Council m em ber Re n zel ci ar i fi e d tha t there wa s a .PC ex i sting with a
design pl an.
Mr. Freeland said the old design with three small units lapsed and
was no longer in force.
Councilmember .Renzel believed it was an extension of the time
schedule,_ which, could not= be done if It -already lapsed.
Mr. Freeland said there was an old approval which- dated back .many
years with a development schedule attached. That project was not
built within the, time that the; development schedul a specified. A
new project was now designed, and the debate that evening was over
the Bevel opulent schedule for the new, design. The applicant
requested a longer start. up time and a longer period of time in
which to complete the project.. and the Pl anning. Commission
requested the project be initiated toarier so the debate or er time
had to do wi t h a_ n e w d ev el o pe en t schedule. for the new project.
Councilmember Renzel cl ari fled that until a PC zone was .approve4,
the project wa s• without a zone.
5.5 2 0
2/25185
1
Mr. Brown said that was essentially correct although the original
PC was a three -phased development. The renovation portion of an
office structure on Emerson Street was completed, so a portion of
the PC was in effect. The remainder of the PC at 744 Ramona
lapsed due to the fact that construction was not commenced within
the required time frame.
Councilmember Renal said the City received a good lesson in why
not to include two properties in one PC. She asked if there was a
way to consider them as two. separate PCs. She asked if the proj-
ects were tied together.
Mr.. Freeland said yes. The parking which served the professional
office at 743 Emerson included parking to be located on the Ramona
Street side. The two projects were still linked and he believed
it would be difflcul t to severe them.
Mayor Levy asked about the original concept of providing parking
at 745 Emerson, how that changed, and why i t was no longer
needed.
Mr. Brown said the development at 745 Emerson had no parking at
all on that portion of the si to . Under the old PC, there were to
be eight parking spaces at 744 Ramona for the Emerson Street proj-
ect. In addition, there were four spaces at 727 Ramona, which was
in back of the . downtown library, which was also part of the same
PC- Since the PC lapsed, 727 Ramona was rezoned to an RM-4 loca-
tion severing it from the PC and locating all 12 required parking
spaces for 745 Emerson on the site to the rear at 744 Ramona.
Mayor Levy clarified that 744 Ramona contained :the parking for the
Emerson site plus the parking for its own site,
Mr. Brown said 744 Ramona contained the parking for the Emerson
site, and the parking would be on the adjoining portion of the
si to , which the applicant al so controlled at Homer and Ramona.
The three units at 744 Ramona would sit above 12 commercial park-
ing spaces. The parking for those three units was on the adjoin-
ing site.
Mayor Levy said the project was approved by the ARB on a 3-0 vote,
and the ARB was supportive of the project.
Mr. Brown said there " were few comments during the design review.
The ARB was pl eased with the project.
Mayor Levy clarified that `the ARS considered the unusual parking
arrangement.
Mr. Brown said yes. They understood the unusual parking arrange-
ment and essentially had no problem with it.
Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open.
Louis Schump, Carrasco & Associates, said the project was a nine -
unit townhouse complex with a courtyard visible .from both Homer
and Ramona Streets. The design concept picked up the smaller
scale residential units which existed further - east on Homer and
using that scale in a Modul ar way to turnthe corner -,and make the
transition from what was essentially a residential street to a
commercial street. It was a difficult site with a church, parking
lot, townhouse complex and the commercial : properties. Mr.
Harrington requested that Council reconsider the nine-weonth start
up time. Potentially, the rains could start as early as November
taking one to two months off the end of the nine Ronths for a
start-up . time considering the project required extensive etceve-
tion at the corner to provide= the' parking for the units. At ,the
beginning of the nine months was the time required to process
working: drawings end get them in for a permit; secure final
5 5 2 1
2/25/85
financing, which took three to four months, i ear ing only a four -
month best • scenario time frame. Mr. Harrington hoped that a
three-month extension could be granted to the nine months making a
full year so that if something carne up during working drawings or
permit phase or something with the weather, there would be some
fl exibllity. a
Councilmember Fletcher asked what should be done with the property
for a whol e year bec ause the problem wa s the appearance of the
property. If that could be cl eaned up, there might ,be more fl ex i-
bil ity on the part of the Council .
