Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-12 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY COUMCIL MINUTES ITEM. Regular Meeting August 12, 1985 Ural Communications Consent Calendar Referral None Action None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #2, PUBLIC HEARING: Weed Abatement Charges Item #3, Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation Re Naming of Arastra Park Property Item #4, Planning Commission Recommendation Re E.AFCO Sphere of Influence Boundary and Agreements with Stanford University and County of Santa Clara Re Development of Stanford. University Lands Recess Item #S City/School Liaison Committee Recommenda- tion Re Objectives Concerning Long-range Planning for Surplus School Sites Item #6, Supervisor Control and Data Acquisition System Item #7, Below Market Rate Program Rental Guide- lines Item #7-A (Old Item #1), One Year Extension to Agreement of Self -funded Employee's Health, Plan, Dental Plan, and Retirees' Health Plan CITY OF. PALO ALTO PAGE 6 1 6 2 6 1 6 3 6 1 6 3 6 1 6 3 6 1 6 3 6 1 6 4 6 1 6 4 1 6 1 6 5 6 1 7 9 6 1 8 0 6 1 8 1 6 1 8 2 6 1 8 6 Item #8, Request ofCouncilmember Fletci'er Re Noise 6 1 8 7 Ordinance Item #9, Request of Councilmembers Renzel, Bechtel 6 1 8 8. and Klein Re -Coastal Commission Budget Ite,n. 10, .Request of Vice Mayor Cobb Re Extension of 6 1 8 8 Moratorium Re Substandard Lots Adjournment; 11:20 a.m. Final Adjourn`nent: 12:-17 6 1 9 2 6 1 9 2 6 1 6 1 8/12/85 Reeu ei- Meet i rite August 12, 1985 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:33 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzele Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Witherspoon Mayor Levy announced that a Special Meeting with Supervisor Dianne McKenna was held in the Council Chambers at 6:15 p.m. Mayor Levy announced the need for a Closed Session re Litigation to be held at some point during the meeting, and the need for a Closed Session re Personnel to be held after the meeting. _ ORAL -COMMUNICATIONS 1. Raymond Chamberlin, 3444 Greer Road, was concerned about truth on the November ballot. He referred to the argument against _Measure 0, the advisory measure on street traffic _.barriers. Mayor Levy signed the statement that the contents of the argu- ment were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. He questioned the second to the last paragraph of the argument where it stated "all existing closures_ must be ree moved at considerable cost." Mayor Levy instigated putting the advisory measure on the ballot. If one read the measure, it stated the Director of Transportation was directed to remove all existing route blocking features which would not have been covered by the exceptions listed under Sections 10.11.020. That section stated exceptions for intersections where there were safety hazards and where two- outside con- sultants in traffic engineering would be employed to determine whether they should be removed. Mayor Levy said Council had at its places that evening the deci- sion of the Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeals which upheld the City Council's decision not to place the initiative measure regarding barriers on the ballot, and was available to members of the press and public. 2. Douglas graham, 984 Ilima Way, represented the Barron Park Association Zoning Committee, and said their concern was with the proposal to erect a two-story, single-family residence on a substandard lot at 3810 Whitsell Street. He distributed a single page fact sheet (which is on file in the City Clerk's office), and made a slide presentation of the project. .. He showed a view from the southeast side towards the intersection of Military Way. Whitsell was only three blocks long and ran paral l elm to El Cami no to the South and from Matadero to Mili- tary. The lot was 30 feet wide, and ,t was described on: the application as "screened by mature trees."' There were no trees on the lot. The trees shown in the slide were located at 3818 Magnolia and at 611 Barron. The st ru-iture in the rear of Gil Barron was only two or three feet from the apparent lot line. The proposed structure was way too large for such `a tiny lot. It would totally dominate and change the character of the 3700 block of Whitsell 3. Grady Maggard, 3818 Magnolia, said his neighborhood lost the opportunity to comment on the proposed variance when the vari- ance notice went around stating 3810 Whitselle-Whitsell having a 3500 block, a 3600 block, and a 3700 block. It had no impact on his neighbors with the exception of one person who looked for 3810 Whitsell and returned empty . handed. He :did not see how she could have saved, the variance procedure at. 8 1 that point by correcting any problems. When the notice was sent out, it failed to tell the nei ehbors enough about the lot to know whether it was of interest to .them. Renoticing and a rehearing were necessary because the notice was inaccurate and misleading. He learned eight weeks after the approval about the project, routed a petition through the neighborhood and delivered it to the Zoning Administrator Bob Brown who said he could not help at that late date and there was -nothing he or the Council could do about it. He hoped Council do help them. 4. Bob Moss,:4010 Orme, Chairman of the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Barron Park Association, said the Executive Committee of the Barron Park Association met the previous Tuesday evening and discussed the lot and variance approval at 3810 Whitsell. There was a City-wide problem in the develop- ment of substandard lets, which was recognized by a Council action the preceding Monday evening of passing a moratorium on the development of substandard lots in College Terrace. He requested a Councilmember agendize the matter of amending the ordinance which was passed for first reading on Monday, August 5, to make it apply to substandard lots City- wide, and to have a staff study on the impact of preventing development on some threshold size of lot. Other lots were developed throughout the City over the past eight or nine years which were as small as 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. He believed it would be;a continuing problem and would continue to arise because of the high cost of land in Palo Alto and because there were many properties which were split off or left over from previous developments. His personal feeling was if a lot was more than 20 or 25 percent substandard in the existing zone in a major dimension or in total lot area, it probably was unbuildable in the particular zone and would result in the development of a building which was overbearing and out of character with the neighboring community. To determine whether it was true, it was appropriate to call a halt to those developments and extend the moratorium on substandard lot development City-wide. 5. John Joynt, 3589 Laguna, President, Barron Park Association, said there were four points in the outline of the study for the College Terrace substandard lots. The first was called Citizen Participation." The whole idea was that within the developments there was a determination about what was accept- able or unacceptable within a neighborhood. He believed the spirit embraced Barron Park as well as all of Palo Alto. Mayor Levy aSked when the- second reading would occur on the College Terrace moratorium. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said it was stheduied for August l9. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Sutorius .removed. Item #1, One Year Extension to Agreement of Self --Funded Employees' -Health P1an,, Dental Plan, and Retirees` Health Plan` from the Consent Calendar. .AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Vice Mayor Cobb: added Item #10, Extension of Morator-iuum. re Sub- standard Lots. City Manager Bill Zaner advised that Item #1, Extension to Agree- ment would become Item #7-A. ITEM u2! PUBLIC HEARING: WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES (PWK 5-2) (CAR:459:5) Mayor Levy said it was the time and place set for a public hearing on the resolution for the charges levied for weed abatement on private property under the agreement with Santa Clara County. He asked the record to reflect that notice of the hearing was given in the time, manner and form provided in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Codes No written objections were received. He declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. He asked the record to reflect that no one appeared or filed written objections against the charges for weed abatement performed in accordance with the Municipal Code and under the agreement for administration of weed abatement entered into between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. Any resolution passed by the Council on the matter would reflect that finding. MOTION: Counci l member • Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6420 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING WEED ABATEMENT REPORT ANO ORDERING COST OF ABATEMENT TO BE A : SPECIAL ASSESS- MENT OF THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES HEREIN DESCRIBED' MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #3, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS (F&PW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION i NAMING OF ARASTRA PARK -PROPERTY MR :449:6 ) Councilmember Bechtel, Chair of the F&PW Comittee, said the Committee felt strongly that in order not to confuse the public, it should stick with a name that was close to the area and was recognizable. Everyone called the property the "Arastra property" and by naming it the "Ar'astradero Preserve" the Committee believed it would be the least confused. The Historical Association deleted the name Russell Lee from the list of recommended names for the park because they felt he had no connection with the par- ticular property. The F&PW Committee concurred with that recom- mendation believing that either Foothills Park or some medical associated property would be more •appropriate to be named after Russell Lee. MOTION: Counci lmeatber Bechtel for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved that "Arastradero Preserve'" be the name of the Arastra Park property; that Council leave naming of the incidental parts of the park to appropriate departments and personnel and that they be encouraged to select ` names from the list included in the staff`report (CMR:427:5) excluding the nave of Mr. Russell if. A. Lee. Further, that staff give serious consideration to in- cluding "Arastradero Preserve' as part of the final name of the stables and hostel. Counc i l member Klein said the statement was made that the Histori- cal Association recommended deletion of Dr. Lee's name. He did not find that in the letter of June 16. