Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-01 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting July 1, 1985 CITY or Mbo ITEM PAGE City Manager William caner re Fire in Foothills 5 9 9 1 Area Oral Communications 5.9 9 2 Approval of Minutes of May 20, 1985 5 9 9 2 Consent Calendar 5 9 9 3 Referral 5 9 9 3 Action 5 9 9 3 Item #1, Street Trash Receptacle Emptying and 5 9 9 3 Maintenance Item #2, Amendment to Five Year Impermeable Cover 5 9 9 3 Material Contract Item #3, East Meadow Substation Switchgear Storage 5 9 9 3 Facility Item #4, Revision of Joint Exercise of Powers 5 9 9 3 Agreement for the South Bay Cooperative Library System Item #6, Planning Commission unanimous recommendatin re approval, with conditions, of the application of Mr. and Mrs. Lee Brandenburg for site and design' approval for proberty located at. 3220 Alexis Drive Item #7, Conveyance of storm draii► easement - 3220 Alexis Drive Item #8, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board unanimous recommendation re approval of the application of the City of Palo Alto for intersection modifications at Alma Street and Churchill Avenue Agenda Changes, Additions And Deletions Consolidation of Items 9, 129 and 15 Item #9, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re application of John Boyd for zone change from R-2 to PC and for. Preliminary Map to divide one parcel, into two for: property. located at 3722-3724 Ortega Court 5 9 9.4 5 9 9 4 5 9 9 4 5:,9 9 4 5 9 9:4.. 5"994 ITEM P A C; E A Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re application of Hoskins Engineers for a Tentative Subdivision Map to merge three parcels into one and resubdivide into nine condominiums at 744 Ramona Street and 225 Homer Street Item #11, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re application of Brian-Kangas-Foulk & Associates for a Preliminary Parcel Map at 3180-3200 Hanover Street Item #12, Planning Commission recommendation re appeal of Michael Fleming for property located at 3722-3724 Ortega Court Item #13, Planning Commission recommendation re Moratorium on demolition and building permits involving substandard lots in College Terrace Item #14, Historic Resources Board recommendation re placing 367-369 Addison in Category 1 of the Historic Building Inventory Item #15, Conveyance of Former Ortega School Site Below Market Rate Duplex Lot to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation Item #16, Request of Counci l member Acqui si t) on of the Winter Club Site Bechtel re Item #17, City Manager William Zaner re Fire in Foothills Area ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION RE EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS: 9:40 p.m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: 9:55 p.m. 5 9 9.5 5 9 9 8 5 9 9 8 6 0 0 1 6 0 0 5 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 6 0 1 1 6 0 1 1 Regular Meeting July 1, 1985 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley. ABSENT: Fletcher Mayor Mayor Levy announced the need for a Closed Session regarding Employer/Employee relations to be held during or after the regular meeting. Mayor Levy said a large fire was occurring in the Foothills and was now contained. He asked the City Manager to report. City Manager Bill Zaner said the fire started late that afternoon around 3.00 p.m., and by the time the City was done responding, there were between 150 and 200 firefighters. Palo Alto responded on a Mutual Aid and it appeared that most of the fire damage was in Los Altos Hills. In the area above 280 near Page Mill. Road, there were a few small clusters of homes up there, and a prelimi- nary report from Acting Fire Chief Don Shaw said 15 or 16 homes were destroyed. The City of Palo Alto was never left unprotected and equipment remained in its stations plus a County -wide alert was instituted which brought in equipment from not only Santa Clara County but from adjacent counties to fill in behind in order to have manpower in Palo Alto's stations and be protected against a second fire. At that point, there were no serious injuries, but both police and fire were engaged in a house to house check to make sure everyone got out. The Red Cross responded almost imme- diately and Gunn High School was opened as a shelter. It would be used all night for those persons whose homes were destroyed or for those who had to evacuate. Food and drink were sent from a vari- ety of restaurants. The City also took care of the people who filled in behind, in order to keep Palo A';-to's fire stations manned, some of whom were from as far away as :..ouch San Francisco. There was some concern at the beginning of the fire about the animals, and as far as staff knew, all animals were removed. There was an enormous_ outpouring of assistance and support from people in the community who called and offered help to bring picks, shovels, horse trailers, blankets, and whatever else might be needed. There was at least one and perhaps two caravans where horses were transported out of the area to a stable where they could be safely housed for the evening. It looked as if most of the problem was in Los Altos Hills, but Palo Alto committed as many resources as possible. A written report would be provided by Mr. Shaw as soon as possible. He guessed they would be working on the fire all night. The utilities people advised that power to the Foothills was out and would not be restored until the follow- ing day. There was no chance of getting the power back on that evening in view of spot fires. Mayor Levy asked about the operation of the City's Emergency Oper- ations Center ( OC ). Mr. Zaner said the EOC was activated about 4:15 p.m. He was at a meeting at Hewlett-Packard and was called out of the meeting. There was good help from people at City Hall and there were many volunteers who came down. The. EOC immediately took over the responsibility from the Communications Center for the non- emer- gency kinds of tasks that could be performed until communications were set up between the field and the EOC For example, the EOC took over all responsibility for press relations. The press ` bg n calling immediately which flooded the Coiamuncations. Center opera- tors who were busy trying to talk to the field forces. The t0C 5 9 911 7/01/85 took over status reporting and shelter. the Hed Cross went to the EOC and went to work setting. up Gunn High School. The EOC also took over food supply. The EOC quickly established communications withthe field forces so that he was able to talk directly to the Incident Commander, who in that case was Mr. Shaw, and received. a good appraisal of what was needed. Mr. Shaw was able to say what resources he wanted and the EOC was able to provide it in the :form of vehicles, additional manpower, fuel, etc. The EOC was in oper- ation quickly, but not as fast as he would have liked. He did not declare a state of emergency during the incident since states of emergency were jus;ified when all resources were used and there were no opportunities to defend any further. If that point were approached, then that was when a state of emergency would be declared. That point was not reached. They were in a Mutual Aid situation, but the City of Palo Alto was never in danger. Its fire stations were always covered in order to protect against a second or third fire. He did not feel a declaration of a state of emergency was warranted. Other communities might have done so believing they were out of resources with no alternative. Counciimember Klein heard that 50 children were stranded in Foot- hills Park and a special bus was sent to bring them down. Mr. Zaner deferred .to June Fleming who was the Operations Officer in the EOC. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said there were a number of children in Foothills Park accompanied by an adult chaperon. They were not in danger. The City dispatched a bus to pick up those students and bring them to Gunn High School. The bus was unable to get to Foothills Park earlier because they could not get up Page Mill Road to get there. The children were safe. Counci lmember Bechtel asked if the Arastra property in Palo Alto had been affected. Ms. Fleming said it was, but the extent was unknown. Mr. Zaner said there was a strong possibility it was not an acci- dental fire. Mayor Levy said he spent some time at the EOC and was impressed with the cooperation and efficiency he saw even though it was clearly a substantial emergency and everyone was on their toes and functioning well. It seemed to him the EOC was up and operating quickly. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Colin Mick, 2130 Hanover, complained about a large hole in the sidewalk across the street. The hole had been there for about three months, and the seedlings from the tree seeds were sprouting up and were about one foot high. He believed digging up sidewalks was a City -regulated activity and he wanted\to know why the side- walk was allowed to be ripped open for three months. There were barriers around it, but the lights were out and it was a definite traffic and pedestrian hazard The hazard was located at 2111 Hanover Street. The problem was supposed to have been cured by the seller of the property, but it was open for a long time. MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1985 Counciimember Renzel had the following.: corrections. Page 5768, fifth page, fifth line, word "type" should be "site." Page 5748, `23rd line from bottom, word "Serah" . should be *Serra. MOTION: Cooaciloe*ber Revuel moved, secOoded by Sutoriws, approval "of the Nieetes of May 2, 19850. as corrected. MOTION PASSED un nimously, Fletcher absent. CONSENT CA .ENDAR Mayor Levy announced that Item #5, Downtown Park North - Park Improvement Ordinance was taken off the agenda and rescheduled to July 15, 1985. Councilmemt r Woolley said Council received correspondence about the need for trash receptacles on University Avenue because of the nature of the businesses. She asked if the contract for Item #1, Street Trash Receptacle Emptying and Maintenance meant either• more receptacles or emptying them more frequently. Mr. Zaner said it included emptying them more frequently --not more receptacles. MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM #1, STREET TRASH RECEPTACLE EMPTYING AND MAINTENANCE (UTI 5-3) (rMR:410:'5i Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor ,to execute the contract with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company for emptying and maintaining street trash receptacles. CONTRACT Palo Alto Sanitation Company ITEM 02, AMENDMENT TO FIVE YEAR IMPERMEABLE COVER CONTRACT (P c 5-7) (CMR: 389: 5) Staff recommends that Council approve the amendment to tract for $114,500 for payment of sales tax. Sufficient available from the 1985-86 Refuse budget. AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Stevens Creek Quarry MATERIAL the con - funds are ITEM. 03, EAST MEADOW SUBSTATION SWITCHGEAR STORAGE FACILITY (UTI-3) (CMOt:412:5) Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract in the amount of $85,448 to Page .Construction Company, =' of Novato, California, for the construction of the East Meadow Substation Switchgear Storage Facility building and 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract, if required, not to exceed 10 percent ($8,545) of the original contract amount. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Page Construction Company ITEM 04 REVISION OF J0_INT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR ; THE SOUTH BAY COOPERAT i VE LIBRARY S Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayer to execute the revised Joint Exercise ,. Of Powers Agreement for the South Bay Cooperative Library System i;ONSEriT CALLNUAR (cont.' REVISION TO AGREEMENT South Bay Cooperative Library System ITEM #6, PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENUS APPROVAL WITH COND IT IO lam; `0 THE APPLICATION OF M. AND -MRS , LEt BRANDENBURG FOR 31TE AND DESIGN APPROVAL A PROPERTY LOCATE) AT 3220 ALEXIS DRIVE (PLA 3-1f ITEM #7 CONVEYANCE OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENT - 3220 ALEXIS DRIVE LEE 'AMEN -BURG et ux (UTI 2) (CMR:404:5) Staff recommends that following approval of the Site and Design application for 3220 Alexis Drive (85-D-5), Council adopt the resolution authorizing conveyance of the storm drain easement to Lee H. and Diane M. Brandenburg. RESOLUTION 6404 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT TO LEE H. BRANDENBURG AND DIANE M. BRANDENBURG' ITEM #8, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ftECOMKEND APPROVAL THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY {lam PALO ALTO FOR INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS Al' ALMA STREET AND t 1UR HrLL AVENUE (PLA 3-1) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Councilnerber Bechtel added Item #16, Acquisition of Winter Club site. CONSOLIDATION OF ITEMS 9, 12 AND 15 Mayor Levy suggested that Items #9, 12, and 15, re 3722-3724 Ortega Court be consolidated for purposes of discussion, but voted on separately. ITEM #9, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF JOHN BOYD FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 (T TTET ) AND FOR PRELIMINARY MAP `ONE" PARCEL INTO TWO\ r0A PROPERTY oxen' IT 3T22-3724 ORTEGA COURT (PLA! 3-1) Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the Planning Commission believed there was some merit in the concern expressed by the pub- lic about the possible duplex look to the structure proposed because of the placement of the parking spaces at the front of the property. On balance, the Commission concluded that the Archi- tectural Review Board's (ARB) suggested changes in landscaping and driveway design deserved to be tried because there would be a major loss of rear yard space suitable for play areas i f al 1 the parking were placed at the rear. Counc i l member Sutori us said "i n a sense the duplexes were a crea- ture of the City. The -concept was created by . the City --net the school district, and it was being chaperoned by the City and would be managed through its construction and sale by an 'agent of the, City.. He real 1 zed that -in ordinary site and design situations the City did not get into the interior, but asked if there was any market data which suggested that amenities such as a fireplace was important: cniet Manning Official Bruce Freeland said the subject had not been raised. The design of the project had to balance concerns for outward appearance and overall costs. They were below - market -rate units, and it was relatively expensive to build two units on a site. He believed the reason such amenities were not included was purely economic. Councilmember Bechtel asked if the rest of the houses to be built on the Ortega site would be like those on the Crescent Park site in that most had three -car garages with garage -driveway -aprons allowing three cars to park. Mr. Freeland had not reviewed the plans for the other homes in the area. Councilmember Bechtel said the total square footage for the duplex was in the range of 2,500 to 3,000 square feet while the average of the other houses on the site would also be one unit at 2,400 to 3,500 square feet. Mr. Freeland said the question was raised at the Planning Commis- sion meeting and Mr. Brown responded that he had looked at the plans of the other buildings and about half woul d be smaller over- all and half would be larger ovrrall so that it was average in terns of the physical size in the project, Councilmember Bechtel suspected the carport and parking situation were probably similar to what it would be for one unit. Mr. Freeland said he had not seen the plans. Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations as follows: 1. Approve the PC zone change for the proposed duplex, including the findings and coudi ti ons of approval contained in the ordinance; and 2. Approval c f the preliminary parcel map, finding that the . map is consistent with the State Map Act, Comprehensive Plan, and zoning and subdivision ordinances, in that lot size standards ,are not established forthe PC District, and the subdivision will accomplish Comprehensive Pl an Housi ng goals of providing moderate priced housing for sale to two separate families. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled " WDINANCE OF THE Man OF Tgr t I1T -` r - PALO ALTO , AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING NAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3722-3724 ORTEGA COURT FROM R-2 TO PC" MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Sutorius voting "no, '° Fletcher absent. ITEM -#10 _ PUBLIC __HEARING: PLANNING_ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE Councilmember Renzel confirmed it was the same pseudo -Spanish styledevelopmentwhich was previously before the Council. Mr, Freeland said the plain stucco facade was the same as was previously approved for the Planned Community project. Councilmember Klein asked whether the applicant should be able to move forward with the project other than normal'building permits if Council approved the project that evening. Mr. Freeland said yes. Councilmember Klein asked about deadlines. Associate Planner Sarah Cheney said the Planned Community zone Council approved in February, 1985, placed a condition on the application which required that construction commence. by November 25, 1985. Councilmember Klein clarified the PC would be dead if construction did not commence by November 25, 1985. Mr. Freeland said no. If the condition of a planned community zone was determined by the Zoning Administrator to not have been fulfilled, the Zoning Administrator could initiate proceedings to amend the zone. A planned community zone might no longer be able to be utilized because conditions were not met, but the zoning remained PC until changed. Councilmember Klein asked for clarification. Mr. Freeland said if construction did not commence by November 25, 1985, the property would be zoned PC, but would have failed to comply wi th the conditions of the Planned Community zone, and would not have the right to proceed under those conditions. How- ever',; the zoning would still be PC, and until amended through a public hearing process, it would stay on the property. Councilmember Klein clarified the owner would be in limbo. Mr. Freeland said that was correct.. Councilmember Klein clarified that Council needed to take no fur- ther action to ensure the applicant either moved on or turned the project over to someone else. Mr. Freeland said the time clock was running as- set by the Council. Councilmember Bechtel asked whether Council knew in February that the project would return. Ms. Cheney said a condition Af the PC approval was that the appli- cant obtain approval of the subdivision tentative map. Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open. Walt Hoskins, Hoskins Engineers, 501 S. Bascom Avenue, San Jose, said Harrington Financial Corporation was proceeding with the project. With regard to the architectural facedes, final color scheme and landscaping there were some clarifications and modifications being submitted. He pointed out the working drawings were 99 percent complete, and the only delay ` presently was a 30 -day wait between when the drainage calculations were submitted and application for a building permit. They were prepared and preferred to apply for a building permit within a week. Mayor Levy declared the: public hearing Councilmember Woolley said Council took special action to try and save the structure at 225 Homer, which was on the historical inventory. The previous day, 225 Homer moved through the streets of Palo Al to and now resided on Monroe near the corner , of San Antonio and El Camino. The home was on a corner lot and across the street was an architecturally handsome 1930 house currently in the process of restorations MOTION: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations finding that the project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street alignments, .drainage and sanitary facilities, . locations and size of all required rights -of -way, lot size and configuration, grading and traffic access), is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 24 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; that the project will not have a sig- nificant impact on the environment nor be likely to _ result in serious public health problems; that the size is physically suit- able to the type and deesi ty of the proposed development; that there are no conflicts with public easements; and approval, sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. Replace abandoned driveways with curb, gutter and sidewalk, in compliance with the City specifications; 2 . Repair or replace portions of existing sidewalks along Homer Avenue and Ramona Street, as needed, subject to the directive of the Public Works/Engineering Division and in compliance with City standard specifications; 3. Obtain a street opening permit from the Public Works Department for any construction work in the public right-of- way; 4. Submit drainage plans and calculations to Public Works/ Engineering for review and approval by the City Engineer at least 30 days before applying for a building permit; 5.`. Remove existing street trees on Ramona Street and Homer Avenue frontages. Plant new street trees in compliance with the specifications of the Parks Department, prior to final inspec- tion of any approved structures. The tree selected for Ramona Street is the Quercus ilex (Holly Oak), which is to be installed 20-30 feet on -center. The tree selected for Homer Avenue is the Cel ti s austral i s (European. Hackberry) , ejhi ch,; i s to be installed 30 feet on -center; 6. All units shall have individual gas, electric, and water meters; and 7. In time required covenants, -conditions, and restrictions of the future Homeowners Association, provide for the commercial parking spaces to be maintained by the commercial . uses entitled to their use. Cou:rciimember Sutorius attended the pubic hearing conducted by the City Manager on the ,relocation of the home. to. Monroe. About six people from the new neighborhood attended with some reluc- tance, but had all of their questions _ answered. He believed the ()arrows would be welcomed into the commenity. Council member Renzei was pleased the Monroe Park neighborhood had a new old home, but feared for the- neighborhood ' at Ramona and Homer. - She believed the design was terrible and that ."i t did not blend in with the _ neighborhood. Council failed to scrutinize the design in its :.concernover the multiple property PC :at the' time it -went before the Councils and she would net support the tentative 0 Mayor Levy said when he was elected to the Council in June, 1979, at his first Council meeting he was challenged by the item which now threatened .to qualify for historic appellation even before being built. He -was glad to see it would be behind the Council. He shared Councilmember Renzel's concern with the appearance of the project, but did not believe the appearance was such .that he could vote down the subdivision map. MOTION PASSED by c vote of 7-1, Renzel voting "no, Fletcher absent. ITEM #11, PUBLIC HEARING; PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF BRIAN- NA PARCEL MAC AT - Councilmember Renzel asked if the City was reviewing the floor, area ratios for the LM zone and whether there were more parcels in the industrial park where that type of activity could be expected. Mr. Freeland said staff included the LM zone in the areas to be reviewed in the upcoming study of land use and transportation There were about 500,000 additional square feet which could take place in the research park under the present zoning. Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. NOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation finding that the proposed sub- division complies and is consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Acts this title, and all other provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and state law, including, but not limited to, Sections 66473.5 and 66474; and approve the preliminary parcel map combing the two parcels. Mayor Levy commented the project was unexciting because a 98,000 square foot building would replace the present 60,00 square feet. Council was not increasing the total buildable_ allowance for the two sites even if they were not merged together. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent. ITEM 012 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPEAL OF MICHAEL rE3 T flaffrATT lAtATED KT -3722-3724 0RTtaA COUITT (PLI 3.1) Michael Fleming, 576 Maybell, did not believe the property was different than any other parcel in the neighborhood, nor were there extenuating .circumstances that did not apply to others. Other lots in the neighborhood had special setbacks and people had to comply without variances. He owned the properties at 3720, 3730, 3737 and 3704 Ortega Court. His property at 3704 had spe- cial buffer zones, and as a flag lot, it had setbacks which were uncommon in Palo Alto, but was given special setbacks because of a buffer zone. The subject property had double the density of any of the other houses in the neighborhood. It seemed the subdivi-� Sion was made to be .a sirille family tractand then: one of the lots was chosen to be the duplex lot. The duplex should be designed to appear as a single family residence and the lot should be designed to accommodate such a structure. He was concerned about the pro- cess. It seemed there should be some extra design considerations that had not occurred up to that point. The Crescent Park idea of putting one of the two garages in the back seemed to alleviate part . of the problem. As far as ` he knew, there Was no Architec- tural Review Board (ARS) process and none of the neighbors were\ sent ARB notices, so there was no` ability to have a say in the design of the 8MR structures, Even though the houses were duplex, theconcern was that they match the existing neighborhood. Michael Lee, 1G4 Hawthueee, said in February, 19/35, there was Lei gkburhuod dissatisfaction with the duplex, but the system still had not addressed the issue architecturally, and it was one that would recur from school site to school site. Conceptually, the project worked well and would undoubtedly become a good prototype, but for the time being, the front elevation was far too overstated with the two harsh bay windows making the duplex stand out unnec- essarily. In effect, a variance was appealed since there was no Alla appeal on the PC process which seemed wrong because its archi- tectural problems and failures were nut considered. The project should be refined, and it was a prototype -for future projects to. occur on the school sites. MOTION: Counci 1 wrearber Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the Planting Commission recommendation to deny the appeal of Michael Fleming and uphold the decision of the Zoning Adminis- trator, recommending a