Mr. Schump said he could not disagree, but had not discussed the
matter with Mr. Harrington.
Councilmesnber Bechtel was interested .in the same .question because
she was sympathetic to the nine -month position by the Planning
Commission. She watched other developers in the area begin con-
str uc ti o n in December . Th i s si to looked awful , which made Council
rel uc tent to go al ong wi th a a extension. -
Counc ilmember Fletcher asked about the typical time frame for an
application tobeprocessed through the City.
Mr. Brown responded it was difficult to say _. and depended on the
si xe .of the development, whether the appl scant secured prel iminary
financing, :or began working 'drawings. In terms of a PC develop-
ment schedul e, staff normally saw anything from 12 months to some-
what less. In the case of a development like the one before the
Council, he believed nine months was reasonable, but as pointed
out by Mr. Schump, it put -thean into the rainy season.;
Mr. Northway assumed an approval around March 1, and while he
could not speak for Mr. Carrasco, construction documents for the
project t should take around three months, and City review took
around six weeks. The Planning Commission believed that would
give them ampl e fl exibil sty even if those were •extended . It was
important to note that no excavation was required in : the PC area
of the application because the platform was already built. The
RM-3 area would be excavated, but the time frame only appl led to
the PC
Mr. Brown said there was a necessi ty for additional Ci ty
approval s. There would need to be a subdivision of the site to
merge the lots and resubdivide for the condominium units,
Councillember Woolley asked what was meant in the! ordinance by
provision No. 11 which referred to the maintenance between= now and
when the building went up. She asked what was meant by safe and
respectable conditions.`
Mr. Brown said it was the recommendation of the Planning Commis-
sion. He agreed the word "respectable" might, be difficult to
interpret and enforce, but "safe" conditions referred to the con-
ditioris of the existing • building; that the building. would be
secured from vandals; and that litter not occur from the property
over the City sidewalk itch might cause a safety pr4blee from a
pedestrian standpoint. •
Ms. Lee said wi th respect to the partic=ul ar condition, the City
Attorney's office received complaints concerning� =arts and other
vermin since the PI anning Commission considered the 'Wetter and
she suggested wording that ..sa fety add health" ha tares not exist
ors the property.
Mitt IOM: Cosocil.. bet etcktel, mowed, seconded toy %fol i sty:
approval •f thePlanteing Coast *1 ea receemandat#ua ee f•l1*us r.
Ap pr•to'. the proposed asseeiweats t* PC Di strlet. 31$t -as fell oars:
i T I ON CONTINUED
1. Expaasiso of the floor area •f the three residential condo-
minium omits and irecreas+e fa bedroom cost as shown on the
dowel *point pl ass;
2, Relocation •f twelve cewaaaerciel parking spices for the commer-
cial building at 745 Emerson Streit to the ground level of the
project at 744 !Ramose; and
3e Extoras'•n of the development schedule for 744' Rageaa project
to begin c•astrectlon within 111 months •f City Council
approval and to complete construction within 16 months •f
initiation of construction.
Council finds that the project will 'nett !rove a siglatficaot adverse
effect •s the environment aid the following required PC District
fiodings:
1. The site is s• situated and the use or ■ses proposed for the
site are of such characters sties that the application of gen-
eral districts or combining districts mill not provide suffi-
cient flexibility to 'allow the proposed development in that
the provision of commercial perking On a site etherm ae used
for residential purposes s not permitted under existing
multiple -family districts;
2. Devel element of the si tee under the prowl slams of the PC
(Pleased Community) district will result to public benefits
not otherwise attainable by app] •cation . •f the regulations of
general districts or combining districts in that the project
will provide required commercial parking for professional
offices existing at 745 Emerson Street. lfi than such parking
being provided, the commercial users •f the Emerson Street
offices would be terced,;ts • •seos-street parties which is very
limited in the ssrreandipg area; and
3. The use •r uses permitted and the sits development regulations
applicable wi this tits district shall be ,consistent with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and shall be, compatitO a with
existing and p•tentisl arses on adjoining sites or within the
general vicinity. The proposed use of the site for three con -
dominion units adjacent t• commercial uses and proximate to
the Downtown area f s coon stalnt *i tit C*mpret ems1ve-. Pl as
Employment Pel ice 2 which eaaccarages the construction of more
housing ea or, near tedsstrlal or commercial si tos; sad *•us nay
Objective 3 which eacosreges tecreases in the" local bewsiog
supply.