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the suggestion was made by Ruth Wilson, Chairman of - the Street Naming Committee, to him in person. It was not included in the letter. It was apparently an afterthought of the Historical Association Committee, Counci lmember Klein was troubled by .thin standards. He did not see. why they were limited in naming places to people who had an asso- ciation with the property, especially in that case where Dr. Lee was associated with an adjacent piece of property. Further, he was not persuaded the public was so used to the names. His read- ing showed the word "Arastrs".came into the Palo Alto political lexicon about 15 gears ago. He would not support the name because it was unimaginative grid the CU), Uy already had an Arastradero Road. He believed such opportunities as those should be used to honor people who made a significant contribution to the community. He was not happy with the procedure being followed. "Arastradero Preserve" waS a bland, not very good "vanilla" name. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gallen Avenue, agreed with Councilmember Klein. He could live with the name "Arastradero Preserve," but believed Council could come up with a better one. Councilmember Renzel was a member of the P&P Committee and joined with the F&PW Committee selection of the "Arastradero Preserve." They sometimes forgot the difficulties the public in general had dealing with .esoteric decisions the Council made with lots of background information. Having a preserve named after both a landmark and a road which was its primary access was a reasonable thing to do in order to make it as simple as possible for the pub- lic to identify and use the property. She believed the Committee made a wise decision. With respect to Dr. Lee, while he certainly made some sizable - contributions to the social fabric of the com- munity as well as selling Foothills Park to the City, they needed to remember he sold the property, he did not give it to the City. It was a wonderful benefit, but it had nothing to do with the par- ticular parcel of land. It was far better to have a name which related to the land and the location. Councilmember Woolley joined the F&PW Committee members in ap- proving the name. She was with Councilmember Klein in asking that the name be referred for a second time because she also believed they should utilize the opportunity to honor another citizen or come up with another name with historical significance. She was interested in considering the name "Rancho Corte Madera Preserve," but believed staff indicated it could present some potential con- fusion with the city in Marin County, She agreed with Council - member Menzel in terms of her opinion on using the name of Dr. Lee. Ste supported the motion. Mayor Levy would not support the motion. He believed there were many people in Palo Alto, Dr. Lee being one, who made substantial contributions to the City. The fact that he did not own the land or live on the land specifically did not_.mean he should not be recognized in some way, and there were man, other people in Palo Alto who should be recognized in one way or another.. It would be too limiting if Council was only to recognize those people who had some specific relationship to an area of land. The community was enriched by preservi ny the names. For example, he thought of Harriet Mundy as one who had a landmark named after her. "Arastradero Preserve" was a bland name, and while it located the preserve, Arastradero was a long and circuitous street, but nothihy was gained by simply naming the park after the streets they happened to be located near._ NOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Klein, Levy voting "no," Witherspoon absent ITEM #4 PLANNING _COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE LAFCO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: SOU r RY AND AGREEMENTS WITH SrANrORa UNIVERSITY AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA RE DEVELOPMENT OF ST NFORD UNIVERSE l<: N S PTA lily Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the Commission concluded that, while one of the central issues in the agreements was the lack of inclusion of areas west of Juni pero Serra within Palo Alto's new Sphere of Influence,.. the technical connotation was that annexation was not intended in those areas. The Commission believed the set of agreements and the protocol _before the Council would 'provide the policy protection the City needed. :. They were particularly concerned = about whether homeowners in the campus should be entitled to notice of all proceedings Under the use permit even though they were not Commission believed special attention definition of what constituted a non -p close academic ties and was, theref annexation under the agreements. 0 found the documents easy to work wit the CS agreement which they replace session with Stanford officials Together with an agreement worke cumulative treatment of mitigati Commission was fairly enthusiasts important step for laying out p help resolve land use conflicts 1 andowners. Further, the eeded to be paid to further rofit research facility with re, presumed not subject to n the whole, the Commission h and a great improvement over d. They had a productive study before acting on the matter. d out earlier in the year for ons in the Willow Corridor, the c that the entire process was an rocedures and formulas that could in the future. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the items before the Council included two distinctly different decisions. One was a recommendation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on the boundaries of a sphere of. influence. The sphere of influence was a new area --the City did not previously have one. .It had a Boundary Agreement line which at one time used the name sphere of influence, but the sphere of influence before the Council was . a new entity and was just now being created by LAFCO. The recom- mendation was that certain academic reserve and open space lands of Stanford University not be included in that sphere of influ- ence. At the same time, there was a second issue that was a series of agreements which were attached to the resolution con- tained in the packet. The agreements were the result of a three - party negotiation involving staff of the County, City and Stanford University. The agreements represented the seventh or eighth draft and incorporated the changes the Planning Commission wanted to have incorporated. In the second of the attachments to the resolution, "Protocol," it simply listed procedures and policies from other documents. In the Protocol, on page 4, c(1), it talked about mailing copies of notices to property owners. It was the accurate reflection of the current County policy. The Commission asked that rather than saying "property owners," it say "property owners and lessees," and that. Stanford was generally the property owner of the lands near the applications Stanford might make. While the Protocol could not be changed because it was a reflec- tion of the County policy, it was appropriate to send a communi- cation to the County suggesting that the owners also have lessees added to the list of who got notification. On the agreements, the first agreeuT.=.,nt replaced the CS zone agreement of 1974. It was more comprehensl-ve and was in more comprehensible language. It had a major change from the old CS agreement in that it included Santa Clara County ,as an active party to the accords contained therein. The Protocol brought together procedures and policies from other places and at the end there was a two party agreement that would only involve Stanford and Pala Alto, and it consisted of requests to LAFCO and Santa Clara County on matters that needed clarification if those academic reserve and open space lands were excluded from the sphere of influence. Counci land on th Mir. the Co b !member Renzel asked with regard to the buildings on leased whether the 300 feet applied to the location of the building e leased land or the boundaries of the leased land. Freeland said the affected properties were within 300 feet of parcels. uncilmerber Renzel said the fact that it wa land leased with a u i l di ny on it did not mean the 300 feet was measured from., the building because there might be a large parcel that was more than 3110 feet and the building might be beyond- the .300_ feet. In that instance they specifically reant the parcel boundary. Mr. Freeland clarified it was the County's procedures and he could not say with s00 percent certainty. He understood public notice was almost always given to the parcel and not the building, and notification would be to all adjoining parcels. f 6 1.6 6 81121a5 Councilmember Renzel said Council currently had the authority to refer use permit to the Planning Commission, and they normally went to staff for comment. In staff's discretion, it could be referred to the Planning Commission. She asked if that procedure should be set forth in the Protocol. 