variance be granted .for the development of a duplex structure having eight foot side -yard setbacks where ten feet would otherwise be required, making the following findings: 1. i here are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in, the same district in that the subject property is to be zoned Planned Community (PC), while sur- rounding properties are zoned R-1; 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserva- tion and enjeyment of a substantial property right: of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or un- necessary hardship p in that the subject parcel was set aside by the City Council for development as a duplex lot. The width of the site is minimal for construction of a duplex unit. Further reduction in the usable site width for construction would greatly limit the usability of the remaining interior space; and 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the requirement in the PC District for a 10 -foot landscape buffer anticipated a substantial difference in density or character between the PC development and the adjoining prop- erty. In the case of the subject property, the proposal is for a duplex unit adjacent to single family residences. The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan consider duplex units to be a form of single-family redevelopment. The two uses side -by -side should not be incompatible, and the sire of the proposed duplex unitshould not be larger than the sur- rounding residences to be built, thus requiring the additional buffer landcaping. Counci lmermber Klein clarified that Counci lmember Sutori us' vote on Item 09, related to the fact that he did not like the idea of put- ting the duplexes on the school sites in the first place. Counci l member Sutort us said that was correct. He was consistent because as a Planning Commissioner and City Counci l member, he felt differently about the concept and supported the. original School District and City staff proposal which was other than a duplex arrangement and was a monetary consideration which he believed would accumulate over thescope and number of the school sites and have greater leverage potential. He was sorry the issues were raising problems, but he personally believed the architect t worked diligently in order' to satisfy the living situation; that would be presented to the owner -occupants of the homes. From the °stand- point of their interior arrangements and layouts, the particular parcel had a large backyard. Council was not discussing the architecture, but he personally concurred with some of Mr. Lee's com- ments like placing the trellis at the front : of the _ property. Regardless of !ehether it was a substitute for the one at the rear, if it were at the front, he believed it would sneak to part of Mr{ Fleming's concern from an architectural standpoint. The Zoning Administrator indicated that perhaps there was a trellis at the front, but as he recalled from the record, it was in the front originally and then was' moved to the rear. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said a trellis was originally pro- posed on the rear elevation, but the ARB suggested that one be placed on the front elevation as well. He said the trellises were shown in the most recent perspective. Councilmember Klein said he appreciated Councilmember Sutorius' comments since he shared the same view when it was considered many months ago. He was not in favor of having duplexes on the school sites, . and believed the City would have been better .off having a cash contribution. While he respected Councilmember Sutorius' views, he believed it was a close cal l . The Council made the decision to go forward with duplexes on the site, and he felt obliged to vote yes or no on the merits of the proposal within the confines of the basic policy decision. He believed many of the problems regarding the design of the duplex and requests for vari- ances, etc. were the children of the basic decision to shoe horn something into the sites which did not work well. He would vote to uphold the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission because he believed the solutions offered were well done within the design constraints. Councilmember Sutorius said he would vote to deny the appeal because at issue was the setback and the difference between eight feet and ten feet was something he would measure if they were in a different residential zone. The zone had an eight foot setback so he had no problem with the particular one. Councilmember Woolley said since the situation might arise again on other school sites where the PC zone was used, she understood the 10 -foot setback requirement was imposed with the idea that a commercial or high density residential project would abut an R-1 or R-2 property rather than the subject situation. She asked if staff would review the particular requirement and suggest it be changed. Mr. Brown said it was a possibility. Staff did not intend to return with many mid -year zoning ordinance amendments. Staff was reviewing some definite problems such as the size of single family homes, flag lots, and other pressing issues, but did not intend to take on the 10 -foot setback requirement as an additional zoning ordinance... change particularly since it would only arise in two other instances. He believed it would be appropriate during the regular zoning ordinance change process, which would probably occur in January or February, 1986, but it might no longer be necessary at that point. Councilmember Woolley clarified that Council would review the other projects before that time. Mr. Brown .imagined Council would reviewtheother projects in late Fall. Councilmember Witherspoon asked why it was -Council's intention to zone the property PC from R-2. Mr. Brown said the property was .zoned R-2 at the time of the sub- division as a holding zone. The R-2 zone was not appropriate for the site because under R-2 both ; units `had to be under the same ownership. The proposal was to subdivide the two units for separ- ate ownership which was why the PC was required. Councilmember Witherspoon supported the Planning. Cotami ssi on recom- mendation because she also agreed . the normal - setback for most neighborhoods was six feet so _ the _.eight feet was a generous set- back on -the sideyards. Councilmember Ren el supported the Mannino Commission re o +menda- tion for the same reasons stated by her colleagues. She was gen- erally concerned with the development of the Ortega site and -believed it suffered- fronthe same problems seen at Crescent Park. The buildings were way out of scale with' the surrounding_neighbor- hood. She was pleased that Council referred to the Planning Commission a floor area ratio for the zones. Regarding the par- ticular design,- it was not before the Council with respect to the appear, but considering that Council committed to put a duplex in the subdivision, the architect did the best job possible to accom- modate it within the constraints of the site. She believed it was comparable to the other buildings going up in the particular sub- division. Mayor Levy associated himself with the comments made by his col- leagues except he wholeheartedly agreed with the concept of dis- persing BMR units within neighborhoods. He believed that having a duplex within the single-family neighborhood was appropriate. The R-2 zoning was one he agreed with and conversion into the PC was appropriate. He agreed the eight -foot buffer was the sensible one and did not believe the ten -foot landscape buffer originally conceived for PC's was necessary in that instance. He personally did not like the design. He believed the other duplexes of which he was aware were superior in design and merged nicely and softly into their R-i neighborhoods and it took a sharp eye to determine they were there. The subject duplex would stand out in his opinion and there were the four parking spaces across the front of the building and the entrances to the building were kind of lost. It had a feeling of some of the larger apartment houses in Palo Alto which he did not find attractive. He hoped the ARB was cor- rect in its assessment of the architectural merit of the dwelling. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent. ITEM #13, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE MORATORIUM ON COLLEGE TERRACE (PLA 1-16) Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the recommendation arose because of a series of lot line adjustments proposed on Bowdoin Street. College Terrace was originally laid out in 25 -foot lots which remained in place and could not be merged because of state law. Because the lots were so small, in many cases property owners built one house on a combined two or three lots. Togethee, the combined lots in many cases totaled barely what was required for one home in the R-1 zoning now in place inn the neighborhood. The underlying 25 -foot lots remained in place, and although they were substandard, they were governed by the same daylight plane, height and other limitations which applied to the larger, more standard R -I lots elsewhere in the community. The Commission learned that several properties in the neighborhood were either under construction or being acquired in which the existing single house was to be destroyed and much larger homes built on each of the underlying 25 -foot lots. The Commission believed i t 'woul d be desirable to preserve the status quo, because of the fact that properties were being "solicited at that time, and evaluate whether special site development regulations should apply to substandard lots before additional small single family homes were torn down and replaced .. with the multiple homes on the smaller tots. The Commission was only concerned with the new attempt to divide prop- erties that were currently used together and not with the existing lots which were in use as 25 -foot lots, The Commission. recommended the remodeling or additions to existing structures be exempted froia the moratori um: ilr, - Freeland said =i t was a Planning Commission recoilmendati on and staff did no analysis of the possibilities for the controls. He believed staff would have : relatively . few options to control_. development on the small lots, The one area which -`seemed most promising was the one mentioned earlier that evening in association with another matter which was the control of the floor area ratio of individual homes which would assure that only fairly small homes could be entertained on the fairly small lots, which would take away some of the speculative pressure to put on large homes. Councilmember Witherspoon was interested to read that the lots could not be consolidated where there was one ownership. She was under the impression that all contiguous lots under single ownership had been consolidated a fear years ago. Mr. Freeland spoke with Mr. Zimmerman who said back in 1978, there was a proposal to merge small lots where one owner owned two con- tiguous lots and theo were not both built upon. Mr. Zimmerman's recollection was the proposal was summarily dismissed under enor- mous outrage from the community who owned the stall lots and that it was not followed through on. Somewhat later, there was a state law which caused parcels which were merged through the process to be declared resubdivided. He knew it was the case in Santa Clara County where they attempted to merge a number of small lots in the hills and a few out under the Bay and then found that a state law reversed those deci sY ons and recreated the small lots. It was a matter where staff would want to work with the City Attorney's staff if Council pursued the moratorium to go further and see if there were any avenues to deal with the question of the merger. Councilmember Witherspoon asked about the time period for the moratorium if staff did not see a lot of options. Mr. Freeland said if Council made the assignment to return with a moratorium ordinance, staff would want to return with a report setting out the various studies being undertaken and try and find where in a priority list it would come, which would determine how long the moratorium might need to be in effect. Mayor Levy read the following two statements into the record (which are on file in the City Clerk's office): Joane Trueblood, 2195 Amherst Street, protested any further demo- lition of cottages and destruction of mature, healthy trees in. College Terrace. She supported the Planning Commission recom- mendation. Margaret. Anderson, 2250 Bowdoin, • sal d the 'type and density- of -housing being. built in College Terrace concerned -her. For 35 .years:she owned in College Terrace and watched the Terrace fill- up ,with compatible homes and lifestyles. A new building -was not harmonious -in. style and density.: She urged the -proliferation-of the •urban resi dences being built for. profit by: people who did not live..there be stopped. A moratorium .to give •time to- plan seemed fair. Colin Mick, 2130 Hanover, was concerned about building of the two dwellings adjacent to the three -lot site and was surprised that the plans slipped through and that the two dwellings currently being completed were totally out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. The dwel 1 i nqs, were an eyesoreto the block on which they were built and a block away behind. The neighbors did not interfere with the rights of homeowners to improve their existing property, but they were concerned they would end up with more nar- row dwellings that were overbuilt on the lot. College Terrace had a number of boxcar residences and while they were not great archi- tecturally, they were only one story highs and. did not push too much out of proportion with the rest of the neighborhood. The current attempt was essentially a full two-story dwelling, plus a garage underneath was out of scale and the neighborhood needed someway tostop that type of development. Jane Bavel a5, 1314 College - lived in a small house and adding more houses_ that size on small lots would not improve living conditions in College Terrace. Her problem with too much --house on too small a lot as she saw done in College Terrace was that the people who built the houses tended to live off the gardens and the land- scaping of their neighbors. -- They got the most house out of the lot, but edid net add anything to the neighborhood in terms of menities. There were a pair of houses on College in the 1400 block which were a good example. They had "a common driveway, they were two-story, and were built as far out -to the edge of their lots as they could go, and they took advantage of the fact that all of their neighbors had pleasant -yards with lots of trees.. If building too much house on too small a lot went much further, she believed it would create a city atmosphere and there would not be the green and pleasant atmosphere in College -Terrace and property values would be lost in the end. She wanted to see some legisla- tive solution proposed to preserve that type of neighborhood value. C. F. Frankfurt, 2109 Columbia Street, agreed with the comments of Mr, Mick and Ms. Bavelas. He hated to see the lots chopped up. Lee Rasmussen, 2291 Bowdoin, wanted to keep their section of Palo Alto a nice town. She believed the neighborhood was being hurt by the outsized houses on small lots. Martha Platt, 2265 Bowdoin, said when she attended the June 5, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, she was concerned about the scale of the development. She was doubly gratified the ,Planning Commission addressed the question of scale both in its action on the 2111 Bowdoin lot line adjustment as well as in its proposal for a moratorium on demolition and construction on substandard lots. In the past _few days, a handfull of upper College Terrace residents circulated a petition of support for the moratorium. It was circulated in the area immediately surrounding the 2085, 2095, 2011 Bowdoin development site. Not all residents could be reached, but 143 residents representing 115 properties signed the petition and the response was incredible. Many expressed thanks that someone was doing something. She presented a map which showed the residences that signed the petition and said the solid red indicated the 2085, 2095 townhouses, and the adjacent area outlined in red was 2111 Bowdoin planned for demolition and devel- opment. She made a slide presentation. She submitted the peti- tion to the City Clerk (which is on file in the City Clerk's office). Brian Carilli, 2150 Columbia, agreed with the previous speakers. He was in the midst of remodeling- his house on _Columbia and did not know whether _ he was considered to be overbuilding on his lot. Some people had to buy the smaller lots ; and tear down the houses in order to afford to live in Palo Alto. Although he did not want to see what was happening on Bowdoin happen anywhere else, he bought one of the one -bedroom houses that was falling down. The best thing he could have done would have been to bulldoze it and start Over, but he remodeled it in order to get a second mortgage, and then almost had to tear•. it down because o.f termites. He realized remodeling was exempted by the Planning Commission, but some people did have to tear down. Larick Hill, 780 Palo Alto Avenue, agreed. there was a problem with the proposed development. He was concerned that the designs were a direct result of the daylight plane. The daylight plane created the shape and people were trying to, compact themselves into the criteria established by the City. The English cottages violated the _ daylight plane because the,. eaves were placed :horizontally. The City created its " own problems, but he agreed that the. floor Area ratio might be part of the . solution. While the daylight plane scaled down on the sides, it _ did not scale dawn on the front, and as a result, it created Objectionable front facades. 