Approval -is. subject to the f•i towing- coid1 tiens
• t
1. Thet the property " lire betwu* 744:: Roma: red 74i Itamene/
225-231 teuershall: be rosined during the subdivision process,
prier to oecopeocy •f the residential units;
2. That six residential parking spaces • complying .vi th e11 City
staederds be provided.; for the three residential setts at 744
Ramona prier is occeparcy •f the gilts;
That l eadscap1mg be instal ltd in accordance with the aperesed
plan and- shall be maistafoed and, replaced, :as necessary, to
assure normal growth, health, and groomed appearance;
4. before finalizing e•astruction dr erio#s, the leveleper shall.
obit flee : 4relaage. pi aes aerial Cal c,tati•as to :tits Pebl.$c
brits/Eng1e•er .say tor. review ; *object' to approval of this.
department;
MUTION GONTINOL®
5. All work done within the public right-of-way shall be subject
to issuance •f a street. opening permit from the Pob1 ic. �llarks!
Engineering Department; f,
b. In addition -to akeetiwg the requireseot of Title i 4, the proj-
ect -shall meet either •f the felt owie1 t
a. If individual water heaters are used is each unit, install
stubbed -in solar prepl umb iog in accordance with, the City
of .Pal a Alto sal ar: prep' res#1ig• specifications is fac i l l-
taste the- rfuture install atio,r • of sol ar water, heating.
b. If a central water heater is useds install a solar water
heating- system sired te► provide 'at least 50- percent of the
domestic; water heating energy, regairements:
7. The protect shall be protected with automatic fire sprinkler
system; •
O. No construction activities or strra5ie of materials shall be
permitted in the public right-of-way, including perking areas
and the sidewalk. f Developer sheacld design boildisg and con•-
straction access such that no public property is impacted
during construction; •
9. The developer shall remove the existing street trees on Ramona
at the property frontage and pleat -new street trees) accord-
ing to Ate Parks Department's speci:ficativres;;
s . •
10., Prier —to issuance of a building. permit; the r appHcaot shall
obtain ARS .approval of the following:
a. Final landscape plans including planting proposal for roof
terraces and courtyard areas, paving details and t colors,
and other landscape details;
b. Color 'proposal for .the=-b*ildings,
material;
c. Irrigation plans; and
al, Exterior, 1 ightlsg pl arcs
including : 'calor and
IL, The building-- be kept in "safe, healthful,
condition."
and
•
resoec tab' e
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE :OF THE
b1 L Ilk Y :-$F PALO- AL'''0 AMENDING 'SECTION— --
111.4114040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CONE- (TNE ZONING
NAP}: TO !AREN PROVISIONS OF- -TIM PC (PLANK,' C011ilDN1Tf.)•
DISTRICT, 3182 FOR PROPERTY RNOVII--LAS 744 • RAMOMA= STREET",
Caunc ilmember Bechtel said the project dragged on for a long_ time-.
Mr. Harrington owned the: property. 'far at -1 east - the -last ; three
years, and it stook s 71ong time to:.get the 'design =threegh the ARS
-
and the Planning Comm ssfors, but she!•-dld- not believe it was. the
fault of the ARS and the Planning Coieuissior . Thc= • time line
schedule an -d the tiate - between.. the ri -original -design eImad -rhea it
returned was maybe, :six or 'eight- months', and ?the, project needed''' to
move±. al Ong. ..