1 Mr. Freeland said it was never explicit under what circumstances staff could refer items on to the Council or the Commission. When items were referred, it implied to County processing that it took longer to get Palo Alto comments. He did not believe it could be clarified that night, but it might be useful to get somewhat clearer ground rules. Councilmember Renzel asked if presently the County waited for Council's referral to the Planning Commission, if Council went through that process. Mr. Freeland said yes. The County was under statutory require- ments for timely processing of applications and staff always felt a necessity to move as expeditiously as possible, and not hold up those applications. They had not yet nad any problem that could not be worked out, but the County could not agree to just continue until Palo Alto was ready because they were obliged to process quickly. Councilmember Renzel said there was some discussion at the Planning Commission of where something like the Reagan Library would fall and other so-called non-profit, academic related facil- ities, and as she understood it, there was an instruction to go further in defining what those facilities might be in the agree- ments before the Council. She asked whether it was appropriate for Council to offer some comments or suggestions in the direc- tions it might go or some of the criterion that might, be used. The comments might be used on the parts of the agreements that remain for further action. Mr. Freeland said staff suggested, and Stanford agreed, that the City and Stanford ask the County to incorporate appropriate poli- cies in the County's Master Use Permit that governed which uses were allowed.;on the academic lands. It meant the actual process of determining those conditions would occur later. He believed if the Council had thought about what the conditions should be, it was always useful to receive them. He did not believe it was necessary for the work they had to do that night. It was some- thing staff would eventually need. Councilmember. Renzel said one of the disputes that remained open was the ques..i on Of the urban service area and whether academic properties should be removed from the urban service area. Stanford currently provided urban services to the campus but many were purchased from Palo Alto, -including its landfill space, the storm drainage that: was -not purchased, but ►which impacted Palo Alto on both Matadero and San Francisquito Creek, and the sewage capacity. she knew was under a long-term contract. She: asked if there should be any further attempt to remove the academic lands from Palo Alto's urban:service area -and to request -that LAFC0ehave Stanford identify its .own independent sources of -solution to those problems, Mr. Freeland said the Planning Commission did n.ot make a :recom- mendation as to whether to proceed with negotiations on the urban service area. Staff needed direction from Council as to whether it favored additional. negotiations regarding the urban. service area. He believed LAFCO would have to do an analysis of the potential for providing services if in fact the land were removed from the urban service area. It was essential to look at the kinds of issues being raised: by ,Councilmember Renzel. ea Councilmember Renzel said the policy decisions .with respect to areas A, 8, and C as shown on the map in the'° -°CS agreement were 1 incorporated in the Protocols and were previously policy level decisions of the Council, County, arid witheStanford. She was .somewhat concerned they were now incorporated in the Protocol which could be changed by staff, by concurrence of the three staffs. She asked if it was appropriate for Council to request that'any changes to the policies with respect to those three areas yo throuyh the Council rather than be a staff -level decision. Mr. Freeland believed it was appropriate. He pointed out that the areas A, 3, and C were incorporated into the County Master Use Permit for Stanford. It was done in 1975 or 1976 as an outgrowth of the CS zone agreement. For the last ten years or so, as the City used the; area A,' IS, C concept, it was actually the County Use Permit that was the implementor. The CS zone agreement launched the idea, but the Use Permit was where it was actually embodied. The Protocol reflected the Use Permit.' If the -Use Permit were amended, Council would see it as a matter. of course, but If Council wanted to take a position that it definitely wanted to see it, that was appropriate. Councilmember Renzel referred to the July 3, 1985 staff report, Protocol, Page 6, under "Referral of .applications." In 5,b. it said, "In any such application, Stanford states -whether or not it seeks municipal services or utilities...for the proposed project." She realized it was better than no notice at all, but the City could not just automatically adapt it's- sewage plant, or. storm drainage and other things, instantaneously. Mra Freeland said the whole referral was an -adaptation of the County -wide standards used as unincorporated projects for urban development, and the language was then tailored to the County situation. Basically, the point was to determine whether Stanford was able to provide its own services. If not, the City would be put on notice. If that were the case, it would probably be an inappropriate activity in the uncorperated area. If it actually required City services, then it was something to be carefully looked at. He was not sure there was an issue. Counciimember Su.torius referred to the trapezoid and triangle par- cels, particularly Quarry and Arboretum, and asked .for clarifi- cation of the effects of the changes being made with respect to the urban service area and the sphere of influence. He appre- ciated there were two subjects involved in the discussion, Mr. Freeland said a:.. few years ago there was an issue of whether to include the properties in the urban service area, and what the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation should be. Stanford recommended either an academic or a. housing land use des- ignation and asked that those parcels be included in the urban service area. The City's decided to call them open space, control development, and exclude therm from the urban ,service area. Stanford's policy, nonetheless, remained that it = was looking toward either an academic or an urban -type use, such as housing not \limited to the faculty, or possibly even income -generating use, for those parcels. The logic the City used for excluding land from .the Sphere of Influence was if it was territory not in. the urban 'service area where the policy was that it was academic reserve and open space where there was no current thinking indi- cating the uses would be anything other than open space or very low -intensity academic uses, : then the City believed it was app`,ro- priate to exclude that land from the Sphere of Influence. The City would have done that with those two parcels because .t ay were outside the urban service area " in - the City's Comprehensive Plan and were cared "Open Space." However, the Stanford plans clearly anticipated uses that might be appropriate for annexation. In that case, the City decided to hedge its : bets a bit, and suggested that even though they were outside the'urban service area, the two parcels be included in the Sphere of Influence. .The reason to include ,them was the City was on notice from Stanford that they might, ..pursue Uses other than open space. Frew' a ool lcy point of 6 1 6.8 8/12/85 view; if Council believed strontily that the parcels should not be entertained for anything other than open space, then it was appro- priate -to exclude them from the sphere of influence, If Council wanted to leavee its options open to consider` requests from Stanford, then• it was appropriate to include them. The proposal right then was to include them. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the term "low -intensity and whether it was a County definition, a City definition; or a gen- eric kind of term that would be defined a little more when there was an application of some kind. 1 Mr. Freeland said it was a little _circular. The County policy referred in turn to the City planned land use designation for academic reserve areas within a Sphere of Influence. The City talked about ten -acre home sites. It was also implied that things like the satellite antennas up in the hills would be examples of individual uses that were low -intensity academic uses. One of those satellite dishes on the small parcel would appear to be more intensive. Councilmember Woolley did not see .how the particular. parcel, the trapezoid and the triangle, fit into the key. In other words, they should be inside the sphere of influence but outside the urban surface area. Mr. Freeland said Councilmember Woolley was right. .There should be another small area of the stippled pattern. The map was created before staff addressed that issue. Councilmember Woolley said the text talked about the six special studies, and Map No. 1 on page 9 of the staff report gave four clear areas. She asked for clarification as to where the six study areas were. Mr. Freeland believed Stanford considered the Quarry and what the City called the Quarry Road Trapezoid and Triangle as three dif- ferent parcels. There was also a small parking lot at the end, which he believed accounted for three, then Stanford North and South were considered to be two, and SLAC was the sixth, but it was not in, the City's jurisdiction. If that was wrong, Phil Williams would correct him. Councilmember decntel said the old CS agreements were around a long time, and if clarified would make the procedures easier for everyone who did not have the- longest memory on the issue. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council recommend to the Santa Clara LAFCO approval, with conditions, of a Sphere of Influence boundary for Palo Alto, and approve the agreements with Stanford University and the County of Santa Clara as amended, including staff recommendation re Lessees and incorporate addition of a more than to soap, between "having'" and "5,OOO.