1 Michael Fleming, f;76 Maybel l , believed the slide dLmvhs Lr atee the major problem with new structures in Palo Alto was architectural design. On single family structures there was.. no architectural review as long as the project met existing ordinances and there was no existing appeal process. There needed to be an architec- tural review in. College Terrace. It would be difficult to set guidelines for floor area ratio and satisfy the people who wanted to develop. Paul Murphy, 1540 College, appreciated the simplicity and modesty of College Terrace. He, saw developers as fracturing the qualitry. and character of College Terrace and other areas of Palo Alto. ',e was not too concerned about the grotesqueness which was growing, but was concerned about who could afford $285,000. He urged a moratorium so the questione could be analyzed and answered. Councilmember Woolley sympathized with the speakers. Not too long ago, Council discussed the other end of the Terrace --the multi -- family area and took some action to try and preserve the character of the nei ghborhoo(E.. She believed the action on the other part of the Terrace was appropriate because it was compatible with the Council's earlier action. The neighborhood's request was reason- able in terms of the kind of . needed housing in Palo Alto. Palo Alto needed smaller units, and she would not be so concerned see- ing houses built on a 25 -foot lot where there used to be one house on three. lots. It looked like a floor area ratio was a possible way to achieve that end. MOTION: Councilmesrber Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to prepare the necessary ordinance to establish a moratorium on demolitions and permits for construction of new residences on substandard lots within the College Terrace R-1 Single Family Neighborhood, cut-off date for permits as of July 1, 1985. city Attorney Diane Lee assumed the cut-off date would be July 1, 1985. It was the City's standard practice in terms of when the moratorium cut-off date was. Anything in the process from that point forward would be cut, off. Vice Mayor Cobb asked about the time frame for the moratorium. Commissioner Chandler believed it depended on how Council priori- tized the matter when the ordinance returned It might be found, in the context of looking at the single family zone generally and applying a floor area ratio which would be along i n the next batch of zoning amendments relatively` soon, that just applying the sage floor area ratio to the small lots might do the trick. On the other hand, it might be that limitations on underground parking or different height limitations might be appropriate Mr. Freeland preferred to report back to Council on the status of the different studies and see what Council believed needed to be first . It was obvious the study could only occur if something else did not or was delayed. Vice Mayor Cobb said when it returned to Council, he suggested everyone agree on a reasonable termination. While he supported moratoria for the reasons stated, he did not believe Council should allow them to be open-ended.. It was unfair t+J• people and was not_ good policy. He thanked the Commission fore bringing the matter to the Council because it was consistent with his broader concerns that everywhere in town, both ' commercially and residen- tially, there seemed to be.. overdevelopment. The continuation of the trend of intensive development ent_ of everypiece of property was something that was .changing the overall "character of the town. In. the long, run, he believed the Council would be sorry if they did: net -get a handle on it. Caunc i 1 me ber Sutnri us understood the motion Was to apply to sub- standard lots in College Terrace. Mr. Freeland understood they were discussing the R -I zone in College_Terrace and that the moratorium would apply to the entire R-1 zone. He was unaware of how. many lots in that area were sub- standard and undeveloped. Those things would be reviewed in the course of the Study. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the motion needed to be amended or clarified to :;dents fy the single family residences. Ms, Lee said if the motion did not include a reference to the R-1 zone, then it should be included. Councilmember Renzel concurred with the comments of her col- leagues. She believed it was important for the fabric of the City's neighborhoods to pursue some .solution that kept new devel- opments in scale with existing developments. It was important for Council to. impose.a moratorium in order to get the time to do what needed to be done. Mayor Levy found himself in sympathy and agreement with the objec- tives of what was before the Council, but disagreed with the use of a moratorium. He did not believe that every change in zoning required a moratorium. Particularly in R-1 zones, moratoria should be used carefully because most R-1 zone owners did not keep close tabs on what was going on in the City and would probably be surprised if they wanted to do something and suddenly found that Council passed a.moratorium. In the subject instance, he did not believe a moratorium was necessary. Staff could move expedi- tiously without a moratorium being required. While he agreed the City needed to look at changes in what could be put on substandard lots all over town, he did not believe a moratorium was a neces- sary component. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Levy voting "no,' Fletcher absent. ITEM #14, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE PLACING 36T-369 ADDISON IN CATEZZAY 1 OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY Councilmember Witherspoon understood that when the City made an historic designation, it usually went along with somerestrictions on redevelopment of the site and/or aspects of the existing struc- ture. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said there would be restrictions on modifications to structures on the site including the garage and to demolition requests for the structure. Councilmember Woolley said the request was from the Historic Resources Board (HRB) because they Were preparing an application to put the structure on the National Register. The structure was not contained on the local register because when the inventory was originally done, it was the wish of Messrs. Hewlett and Packard that it not be done. Since that time, they changed their minds and were willing_ o have the structure put on the local register. $OTION Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt iii steri c Resources Board recommendation to approve designation of 367-359 Addison Avenue in the Palo Alto Historic Building Inventory as a Category l structure. Councilmember Witherspoon was still concerned that Council - was patting restrictions on the property and there was nothing ,on the record which . showedwhat the building looked like. She .believed Council should see the pictures when it took action. 1 Mr. Freeland said the HRB was completing the documents that would go into the formal inventory. Mayor Levy understood the City was more concerned with the garage than with the building, but it appeared to be necessary to desig- nate the whole site as an historical site. Mr. Brown said that was correct. His reading of the ordinance said Council approved a certain property address. Essentially all structures on the property were included. Normally, it was the main house the City was interested in, but it reviewed changes to out -buildings as well. In the subject case, the City was most- ly interested with the out -building, but would review changes to the main structure. Mayor Levy asked if there were restrictions on changes that could be made to the building with which the City was not interested. Mr. Brown said the restrictions being discussed were reviewed by the HRB who made recommendations to the homeowner. The homeowner may or may not comply with those recommendations. The restric- tions applied to the main residence as well as the garage. Mayor Levy clarified the owner understood and agreed. Mr. Brown said yes. The owner was now Mr. Reller. Councilmember Sutorius asked if Council's action should include 367-369 since it was a dual -address building. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Sutorius clarified the address was located across the street from the Professorville boundary. Councilmember Woolley assured Mayor Levy that part of the proce- dures was a public hearing held by the HRB. The property owner was there and agreed with the action. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent. ITEM #15, CONVEYANCE OF FORMER ORTEGA SCHOOL SITE BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) DUPLEX LOT TO THE PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPOR-.T ION (PAHC) (PWK 6-2) (CMR:403:5 ) Real Property Administrator Jean Diaz said that since Council approved Item #9, zone change for 3722-3724 Ortega Court, it was appropriate to approve conveyance of the 6MR lot to the PAHC. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moored seconded by Klein, approval: of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6405 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE Or,, REAL PROPERTY TO THE PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION NOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent. ITEM 016 RE+BEST_. OF COUNCILMEMBER BECHTEL RE AC UISITION OF THE NOTION:. COdac i 1 Rresber pechte1. ,roved, seconded by_. Ieaze1 , , to request the _Cl ty Attorney_ to. draft an 4dvlsory_ .*ensure for City. purchase of the -Winter Club te, cou'i i ste t= wl th Gann l ioi tats ons eat aaai atemmnee of adequate reherves. Counci 1 memher Bechtel stressed the measure would be advisory only. The Council already had the authority to purchase the property if it was not done ,with a bond measure. The purchase method would allow the City to be deliberately flexible so that it could deter- mine the'.l fmitatlons specified by the Gann reserve. It also allowed the Council various possible methods such as an interfund loan within City funds, and it might be possible to work out a lease purchase arrangement similar to that being done with the Terman property. It would also allow the City to find out the voters sentiment on the issue and time for the City Attorney's office to draft the wording to return next Monday night, which was the last possible date to put something on the ballot. She spoke to the City Manager and, to Alan Henderson to verify that the YMCA was interested in the property and would like to be in the posi- tion of having the City land bank the property and they would then be able to take over the payments of the property. She did not put it on the agenda before because she just realized they were absolutely running out of time. She encouraged her colleagues to direct staff to prepare the wording in order to place the advisory measure on the ballot. As Chair of the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee, she spent a little more time reviewing the City's budget. Palo Alto had remaining in its budget $4,000,000 in uncommitted reserves. The property was estimated to cost in the range of $2.5 million, She recalled the great effort made when the Arastra property money was scraped up. She intended the City would essentially land bank the property for someone else. Councilmember Witherspoon preferred the advisory vote be rather loose end tend toward some of the language that was put or the ballot a few weeks ago to negotiate with the property owner. She preferred to see a cap put on the value of the property and it ought to be clear which part of the large site the City intended to purchase. She assumed if the purchase was for resale to some- thing like the YMCA, they might want some of the other facilities. The City had to purchase the Arastra property, but with the Winter Club, she assumed the voters would give the Council the benefit of not only having to comply with Proposition 4, but would not give the City a blank check. Councilmember Bechtel understood Council serbe`e Witherspoon's con- cerns, and believed the exact details could be worked out at the Council's next meeting. She preferred the advisory measure be worded loosely enough so thatsuch issues as negotiate, etc. could be resolved. In terms of whether it be the entire property or a portion, the. YMCA was interested in more than just the ice skating facility. She suggested some other nonprofit organization might be interested in the rest of the site. She had the feeling that. Mr. Peery did not want to divide the property and it might be better to put it on as one large parcel as an advisory vote only. Vice Mayor Cobb said Council discussed previously the difficulties with exceeding the Gann limitations and the motion said it could somehow be done without exceeding the Gann limits. He asked if that was feasible, Mr. Zaner said the motion implied Council would purchase the prop- erty over time somehow so that the Gann limitation was not exceeded. As mentioned a few weeks ago, the City could not spend $►2.5 million in cash because it would go over the limit. The pay- ments would be stretched out in some way. Either arrangements would be made -with Mr. Peery to pay . him over time, or some third party, a bank or nonprofit corporation, or long term financing to keep the annual payments down in order to not go past the limit. Vice Mayor Cobb said assuaging the advisory measure passed and Council had to deal with Jordan, he.. asked what sort of financial position the City would then be in. Mr. Zaner said for any future school site, it was anticipatd11 there would be some kind of debt financing. It could not be done with cash reserves, there was not that much money for that much acreage. There was no way to issue a G.O. bond at that point. If that got resolved in the upcoming election, Council could issue a G.O. bond to deal with school sites.. At the present time, Council had no way of doing that. It simply added to the City's present debt outstanding by an amount of $2.5 million. To the degree Council made an arrangement with someone like the YMCA to ulti- mately purchase the property and in effect reimburse the General Fund for its expenditures, then Ole deb_ t was extinguished. The YMCA was not in the position to pa'y cash for the property. Vice Mayor Cobb was concerned that Council spent two and one-half years looking for a way to deal with the problem and the question of outright purchase. He realized the YMCA was interested and it was discussed during the two and one-half years. It was also true they could not make any final commitment. He would like to see the YMCA have the option to deal with the property when they got their own financial situation with regard to Mountain View ;cleared up in order for them to make those kinds of commitments, but he believed it would be several years before Palo Alto knew whether the YMCA could move forward on the property. He was concerned that if Council did it in that manner, it might have some diffi- culties with the Gann limitation because it presupposed the City could get into a time payment situation, but it was not known whether the property owner would permit it. The property owner said categorically on many occasions that he would not split the property up. Assuming it all took place and the City had to deal with the purchase of a middle school site, Council might find it could not deal with a middle school site because it did not have the flexibility it hoped for. He did not want to be put in that kind of position. Counci l merber Klein would not support the motion because having that type of item on the ballot in conjunction with those already on the ballot would create confusion among the electorate and lead to a very unclear vote. He believed the advisory measure was un- necessary, and as pointed out by Councilmember Bechtel, the Coun- cil already had the power if it wished to do so to buy the proper- ty. Council wanted to limit the number of items on the ballot with regard to ice skating and thus went through the laborious process of rewriting the proposed initiatives and coming up with language everyone felt more comfortable with. .Putting a third item on the ballot would be about ten steps back from the clear choice being given the voters. It was misleading to talk about Arastra and the . YMCA because Arastra was a, forced purchase. Whether Council at that time would have done so on its own, no one would ever know. As to the YMCA, it had better .than two years to come forward with a proposal and they were unable to do sp. The land swap had defects, but it Was the best proposal before the Council. The idea that the City cOul d buy the Winter Club was a pipe dream in his opinion, ..and $2.5 million out of a $4 million reserve did not sound to him like good fiscal planning. It was far more of,, a commitment to one particular project than he was willing to make given all the demands on the City's resources. With regard to the Gann limitation, even if the City: were able to buy on time, the Gann -limit was cumulative so that if the Council creeped another $200,000, $400,000 or $600,000 per year closer to the Gann limit, it limited the City's flexibility i f-' i t bought the next school site on time because instead of being able to afford payments of $1.5 million per year, it would only be able to afford payments of $1 million per year. The City knew there might be more =` than one school site it wante4 to acquire. The. City shoot d not cut into the remaining cushivaa` in the Gann limitation, He would not support the motion. Councf l member Woolley said it . took the Council many weeks and much effort an the parts of Councilmembers ,Cobb and Sutorius to work out the i niti ati,ves which were f i nal ly put on the ballot. She. t;isualizcd that Council could suecessful1y arrive at a well worded advisory measure the following Monday night. She agreed with Councilmember Klein about confusing the voters by having three items on the same subject on the ballot. She was mostly concerned about the cost not being clear to the voters. It sounded like a good idea to land bank the property