Cauncilwember: Wool ey. c18r.#fled the '1.ast' seeteada of the ' staff
recommendation, °`Staff shoul4 al so,be -directed: to initiate a
req estr-`for the 'Hi storic ;ltesources Board In vUwe ff=the= demel ltion
permit for the structure° was includes. ; °t ;: I
5 5 2 5
2/25/85
Cnuncilmember Bechtel said yes.
Counc ilmember Renzel asked about the legal relationship between
the threecondpminlums thatwere part of the PC. a,t 744. Ramona and
the 'remaining, condominiums that were. in RM-3. They wou1d be 'using
parking ,from the Ramona/Horser property ,and yet. the PC ,was, supposed
to standon ,iti own initially.., .While it was convenient. to be able
to tie it together and. make' sbte',tte parking was ,there, she asked
about the relationship..
Mr, Brown said Condition .1 . , qto peg of, the ordinance required
that the property line' between 7.44 Reona and 'the -adjoining Homer
site be removed so that the . three units WOO be added, . to the six
as a 'common development. That Would take place during, the sub-
division proce , and at that point ' the City would .al'so review. the
dC&R's so that it would be one' unied co,ndbmini'um 41'00 op ent,
Counc ilmember Renzel asked if a portion of the site was going to
be zoned PC and the other portion RMe3.
1r. Brown said yes. For example, .many of the motel sites al ong El
Camino were zoned .CN in the front and RM-2:in , the. ,near.,,
Councilmember Renzel did not like mixing up proper.tias on PC zones
especially with the amount of trouble with the ,proposed project.
She 'al so found the design to be harsh and inappropriate for the
neighborhood. Right opposite were properties more in the
Victorian style and the building; was prison -like, which she die
not want to approve for the community. There were enough such
buildings _al ready.
P4OTION PASSED by • vote. of 8ai,teazel voting 'Pls.! f -
ITEM #16_1PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE EXI TztiG' CHEMICAL
M(D trA/ARDOTit itlTERIAL STORAGE FACILFrI. FT) FS R PROPERTY "LOCATED AT
,,
C.ounc•.il�member K1ein. commented, that he ult not ,parktic 1pato on the
tient 'since 'hi s' 1'aw firm repretented the appl icant it the. matter.
Pl anning Commissioner John Northway co*pl i tented the Fire Depart-
ment on,. ,an, eAcel lent job_ii the. area of,. hazardous ,waste. The
referral 'by `the' Ochitectiural Review Board (ARB) was 4,n appropri-
ate move because it got both the P1 anning Commission And the Coun-
cil ,up to speeg., on the types of prey reels in the, Fire Department.
The Planning Commission was comfortable recaaiefendin`q approval of
the project.
MOTION: Cssscil®#aber Bechtel shred, seconded by Fletcher, to
adapt the . Plushly Commission recommendation Midis*: ` that the
project will net have any sissificaot adverse. os.vtronmental
impacts aad will, is fact, improve ex t sti sg stera$e oeth4dd s and
losses risk of upset, ss+ :,recom.end approval sf the project. The
following 'findings steel d be %acl sled e
1. The project, as prepes.d, is Consistent With the standards asst
forth it Section 16.48.126 ®f the3 lienicipeli Cede (A> iirdi-
sasce) is that:
\a. The prepessd project design is compatible with the imwedi-
ate a vireosent by virtsf+e that the. visual -impact of the
chemical st•ragie facilities within -a behavesgrade meekest.
cal yard. will be ®urea in .meters; *ad
'reject, design Creates . a. safe sat efficient erne to
heaaedi rte tad stare hazsrdoss materiels *ad 'is appropriate to
•its tome ties.
MOTION CONTINUED
2. That the project is consistent with the standards set forth in
Title 17 of the Palo Alta Municipal Code (llazardass Material
Storage) in that the proposed storage facility meets or
exceeds all applicable s aide,rds of the ! Ni form Fire Cede,
Unifiers !Wilding Cede and the Palo Alto Hazardous Materials
Management Plan.