% 1985 LAND USE POLICY AGREEMENT POLICIES GOVERNING ANA CLARA -COUNTY) S(PPi,9MENTAL. AGREEMENT (IN CONJUNCTION W Tll„ 1985 LAND STANFORD/SANTA CLARA COUNTY /CITY OF PALO ALTO) RESOLUTION 6421 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COURCIL OF THE C1TT OF. PALO _.ALTO APPROVING AN AGREEMENT SETTING FORTH POLICIES O€ THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, THE CITY OF. PALO ALTO, AND STANFORD UNIVERSITY : REGARDING LAND AISE, ANNEXATION, PLANNING AND _ DEVELOPMENT OF STANFORD LANDS; IN SANTA CLARACOUNT," 6 .1` b 9` 8/12/85. Councilrrrember Renzel was concerned that there be some language to the effect tiiai, if any change was made in the urban service area that removed the academic land, Stanford would be required, before that change, to identify its long-term solution for the various urban services it needed, particularly garbage, storm drainage, and sewage. Secondly, any changes in policies in the Protocol with respect to .areas A, 8, and C go through the policy level decision of the Council, and that the process for referral to the Planning Commission of use permits the staff felt were significant be incorporated in the Protocol. She also wanted some identifi- cation of how the City categorized low intensity within Palo Alto so it was identified as to the source. They had some examples that night, but she had never really seen how the City defined low intensity, and because it was being used as a basis for compar- ison, it was important to have some examples of what the City meant by low intensity incorporated in the appropriate agreement, Protocol , or Resolution as the case might be. AMENDMENT: Councilmembee Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher that staff return' to Council with the following concepts as amend- ments 1. Any change in an urban service area boundary which removes academic lands must include a service provision plan aedress- ing garbage, sewage, and other municipal services; 2. Any policy changes involving areas A, B, or C must be reviewed by the City Council; 3. Direct staff to prepare a policy clarifying the process for referral of Stanford project applications for review by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 4. Direct staff to report on how Palo ,Alto defines "1 ow inten- sity" as it related to academic reserve/open space uses. Counci lmember Renzel said basically staff recommended that Council give the concept and they would incorporate the detailed language and return to Council the fol l oaf: ny week. Thegeneral concept was that the designations on parcels A, B,, and C that were in the CS agreements were a policy -level decision between the County, Stanford and the City. If incorporated in the Protocol , they could be amended by staff action without going to the Council, and for that reason she wanted to express the Council's desire to see any changes in the policy. It was not any particular actions that might occur within those policies. If the basic policy governieg the areas were to be changed, it would go to a policy l ev'el detci - s on. She also wanted the Protocol to clarify the current City policy with respect to staff referrals of use permit changes to the Planning Commission. Mayor Levy clarified that Item 4 was for staff to define "low intensity" in terms of examples that occurred within the City of Palo Alto. Councilme ber Renzel said yes, or to identify where it was defined in the City's zoning ordinance ; so they had some basis . for the people who were governing 20 years from then when the issue might come up, Councilmember Bechtel wanted\ to clarify point No. 3. When Mr. Freeland was asked whether the precedtre should actually be in the Protocol, the original explanation was different from what was just said. If Council waited to negotiate something related to. the Protocol portion, it night delay the whole process. She believed it was something that couldbe subserivently negotiated, but tht Council s? oufd proceed to` approve what it- presently had. She=wanted to,ensure that by voting on tiro motion, Council would not delay the whole procedure. 0 1 Mr. Freeland said staff did not have a clear policy and used their judyment on what got referred. Having a clear policy might entail some thought and it might slow things down. The nature of the Protocol was once a clear policy was established, staff could amend the Protocol. He clarified that Councilmember Bechtel was asking that staff develop a clear policy on the issue and report back co Council. Once it was done, staff could amend%the Protocol as a matter of course, and he believed it would be good not to hold the whole thing up while it happened. Staff could proceed in that direction. Councilmember Bechtel concurred it was useful to o establish ish the policy, but what Council should do under point No. 3 was ask staff to begin to proceed. Subsequently, the. Protocol could be amended, but Council should proceed. She wanted to ensure that Council - member Renzel's motion spoke to that, because she would oppose that portion unless it was clear that Council proceed. Councilmember Renzel said in talking to staff that afternoon, she understood with respect to those proposals, that there was ample time to return next week with documents to incorporate ideas which might be expressed that evening. The language would not be detailed, but rather Council would give staff conceptual instruc- tions to return with language the next week. The thought was that it would not unduly delay the process since the Protocols and documents:: would go before other bodies before they were agreed upon anyway. If staff believed the particular one would take longer than a week, she was agreeable to having it be a _ referral to staff, and separate it out from the other things she believed should be incorporated before Council appro`ed the agreements. Mr. Freeland believed both Councilmembers Renzel and Bechtel were rights Staff would probably return with language to clarify the direction to staff, as opposed to returning in a week with an amendment to the Protocol. It would get them to the same point. Councilmember Renzel .said part three of her amendment would be a referral to staff. Councilmember Klein said it seemed to him that Council had four separate topics before them. He believed it would be a lot better if Council addressed each issue in order and not skip around. He requested a ruling from Mayor Levy. Mayor Levy intended to divide the amendment and believed Council was better served by discussing the topics in order. Councilmember Klein was concerned about what No. 1 meant because it seemed Councilmember Renzel was after bigger game than he understood. He heard her speech about supplying urban services to Stanford which was true, but it seemed to him .there was some criticism of the services the City provided to Stanford, and the amendment was somehow designed to get a handle on it. He wanted to hear more from Councilmember Renzel about what she was toying t.o accomplish that did not presently a -i st. He did no.t neces- sarily oppose it, but did not like putting things in that were burdensome for the City or the University that did not really accomplish anything. He also warted .to hear from staff as to what was intended to be accomplished by the particular provision. Councilmember Renzel said on the sewage _plant, the City had a con- tract with Stanford whereby they purchased capacity, and the City was bui 1diny its plant based on the capacity it was contractually obl i gated to provide. ' Until that capacity was used up, the City did not have to worry. With respect to garbage, the City's land fill would run out in 199U. During the garbage strike, there were normally 3b trucks per day and there were seven trucks per day all ,coming frow Stanford which ` suggested to her that one -fifth ` of what was being used in the City's landfill was used by _ Stanford. When 6 i 7 1 3/12/S5 it ran out in 1998, it would have to be addressed by Stanford as an urban service. Councilmember Klein understood that, but believed Councilmember Renzel was talking about any changes in land use. Councilmember Renzel said if there was a change in the urban sere vice area that removed academic land for which Stanford was pro- viding service but some of which was under contract with Palo Alto. Palo Alto .needed some way to understand those services would be taken care of independently of Palo Alto. _Councilmember-Klein clarified if something was presently identi- fied as academic, Stanford, under the present system, could build a fairly. intensive building on it. Mr. Freeland said that was correct. Councilmember Klein said a more intensive facility might produce more sewage than some other potential use of the property i.e., residential, commercial or industrial, but Councilmember Renzel seemed to want Stanford to identify where the urban services would be _coming from if the land use designation was changed. He vas concerned about why -because if he- understood things correctly, Stanford might put a demand on the services received from Palo Alto under the present system which was more intensive than the ones suggested by Councilmember Renzel, Councilmember Renzel said under the present system, major projects within the urban service area were referred to Council, If they were removed from the urban service area, she understood they would not be referred -to Council. Mr. Freeland said it did not necessarily follow. The present agreements and the Protocol spoke to referral of projects, and it would also be amended to eliminate the referral. The County had a strong referral policy in urban service areas. He believed the debate related to the other issue about whether staff should pur- sue negotiations about the urban service area, and it shoraid be addressed. If land was taken out of the urban service area, it was appropriate that LAFCO serioesiy consider the whole issue or the urban service provision. If —an urban area was to he removed from the City's urban service area, it was an appropriate ques- tion, but the larger question was whether they should talk about removing the land from the urban service area. `Councilmember Klein said if staff believed it was innocuous, he would go along with it, but he had _a hard time understanding what was being accomplished by putting : it in because it seemed that any LAFCO worth half its salt would make the request anyway. Mr. Freeland agreed it was L AFC3's role and responsibility. Councilmember Klein asked whether the City was telling LAFCO how. to do its business. Mr. Freeland supposed the bottom line was that the City was state lny its intention for what it wanted to have looked at if it pro- ceeded with removing . thstland from theurban service area. Councilmember Klein still did not understand the amendment's pur- pose. Councilmember Renzel said staff indicated some concurrence that if there was to be a change --and she did not recommend`. there be a change --it was important for the City- of Palo Alto that those issues be looked at, and not for someone to turn to the City at some point in the future and say, *Hey, we suddenly found we can't deal with raur_; own garbage problem and what are you going . to do to bail us out. Counciimember 5utorius shared Counciimember Klein's concern and referred to what staff confirmed in the. earlier response that le the staff report dated July 3, 1985, on page 3, under "The Role of a Sphere of Influence" in the next to the last paragraph,. "Urban Service Area," the last sentence read, "Urban service areas are updated and reviewed by LAFCO annually, or whenever the City and LAFCU deem appropriate." If .he was not