for the YMCA so that when they were in a financial position, they could still have the option of taking it over. When the Committee discussed the matter with the YMCA, they favored that idea, but the hitch was who would pay the interest !coney each year until the YMCA could start taking over the property. Staff made out a proposal which required the YMCA to pay back the interest money the City paid out in the seven year interim, which was when the YMCA dropped out and said no. She. believed they were talking about the cost of land banking the property and paying the interest on the property during the time the YMCA could not afford to take up the project. If $250,000 were multiplied by seven, it was $1,750,000 in interest money to land bank it for seven years. She wanted to be sure the voters understood that cost. If the City was simply talking about taking the money out of its reserves, then they were losing the alterna- tive cost of the interest the City gained on the reserves it had invested which was an important part of the City's revenue. Either way, the cost was great and she would not support the option. Councilmember Renzel supported the motion because she believed there was a strong sentiment within the public to acquire the site. She could not support exchange of park dedicated lands as the matter on the ballot. She believed there were many other citizens of Palo Alto who felt the same way, and the advisory measure offered them and Council another option to acquire the Winter Club site. It would then help the Council set its priori- ties which she believed Council refused to do by swapping parkland rather than purchasing. If the City did not park dedicate the Winter Club site and had i t as a reserve if necessary, it would not have to cut into the City's reserves. Likewise with the Gann initiative, if the City reached the problem where it was pressed to the limit on Gann or on the City's reserves, the City had the property and could sell all or part of it to interested parties. She believed, it underestimated the voters to think they could not make a clear choice between swapping parkland or purchasing out- right. She believed the advisory measure was a cleaner way to acquire the site% and a way for the public to say they were behind the Council and set it as a priority with respect to the use of City funds:. It was important to offer the public that oppor- tunity. Councilmember Sutorius would not supportthe motion. He was sorry that some of the original language he tried was not received by a majority. His original language was along the lines of negbti a- ting to acquire the site incorporating therein the flexibility that the exchange could be either all or a part of the considera- tion; that it could then have the flexibility of incorporating cash or whatever other considerations needed to go toward the sum in order to acquire the Middlefield property, and therefore, it could reduce the size of the property, involved in the swap. He asked how the proposal generated now, and what must the 3,500epl us peoplewho signed the petitions be wonderingif something was sud- denly plausible that was not plausible or feasible for two and one-half years. Councilmember kenzel believed Council knew it was plausible and feasible, but it:, took setting priorities by the Council, and many Counci1members were unwilling to do .that. It was clear there were strong expressions of support by many members of the Council for acquiring the site one _ ,way Or -the other and the measure might -allow the acquisition by purchase. It was never , unfeasible, it was juste that some Councilnembers were unwilling to commit to purchasing the property outright. 1 Counc i l member Sutorius said his commitment went shark to his status as a Planning Commissioner when he opposed the change that caused the entire problem. When he advocated in favor of the request from the landowners, that was supported by the residents in Mid- town to have the amortization, extended because Council knew it would happen. He asked those who said the Council did not have the principles or those who said they were always supported to show him the support in the record. Mayor Levy said he was contacted late that evening by Council - member Bechtel and really did not have an opportunity to thorough- ly think out the element of having two items on the ballot. He would reluctantly support the motion asking staff to draft some- thing for Council consideration the following Monday, but withheld judgment as to whether to put the matter on the ballot because it might be too confusing. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Bechtel* Renee], Witherspoon, Levy voting "aye," Fletcher absent. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the legitimacy of staff return- ing to Council next Monday with an alternative version of the existing acquisition resolution that incorporated the sense of acquiring and incorporating that the property exchange could be all or a portion of the acquisition negotiation. City Attorney Diane Lee said she was pondering the question because the deadline was noon on July 2, 1985 to get items down to reproduction. She was still working on. -another measure where she needed more information. She was concerned about committing to put on an alternative measure. The best would be to have some- thing at the Council's places if it could not get into the pack- et. Councilmember Sutorius was sorry the time constraints presented the situation. He wished the willingness and interest was broad enough that it could have been accounted for during the first go around. ITEM #17, CITY MANAGER WILLIAM LANER RE FIRE IN FOOTHILLS AREA (SAE 4) City Manager Bill Zaner went to the site earlier in the evening and said at that point there was still a lot of burning. There were hot spots up and down the road. The fire line began out Page Mill Road and under freeway . 280 on the right-hand side almost at the cloverleaf, and on the\1eft, the line began at the CalTrans' Park and Ride lot. There was not too much damage along that cor- ridor until Arastradero Road where the fire turned to the right and went down Arastradero Road on both sides. The Bressler Ranch was virtually gone. Houses on both sides of the road, especially on the Bressler side, on the City's Arastra property side, were heavily damaged. One or two houses escaped the fire and sat as an oasis in a black area. All the Eucalyptus trees along the roadway were on fire. There were many fire trucks still on the scene from al 1 jurisdictions and lots of firefighters with shovels trying to put out embers. On the right-hand side the fire extended all the way down to OC Power Lab. The lab itself suffered no damage, but the hillside in front of it was completely black. On the left- hand side, the fire went down just to the edge of. the Arastra property and he believed it might havegone into the Arastra prop- erty a little bit, but not more than 100 yards. There was no dam- age to the rest of the City's property. The structures.: on the City's property were not touched, On Page Mill, there was some spot damage beyond Arastradero Road on both sides. The big prob- lem was along Arastradero Rood oar both sides especially on the Bressler side. There was a band of black hillside several hun- dreds yards wide on both was and especially on the left side. He expected firefighters would be there ai l night. He -confirmed closed session re Employer/Employee .m. APPROVED: with Al 1aciweri tull=e eras HO way power would be restored to the area until the following morning. There were wires down everywhere and power was cut off to the area. Extra police would be on duty, and a shift would be held over. The Public Works Department people were cleaning up the roadway so traffic could move. Highway 280 was still closed and the CHP would probably open it shortly. Arastradero Road was closed from Page Mill almost to the City's Arastra property. When he left, persons were still not allowed to return to their homes, and when that occurred, they would be returned under escort. Staff preferred to not let people back that evening as the area was dangerous and there was a lot of fire still going on in the fields. The situation was not good. Mayor Levy asked Mr. Zaner to convey the Council's appreciation to all public officials involved. Mr. Zaner said it was difficult for radio communications in the hills, and police communications ran into a problem early. Some resident in the hills who owed a Cadillac with a mobile telephone drove his phone to the top of `che hill, turned to a policeman, handed him the keys and said it was his. The particular radio telephone was constantly used for the past five hours. It was the best communications system available. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION RE EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS Council adjourned to relations at 9:40 p.m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment at 9:55 ATTEST: City C erk f•ctin