The fallowing condi tia*s should be 'included:
1. That project approval is. ssbject to the issuance sf a variance
to allow for the addition. of the ,building area .necessary .to
enclose the Roi,smn/flmaia►ie gas storage facility (approxi-
mately 252 sgsare feet) at a site where no additional square
footage would be allowed.,
2. The project shall meet' the following Fire Department require-
ments:
a. Self -closing salve snitch for drain 1 toes from containment
areas are required.
b. The drain from the corrosive storage area must go to an
acid neutralization system.
c. Floors of fmc11 i ty gust be sealed with ,eps*y.
4. Sprinklers must meet "extra hazard'' classification.
3. The project shall sweet the fel1owl ng fol ice 'Department
requirements:
a. The - area. shall -he illewitaated with'
at lease -one foot
candle.
b. Fsbc 1sg shall be mesh and be ne 1 erger than two inch mesh
d1a ends; at least nine gauge steel sheild be used; and
the fence, shesld be. eight to ten feet 1n height.
c; gates shall meet the same requirements as above. ' Post
braces 'should be .ss*4 for each gate cornar.,
4. If padlocks are used, they are to have the, fel.lowing
featsrse:
* Doeb1 -1 ecti ag
41114_ 0 0). o. ,.
* A flitFpie. tM t
eehanism (there will be am indentation nt heel
* )tame at least a 9/32 -inch case _hardened steel shackle.
NOTI$M PASSED sari)) tausly, _Klein 'net part,icipa,tlig,,.,"`, { , •
Mayor Levy appreciated the Conscientious -work, done_)by the ARA, the
citizens, the Planning Commission, the Fire Department.; and mem-
bers of the Planning staff.
iDIFIc*Tin l O t ISC Q DIMAN (Oa, :(C4Rs`174:5)
Assistant Police Chief.,'Chr.is Drkia said the Poi`ice Department had
received its advanced sound meter cepab1.e of measuring impul se or
peak noises. A.minor amendment °to the ordinance wa's net essary to
allow the use of the new instrument.
NOTION: Vice Mayer Cobb e4,, seconded by Woolley. to ,:.adept
the staff reeesseeodatilite to $4 pt :°the. ordleaace ■sdi ffcattoa to
allow for oeessresseat of lapel se * l se,
5 5 2 6
2/25/85
NOTION CONTINUO
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL OF TRT_ CITY OF _ PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
9.10.020(c) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE. REGARDING
THE DEFINITION OF 'NOISE LEVEL"
Councilmen ber Sutorius said the ac Zion was a change in the lan-
guage of the existing ordinance and tonight Council approved
minutes of December 17, 1984, when then Vice Mayor Levy took staff
to task for the use of the phrase "state of the art" and Mayor
Klein agreed with Vice Mayor Levy regarding that language. He
noted .that. the _language appeared in the ordinance..
Mayor Levy thanked Bob Debs, a former Councilmember who brought
the matter to the attention of the Council. It was important
because up to now the City could not meausre the kinds of intru-
sive noise where peaks were. hit .and then there might be a normal
noise ambiance. for several minutes and .then another peak hit.
MOTION PASSED unanimously,
ITEM f18 , HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM CIP' 84-23 (SAF 5)
TanrI81:5)
Mayor Levy said the item wa s a budget amendment ordfinance and
required a two-thirds vote.
Councilmeriber Bechtel was delighted that the City was moving
dread . .
MOTION: Csuacllmember. Bechtel �rov+ed, seconded _ b ►. !teazel , to
adopt 'the staff recon eedatiea as Volleys:
1 . Anthorize . the. establishment of CIE 84-23 for City Hazardous
Materials Storage Iaprevemeats; and
2.:. Adopt budget amendment ordinance adding $110,000 to CIP 04-23
by trausferr1NN .foods from _the ,Reserrve for Capital Prefects.
ORDINANCE 3tO1_ eo ' _ t'tl '''ORDINANCE, OF. THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY DT Ma`ALTO ' AMENDING` THE INDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1,04-8S TO EST.140:LISH AND PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
#APP*OP*IATION FON CAPITAL I11►AOOEMENT FRJECT 4*. RS
'CITY- PAZARNUS: MATERIALS STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS',
Mayor Levy asked about the status of the reserve for capital proj-
ec ts.