mixing apples and oranges, it seemed to confirm it was an area that would not get away from them regardless of what other words Council might want to put in the Protocol. In the referral of applications, in any applica- tion, Stanford stated whether it sought municipal services or utilities from the City of Palo Alto for the proposed project. He apologized if he missed something, but he believed the City was well -covered in that regard and he did not presently see a need to change to the Protocol. Councilmember Woolley agreed. She assumed Council would be a part of any discussions to change the urban service area, and asked staff if that ,was correct. Mr. Freeland said yes. Councilmember. Woolley believed, therefore, it would not do any harm to include the item except perhaps the document was already fairly far along, .and if it was not necessary, she would just as soon no.t add the amendment. Councilmember Fletcher envisioned Stanford might like to change the land use designation on certain properties long before they came in with a project. If she was not mistaken, it was that point the motion .was meant to address rather than waiting for a project to go before the reviewing body which would then look at the impacts. Mr. Freeland understood the motion only dealt with changing the boundary of the urban service area, and the type of analysis needed at the time a boundary change was proposed to the urban service area. Mr. Freeland said what was proposed was any change to the urban service area boundary which removed academic land must identify a service . provision plan including but not limited to garbage, sewage, and, other municipal services. Councilmember Bechtel said as she listened to Mr. Freeland state it so clearly, it, was innocuous. It was something that was already being done as part of LAFCU and she did not see how Council could help but support the motion and she urged Council support. FIRST PART OF. AMENDMENT REGARDING URBAN CHANGES AND ACADEMIC LARDS FAILED by a Fletcher, Renzel voting *aye," Witherspoon SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY vote of 3.5, Bechtel, absent. Mayor Levy clarified part - two : of the amendment that any policy changes in Protocols related to parcels A, 8, or C be approved by the Council. Councilmember Woolley.: asked i f i t presented any problems. Mr. Freeland believed it was: -fine,., and said it was direction to staff to ensure they were called to Coun"cil!s attention. SECOND PAR' OF AMENDMENT RE _POLICY CHANGES IN AREAS A, PASSED unanimously, lithersOoor`:absent, for clarification on part three. OR C 5 1.7 33 8112/85 Mr. Freeland paraphrased that the policy for referral of applica- tions to the Planning Commission from staff be clarified and included in the Protocol. Councilmember Bechtel clarified it would be in the future and not before the first approval, but as an amendment, Mr, Freeland said yes. Councilmember Klein clarified the Protocol was designed to be an agreement. Mr. Freeland said. the Protocol was meant to be a collection of existing policies and procedures of the various parties as they affected each other. Councilmember Klein clarified they still intended it to be a bilateral agreement --or trilateral. Mr. Freeland said there was a three -party agreement which referred to the Protocol. The Protocol was an encyclopedia of relevant procedures and policies. It was to be a nesting place as policies were developed so if a clear policy was developed on referral of t!ne Stanford projects to the Commission, then it was appropriate: for that policy to be housed in the Protocol so that people could could find it. Councilmember Klein was concerned that i t not have to be approved by anybody else. Mr. Freeland assumed the policy would return to the Council. Councilmember Klein wanted the procedure to end. Mr. Freeland said once either the County or City changed a policy or a procedure, it would be reflected in the Protocol. Staffs would be charged with keeping the Protocol current. In other words, if the procedure was revised, it followed automatically the Protocol should be updated to reflect it. Mayor Levy clarified the third part of the amendment that the policy for the referral of applications to the Planning Commission from Staff be clarified in the Protocols in the future. THIRD PART OF AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. Mayor Levy said Item 4 was a request for a definition of 'low intensity use giving examples within Palo Alto. Mr. Freeland said if staff was `going to return, he believed the n intentio was that_ staff prepare language and check with Stanfo, d and the County before it returned to Council for :final adoption. He was- not enact l y sure where i t would end up He believed the i nteht was _ that staff clarify: how they..:dFti gnated -"l o* intensity. A clear pnl # cy rei yht be reflected in .the Protocol , but not neces- sarily. lie understood it was primarily,. at. least initially, an assignment to staff to return to the Council on it, and then they would ,.figure out what .to do with it. ' ounci lhember Renzel said, it was fine w:i'th ;her. She envisivhed it would go in whi.hev"er document spoke to , where` they changed the definition that said ".low intensity" and take jurisdiction on which-- it sat- to_ say' "low -intensity" _as. defined by: Palo. Tito, - hen she say it„ she wondered how the City defined '.1ow i-htenslty " There 6 1 7 4 8/12/85 was no discussion ot it, and she contemplated it would go some- where in the particular area, but if staff believed it was better put somewhere else, it was fine with her as long as it was in documents that would go forward so when the CouncilMembers were ail gone, somebody could figure out what they were talking about. Mr- Freeland said chances were it would end up in the Protocol, but staff preferred a fai-Hy broad -assignment to figure out what to do with it. Mayor Levy said the item before Council was for staff to define "low intensity" and return to Council for approval. FOURTH PART OF AMENDMENT REFERRED PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. Councilmember Fletcher referred to the Protocol on page 3, third paragraph (e), which said, "Stanford considers carefully such com- ments as Palo Alto may make, and attempts, where feasible and appropriate in its judgment, to accommodate the City's views." She believed the language was such that it basically gave Stanford the veto if it cared not to do anything to accommodate Palo Alto's views. She suggested it should read, "Stanford considers care- fully such comments- as Palo Alto may make, and attempts to accom- modate the City's views." Stanford would not be forced to do anything, but would attempt to accommodate the City's views. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to delete the phrase "where feasible and appropriate in its judg- ment," from subparagraph (e) under paragraph 5, page 3 of the Protocol. Councilmember Sutorius asked if staff had any comment on Council member Fletcher's proposed amendment. Mr. Freeland said it was difficult because it literally tried to take words out of Stanford's mouth in the particular instance. The statement contained the same language all the way back to the old 1974 agreement. It accurately reflected the position of the University in terms of dealing with the City's comments to them on their projects. While the City might wish that some of the "weazel" words were taken out, he believed the statement very much reflected what he understood Stanford's position to be, and it was probably inappropriate for the City to redefine for them what they were willing to do in that regard. Councilmember Sutorius thanked Mr. Freeland for the explanation and said he would be guided by it as he voted on the issue because it seemed to him ._the words were qualifying words. He understood the reason for the motion was to remove them, but did not believe it would change the action that would take place under the agree- ment. As long as it was Stanford's position and was suited as such, he saw no reason to edit -it. Councilmember Klein was not sure whether the proposed amendment was innocuous or° represented a significant policy. change,`` but either way he would not support it. It was 'innocuous ire one sense because the language would still read, "...attempts to accom- modate,,." Attempting. to 'accommodate meant Stanford might ° do what the City wanted. If it tried : to say the City should have a lot more say over what Stanford did on its lands, the position he favored in a variety of different places, then he did not believe it was the appropriate forum or mechanism, He saw Council's role with the documents that night asmore of setting forth a treaty with regard to processing applications for land use changes, etc. It was not the place' to make that' type . of dramatic change. For those reasons, it seemed to him to be -sort of a mischievous amendment* Mayor Levy said the amendment struck him as being innocuous, and if it was innocuous, it should be deleted. He asked if a Stanford representative could comment on why it should not be deleted. Phil Williams, Stanford Planning Director, believed the phrase was in there to protect Stanford's ability to make judgments as to whether a proposed condition or recommendation would have an adverse effect on the academic program. Stanford believed it was responsible for retaining the final judgment in that regard. Mayor Levy asked whether in deleting the phrase, Council changed anything of substance. Mr. Williams .believed the reference to Stanford's judgment was probably useful, but suggested Council might want to word -it so it incorporated the meaning he just explained. In other words, in Stanford's judgment, it would not have an adverse effect on aca- demic•programming. He believed it still accomplished what they were after for academic development. It was an attempt to protect Stanford's responsibility toward its programming. Stanford pre- ferred it just stay in, but it was relatively innocuous. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Fletcher, Renzel and Levy voting °aye,°° Witherspoon absent. Councilmember Sutorius referred to page 2 of the Protocol, Item 4.b.(2) and (3) the wording there, "...having more than 5,000 square feet..." was the same in each reference. On Map #3, the "more than" was missing from the description for Area 8, and he believed staff wanted "more than" in there to be consistent. He did not believe it was too likely to be misunderstood, but it was inconsistent and potentially legally debatable. He suggested the maker of the motion might incorporate that on Map #3 attached to the Protocol the words "more than" be inserted between the word "having" and the number "5,000." Mayor Levy said the language was accepted in the main motion by the maker and second. Councilmember Renzel said on page 3 of the basic agreement, the Land Use Policy Agreement, which was called Exhibit A to the Resolution, Item 3.c. said, "Stanford intends to request annexa- tion to the City of Palo Alto of any unincorporated parcel...for which it proposes. an interim non --academic use." She asked the City Attorney if the City really intended that all non-academic uses should be annexed, whether it would be more apprpriate to use the word "shall request" rather than "intends to." Ms. Lee said that was fine. Councilmember Renzel said the non-academic uses depended on the City for services, and the Council should also have some zoning and comprehensive planning ability over such sites. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, the words *intends to" be changed to "shall° making. subparagraph i:,, on page 3. read "Stanford shall request annexation to the City of Palo Alto of any unincorporated parcel in Santa Clara County for which it proposes ash interim non -academic -use. Mayor Levy asked if the language had any effect other than clar- ification of what Stanford was willing to do. Mr. Freeland believed it was a clarification in a more forthright. statement, Mr. Williams believed the wording "intends to request" was more in the spirit of the agreement which was a statement of policies and principles in the first place. Secondarily, Stanford could' not b 1 1 6- 8/12/85 anticipate whether there would be changes in- City or County policy about the nature of annexations. Stanford intended to clarify it continued to be Stanford`.s intent to request annexation without regard to what other policies might change.,, He believed the word- i ray was more appropriate, but it was .partly a legal matter. There was enough legality to it that it was not a change that should be made on the spur of the moment, but Stanford should have- a chance to study it if the amendment passe#. Mayor Levy was .satisfied the language as it stood was strong enough. He would not support the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Bechtel, Fletcher, Renzel voting "aye,'' Witherspoon absent. Mr. Freeland said he and Mr. Schreiber believed the amendments made that night did not require the matter to be carried over, so unless there were other amendments, the Council could go ahead and act on the whole item. Councilmember Renzel supported the agreements and the resolution since it seemed to strengthen and clarify many of the policies in place. It did not mean she concurred with the discussion that Stanford wished to remove many of the academic land from the urban service area. It was unclear that non-profit buildings, for example, had anything to do with the levels of impact some par- ticular• activity might have on Palo Alto, whether academic related or not. She hoped in trying to work out the definitions of clone academic ties and so forth with respect to such facilities as the Reagan Library and other major activities at Stanford, some rela- tionship between the number of enrolled students on the site and the number of non -Stanford employees be considered as a way to measure whether it was a close academic tie or something more remote and more akin to a commercial operation which should be subject to some input from the City of Palo Alto. She added that as a thought and hoped some of her colleagues would also express their views, because there were going to see more non-profit research type activities that might have some remote academic tie, and if there were going to be more SRI's in the foothills, the Council would want some input to it. Councilmember Fletcher believed staff was looking for instructions from the Council regarding the examination of the appropriateness of the urban service area as presently constituted. Mayor Levy said .Council needed to remember that Stanford's aca- demic uses were not the City of Palo Alto much as the City .might like to have full control. It was important to distinguish what was an academic use and what was not., Clearly, academic uses included research and he did not believe Council should be too definitive as to how one defined "research." It was clear there was an increasingly fuzzy line between what was non-commercial, historically academic research, and what became commercial research performed by the University, but so strongly sponsored by private commercial ventures that the lines became blurred. The comments made by Councilmember Renzel were legitimate and it behooved the Council to continue to closely watch where those lines. could become crossed and a commercial activity be taking place under the guise of an academic endeavor. He supported the Planning Commission recommendation. MOTION AS AMENDEDPASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher_ moved, seconded by Klein, refer to staff - the appropriateness of the Urban Service -Area. ae Councilmember Renzel believed that when Stanford submitted a request to LAFCO to : remove the academic area from the urban service area in 1984, City staff presented Council with a report which strongly supported maintaining the urban service area. 1/12581 Mra Freeland said when the issue began, the request from Stan f ard was to remove both land from the urbar service area and to not include land it the new Sphere of Influence. Staff -said the only issue before-LAFCO was the -Sphere of Influence, and staff believed it was inappropriate to engage on an -urban service area because it was not the issue. Counellmember Sutorius asked about the joint planning process and document. Mr. Freeland said staff was charged with resolving certain matters by September 18, 1985. There was the beginnings of a joint draft which identified present and planned land uses and how the poli- cies of the different jurisdictions and Stanford all lined up for all of the parcels within the Sand Hill Road corridor. He be- lieved it would be appropriate for staff to report to Council with an overall status report on all the planning issues from the tai 1 low --nor Sand Hill Road -extension approval of about a year ago. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the proposed request to staff needed to be co -joined. Mr. Freeland hoped the spirit of the recommendation was that staff engage on -the issue with Stanford. Councilmember Fletcher clarified that staff had the option to make { the determination. Mr. Freeland assumed if staff was to proceed, there should be discussions with Stanford. Councilmember Sutorius anticipated discussions with Stanford, but was unclear about whether it was necessarily co -joined witn the joint planning effort and the tentative September 18, 1985 feed- back dates Mr. Freeland saw them as separate issues. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion with the understanding that it incorporated the philosophy and concept that staff would not just return with a report that discussed the urban service area, but rather it would be in counsel with Stanford. Councilmember Bechtel was confused about why the City would want to initiate a change in the urban service area. It seemed to her the City wanted to discuss the Sphere of Influence boundaries which was done and was being done. LAFC© believed it all should be in the urban service area as opposed to what Stanford origi- nally propcsef. If Stanford wanted to change the urban service area, they wou'id initiate the discussions. She asked why the City was making a motion to suggest City staff pursue an initiation of a change of urban service area. Mr. Freeland :said the LAFCO -recommendation, was from. the LAFCO staff to LAFCO. LAFCO as a board never. addressed the issue. LAFCO staff might change its recaramendation to agree lwith the new urban service area boundaries as he understood from. his 'discus- sions with them. 7 As to the urban service area, Stanford asked .that an urban service area boundary be amended. They could ,go straight to LAFCOeand -forraal__ly initiate i=t. H0 -:believed their approach ealase that:, it .`should be worked out with: the City before LAFCD was approached. Stanford had a --request pending before the City;to jointly pursue change of the urban :servi_ce area boundary,, which' want -staff needed` to work- with. t:hu to see- if the city could .agree, -to that reque;t. Mayor Levy- appeec i ated Mr. Free l aind i s patience, knowledge and excellence in handling the discussion and carrying Council: through so many elements. Since`: -the urban service area was that area f where urban growth should or could occur within a period of five years, he assumed there should be some mechanism for a regular re-evaluation of the urban service area. Since they were talking about a five-year plan, he assumed it would updated every year or every couple of years in order for it to always be current. He asked if that was the case or did Council need to request a special update. 