City Manager Bill 'aver said the reserve was now estimated to end
the year with approximately $3.5 mill ion.
Mayor Levy asked how VIA compared with the end of last year and
the City's projections.
Zanier said it was about $100,000 above the projection rude
last July, and sl ightly below the ending bal ance for the previous
year.
NOT ION `PASSED ■Nanteeasl y.
ITEM 419 lGREEMEMT FOR TRAl1SFE1t OF RIGHTS - TO, CAPACITY ..AND ENERGY
CUT I 3-n (cNR:1 'T;51.
Vice Mayor Cobb said Palo Al to had a ouch 1 arger share of the geo-
thermal plant than it needed, and he bel iered the history woul_d be
useful.
5 5 2 "7 2/25/85
Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Planning, Ken DeDario,
said in 1983 when the matter was first brought to Council, some of
the cities in. NCPA chose, to.. lower, their, participation share and
the City of Palo Alto picked up the additional shores with the
idea that it. would have to sell off some of it long, term. It now
turned out that Palo Al to was, selling more than it expedted.
Vice Mayor Cobb said it was sometimes easy to observe that they
were talking about potential basel ond power and the future ' of the
WAPA allocation after the year 2000 was something about which the
City could not be positive. One could argue about the City's pro-
tecting itself by keeping a little more baseload power for the
long term, but he believed at that point the geothermal field
would be substantially depleted and would have much less future to
it. He asked Mr. DeDario to broaden that point.
Mr. DeDarlo said the sale for permanent shares :was' for the full
life of the plant. Additional sales through the first 15 years
were because the City of Palo Alto could not use baseload in its
resource mix. About the year 2000 or 2001 when it could begin to
use a little baseload, it would only need a small Mount because
the City of Palo Alto had its Western contract, which was basical-
ly a baseload resource. It needed approximately TO megawatts
every hour of every day for the whole year and Western served it.
The lower portion of the City's load was not growing significant-
ly, and, therefore, even in the year 2000. and after, when Palo
Alto began to need more energy during those months, it was only
for a few hours for short periods of time.
MOTION: ‘Coreiilimeherr Bechtel moved, seconded Illy Cobb, to adopt
the ressl etlaa approving and aetiesri ziaq execetlon of the ' Agree-
ment, for Trasffer of . Rights to Capacity acrd Energy pf Geothermal
Generating Project we. 3 hotweea the .Tarrlock Irrigation District
and the City of Palo Alto
AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF ZI TS, TO CAPAC ITT AND ENERGY
OF GEOTHERMAL GENERATING PROJECT *0. 3, BATED AS or
arrow I, 1 $4
NY and !11trir e0 the Cities . ef.
Nealdsbrrrg, Lod .s,Pa1* Alto, Roseville; Ukiah,
the Pl umas-Siierra Antal Electric Coopetrative
and /airlock Irrigation District
INTIM! 36 : aret$ tI, !RESILik ION OF1TNE
ALTO `:APPROTI*t- GREERERT ' kW 'TRANSFER
0* RIGHTS TO CAPACITY BIB» ENLIST OF GEOTNENNAL GENERAT-
ING PROJECT *O. 3 TO TgRL0CR IORIGATI®I DISTRICT.
Councilo Der Woolley clarified that staff did not believe there
would be any growth in baseload needs from its present 70 mega-
watts tts until past the year 2000.
Director of Utilities Richard Young said the 70 megawatt load
level was a sa1aieum load requirement around the clock, every day
of the year, which meant when everyone was in bed, the businesses
slowed tor their minimum and; everything was leveled. The varia-
tion* of the 70. megawatts .ranging, to the peark of 115 megawatts was
determined by the actual activity of people " in town. Staff did
not see a vast growth rate in that area, The businesses that came
in generally shut down in the same way. The base miniature load did.,
hot grow as rapidly as the peak load.
POT'MMO_ PASSE, :.Neei*.u1;F,
ADJOURNMENT
Counc 11 adjourned a
ATTEST:
5 2 8
/25/85