1 Mr. Freeland said the urban, service areas meant a lot more to cities like Morgan Hill and Gilroy where there was a lot of out- ward growth. In those cities, LAFCO annually received requests to amend the urban service areas. In Palo Alto's case, the urban service area was static and there was not that outward expansion of the urban area to the same extent. For cities like Palo Alto, LAFCL) did not conduct a formal annual review. They dealt with the. urban service area as an issue arose which needed attention. Mayor Levy asked whether it was appropriate to review the urban service area or whether it was on the heels of previous reviews. Mr. Freeland said Palo Alto's urban service area was not reviewed since 1981, which was at the City's request. It was appropriate that it be updated. He clarified that it would be an instruction to staff to initiate thinking about removing the land. Staff would pursue and make judgment on whether it.was-appropriate. Councilmernber Renzel initially understood Councilmenber Fletcher's motion to ask staff to study the appropriateness of the urban service area and report back to Council. Mr. Freeland clarified that staff wauld initiate a change in the urban service area. She was not prepared to make that initiation. She fully concurred with the current policy with respect to the urban service area and believed, the impacts on Palo Alto were great in terms of both the academic and non-academic lands at Stanford. She believed Palo °1to should maintain whatever level of control it had. If the urban aareice change were initiated by Council, and the academic lands ,sere removed and Council later decided it made a mistake and wanted to put them back in, she believed they would have a hard time doing it. It was important to recognize the status quo tended to have more strength than the change proposed. She pre- ferred to leave the urban service area as -is. If the motion was for staff to review the appropriateness and report back, she would support it, but she was not willing to support a motion which essentially directed staff to join Stanford in initiating such a change. Councilnember Fletcher did not intend to suggest changes. She wanted to know whether, in light of Council 's action that evening on the Sphere of Influence. any changes were needed. When it returned, Council did not have to. approve any changes if it believed..tney would he detrimental to Palo Alto. Mayor Levy clarified the motion was to refer to staff the appro- priateness of the current urban service area. Council,member Renzel clarified staff would return to Council before initiating any kind of change, and that staff did not understand the motion to -initiate any type of change. Mr. Freeland said that was correct. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Wlthi'rsponn absent.; COUNCIL RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9;30 p,m. T 9:50 . P.m. ITEM # CITY/SCHOOL LIAISON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE UBJECTIVES CONCERNING LONG-RANUEPLANNING FR SORPLUS SCHOOL SITES COU b-8) (CMR:458:5Y Vice Mayor Cobb said he and Mayor Levy met intensely with its School District counterparts over the past several months and initiated the idea of getting a list of objectives to try and bring some focus to a joint process of getting .the school site decisions handled so the City could properly and timely respond and hopefully, give input to the extent there was a choice, where Councils opinions might be factored in to help arrive at the choice. The school board reviewed the objectives as presented to Mayor Levy on July 16, and did not change the wording of the objectives. The board agreed the list was accurate and concluded the list could not be put in priority order. He and Mayor Levy had another meeting on August 14 to continue to try and develop the list of goals and objectives with the idea of bringing the entire process as close together as possible. He believed it would be helpful to have Council's input to the list. He and Mayor .Levy toured Jordan with the new superintendent, members of school staff, and City staff, and it was helpful. The objectives were not entirely the same, and they were trying to find as much common ground as possible. He observed it was a delicate process because there were some basic differences and objectives. Mayor Levy said the two lists before the Council were both devel- oped by City staff and he and Vice Mayor Cobb. They developed objectives for the City and tried to put themselves in the shoes of the School District since they had not, at that point, devel- oped objectives. They put together the list of items for the School District as a starting point in order to provide an indi- cation to them of what the City had in mind. The fact that the school board met and said they could not put the list in priority order was disconcerting to him because it was an important ele- ment. In the broader sense, he believed they all had the same objectives. He estimated the objective of maintaining community education standards, which was the last of the five elements under City of Palo Alto, was where it should be from the standpoint of the City of Palo Alto. It was important to the City, but not of the primary importance as a City government in relation to the public uses of the school sites and land use planning concerns. To the School District, undoubtedly educational standards were of primary importance. The fact that the School District had not put the list in priority order would be a critical element of the discussion. Coun,ci1 Input regarding the prioritization of objec- tives and the listing 4f objectives from the City's point of view was solicited.; Vice Mayor Cobb said at the last meeting, both groups indicated they would return to their respective bodies and get their offi- cial approval and cognizance of the starting point. At some point, . they contemplated getting .both _full bodies together for a more thorough discussion. Counciluienber Woolley believed the first City of Palo Alto objec- tive, needed to be quantified. She was sure the City Wanted to preserve as much public use as possible, but did not believe anyone was optliieisttc enough to think they woul_d preserve entire school sites or All of the school sites which were offered for sale by the_ School -District. She suggested that it; "preserve to_ as great ah extent-. as pcessi ie ubl is use of school sites." It Was also poss i bi_e -the G.ity; ml ght. get involved in using: part of the school -site, for a non-public use., -She thought priarartly of hous- ing.' The -Second point seemed. pos5i b_l y_ , unnecessary: -since i t- was largely -Covered by -the first and third objectives. : If the City had -preserving _public use of schoa sites :.and tried .to _r inta1n neighborhood character, she be'l t eyed they ., were: responding. to. the main concerns .-of the public about .land. ue She was '',willing to switch the fourth and fifth objectives to put maiutat,ning commun-7 ity,:education standards ahead .of maximizing: further options., 1 1 Councilmember Si!torius said to "maximize future options" seemed to be a very broad statement, and he was looking for an objective that perhaps spoke to providing adequate lead time for prudent financial planning and financial mechanisms. To him, that•seemed to be a critical issue and special responsibility of the City. He did not read it into the ather'objectives. Councilmember Renzel generally concurred with the various objec- tives set forth. She agreed with Councilmember Sutorius that the specific problem of financial planning, and mechanisms was impor tant.and should be included. She disagreed with Councilmember Woolley's suyyestion to perhaps delete the second objective of responding to the public's land use concerns. They were not nec- essarily limited to the public Use of school sites and maintaining character. They might also relate to sound planning for a balance of housing and jobs in the community, traffic problems, and a lot of other issues that were broader land use issues; than the two specific objectives in numbers one and three. She favored retain- ing responding to public's land use concerns because she believed it was more broad than any of the two particulars. She agreed with maximizing future options. Land was a finite quantity and to the extent all the options were preserved, everyone was better off. Vice Mayor Cobb said with respect to preserving public uses of school sites, he perceived it was a general statement, and in the next round, they would try to make more specific how they dealt with the various issues. He was reluctant to try and put in qual- ifiers at that point because it was part of what needed to be worked out as they moved along. It was important to respond to public land use concerns because Council was the body to which the public turned to deal with land use. He agreed with Councilmember Renzel with regard to maximizing future options and agreed with Councilmember Sutoriis' addition. MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, that Council endorser the list of City of Palo Alto objectives and add "b. Provide adequate lead time to arrange for financing of any site acquisition." MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. Mayor Levy said Council had excellent staff work in relation to other jurisdictions, i.e. Stanford University and the School District. In both cases, staff worked.. excellently with those jurisdictions. ITEM fb, SUPERVISOR CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM (UTI 1.8) ( CMR a 4 O • '+ ). MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius,:to. adopt the staff recommendation to: 1. Authorize the execution of the agreement with. Landis and .yr Systems, Inc. in the amount of $I,766,O91 for the purchase .of SCADA.equipment and services; and 2. Authorize staff to execute Change Orders to the Purchase Agreementof ap to five (5) percent ($88,000) of the contract price. PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR A SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA, SYSTEM Landis i Gyr Systems, Inc. Counciimember .Renxel asked if the City Auditor reviewed -the c®n- tract And bei l'ev;ed tne, sYstm would provide . WO , capability for any auditing that rnight''need-- to be done with respect to-.the l- ties. b 1 8.1 8/12/85 City Auditor Mike ior=thr'ue said he had reviewed a copy of the SCADA contract the previous week. He was concerned about who would own the software being purchased and whether there was a breakdown of the total contract price. He reviewed a copy of the Statement of work (which is on file in the City Clerk's office), and confirmed that the City took title and possession to the soft- ware and could make any future modifications it deemed necessary. He also reviewed the breakdown of the contract price, and the time line for mating the payments to Landis & Gyr, and he was satisfied the City was provided adequate protection. Councilmember Woolley assumed the alternative Energy Management System (EMS) would be within $367,000 which was the remainder of the money from the bid. Director of Utilities Richard Young said at that point, consul- tants indicated that the $300,000 price bracket was good. Councilmember Woolley asked if the alternative plan could accom- modate future changes which might be needed, or whether modifica- tions would need to be ride to the EMS. Mr. Young said the EMS system itself would more or less stand alone and not be that tightly tied in with the SCAUA system. They would be functionally separate, and whatever was necessary could be done to either one.. Hopefully, the entire process involved in the EMS would be within the one price bracket. Councilmember Bechtel said it was a lot of money, but she was convinced from staff that ultimately they would save money in time and employee time. It was, therefore, worth the money. Vice Mayor Cobb asked if it was possible to estimate a specific payback period. Mr. Young said the consultant originally hired to bid the studies to determine the feasibility of the system indicated they would run somewhere between 10 and 13 years based on a conservative estimate of function and the benefits and a tight, hard estimate on price. The price estimate held close to what was originally estimated, and on that basis, staff figured about 10 years. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #7, BELOW MARKET RATE PROGRAM RENTAL GUIDELINES (PLA 2.6) (CMR: 461 : 5 ) Councilmember Sutorius referred to the attachment, Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Guidelines, PAHC Committee Recommendations, and said he did not understandtItem 41, Rents Paid by BMR Household: The first sentence, The landlord may retain all of the rent equal to..." He believed that was subject to correctingelanguage ui rector of Planning ani Community Environment Ken . Schreiber said Councilmember Sutorius was correct. The correcting language was strike "The landlord may retain all of the..." and replace it with "Each 8MR household shall pay..." He said there were no other changes, but some of the attached tables were updated periodically with data Issued by Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). At the time the material was prepared, a variety of new. data was received, but it did not change the basic concept before the Council. . Councilmember Sutorius said the reference to excess rent described the Situation where upon recertification, a tenant's adjusted household income increased. A tenant would have 'occupancy of a BMR rental :with ' a cap, on it related to Section 8, and if the income level increased dramatically, he asked if the occupancy was retained thereby withdrawing a BMR unit from other people who were eligible. Regarding Item IY, Buyer Selection, "When units are. sold as BMR condominiums, buyers shall be selected in deeordarice with the 'UMR Waiting List,'" he suggested staff and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) might want to comment on how the City's condominium conversion ordinance affected it and whether the tenant would have first right of purchase. Lou Goldsmith, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, said with regard to excess rent, it was customary in any of the subsidized develop- ments that once a person was eligible and accepted into the proj- ect, they could stay even if their income increased. As their income increased, they continued to pay 30 percent of that income as lony as they occupied the unit. To the extent the amount they paid was in excess of what the landlord was entitled to have, the money reverted to the City and was added to the City's housing funds to build more units or acquire more units elsewhere. It was known as "upward mobility" in the trade, and it was hoped that everyone could eventually pay full market rent because their income increased so much. There did not seem to be any easy way to do it otherwise. In the case of goverment subsidized proj- ects, once a perion's income went above the Section 8 levels; they were_required to pay the full market rent. In the case of Terman, in some cases the rent could go up by $300 to $400 per month. He believed paying 30 percent cf one,s income was a more sensible approach, and if the income got high enough, it would go to full market rent, but the City got the benefit of everyone over and above the level established for the owner. Councilmember Sutorius clarified by the process outlined, the expectation was the funds would not just accumulate overly long and not in fact be put to work. For the period of time they were not put to work, the City had a BMR unit occupied by someone who no longer qualified undera BMR program. Mr. Goldsmith believed it was true, but pointed out that one of the real problems with any government subsidized operation was the big middle zone of people too well off to afford what they were living in, and not well off enough to be entitled to a sub- sidy. The biy middle zone cf people was largely forgotten in those programs, which was why it made good sense if people were eligible when they moved in, and received increases in pay, as long as they paid back 30 percent and it went to a pot of money to be used over time, and the PAHC would use it as fast as they could find projects to build or buy, then he believed it was the ongoing program which made sense. It was okay even though it was tech- nically not open for someone who happened to fall within what they arbitrarily called a BMR limit. It was just for initial occu- pancy. City Attorney Wane Lee referred to Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 21.40.060, and found no exception to the right of first refusal for tenants. She would say the particular provision about which Councilmember Sutorius expressed concern was in conflict with the City's condominium conversion ordinance. Coincilme ber Sutorius clarified it needed to be adjusted by that evening's action in some way. Ms, Lee suggested it would be a good idea to give staff the option of doiny more thorough research. If staff concluded it -was incon- sistent, then it could do whatever Council directed. �. Mr. Goldsmith said the likelihood was that any developer who planned to convert later on would take a condominium map in the beyinning:and, therefore, it was not really a condominium conver- sion. It was one in which the developer agreed to rent_ for a specified period of time, but the condominium map would be on from the beginning which was the way most were being done under Tax Free Revenue Bond financing, which only required that 20 percent of the units be kept as affordable units fot- a period of anywhere between 15,and 20 years. Councilmember Fletcher said paye 2 of the staff report said that in some instances, the developer might select the tenants. She asked whether the Palo Alto priority ranking for eligible tenants would be upheld in the case of the developer choosing the tenants. She asked why the developer would choose the tenants. Mr. Schreiber said currently there was no priority list for BMR rentals. The only priority _.list were BMR sale units. The PAHC did not want to start a BMR waiting list for rental units because the turnoeer was so much faster. In the two examples where the City had rental projects with Underlying condominium maps recently approved by the City, the BMR agreement for the rental units, as long as they were rental, called for the developer to select the tenants with income verifications submitted to the City and the PAHC. The decision was reached after discussions with the PAHC where the sense was the process of handling a BMR rental program through the PAHC .would take a considerable amount of time, and it was notthe most appropri ate use ' of the PAHC or, City staff time to actually do the rental, Instead, the appropriatre role was to verify the income of the occupants. Councilmember Fletcher asked whether the City could have an arrangement with the housing authority to follow the City's prior- ities that units be made available to Palo Alto residents or Palo Alto employees. Mr. Schreiber said yes, but it was the housing authority not the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Councilmember Fletcher clarified in all instances except where. the developer. chose the tenants,, then Palo Alto -guidelines were followed. Mr. Goldsmith referred to Section I1. Tenant Selection. It said "priority for occupancy shall be given to those eligible house- holds having a member , or members who live or work in Palo Alto." Regardless of who selects the tenants the priority was given. Councilmember Fletcher clarified it also applied to the devel- oper. Mr. Goldsmith said yes. The landlord would select all the tenants. The PAHC or housing authority could not just give a bunch of tenants. The hok€sing authority got in the act insofar as Section 8 certificates were concerned. Councilmember Fletcher clarified there was not a waiting list like the one for purchases, but the guidelines were still followed. Vice Mayor Cobb said the guidelines were intended experimental in nature, and he asked whether it made sense to have some .type of automatic review after a period of time. Mr. Goldsmith had no problem with that. He did not know whether there would be that many projects. Councilmember Bechtel said most of the rental projects already had condominium naps so there would not be a condominium conversion. She believed the guidelines shoal d; be worded so it would include the other case: if there ever was a rental project that did not have a condominium map and the - guidelines would appropriately follow the City's condominium ordinance. She suggested a sentence to that effect. Mr. Goldsmith said with respect to a true condominium conversion from an, apartment house, it would be like. the Oak Creek -situation, where some portion of the units: were properly put into the low-` moderate income category. He did not know whether the same condi- tions were appropriate. Councilmember Sutori us said staff i i•:COiiiiiieiid d au au e,tiduient to what the PAHC put toe -ether elicit the rental units be restricted under the BMR program for a maximum period of 59 years so as to not con- flict with the California State law provisions. He recognized it spoke to the maximum period, but wanted to ensure there was no potential of either the initial development and identification of the BMR rental units and the later sale of them having a negative Effect on the initial tenant. To him, by ail the policies and procedures, they were entitled to the opportunity to make the ..pur- chase decision or to be protected as far as the term of the rental and so notified at the time they took occupancy whether the pro- tection was 10 or 15 years. By law and recommendation of staff, it should not exceed 59 years. He was concerned they had a loop- hole. : MOTION. Councilmember Bechtel roved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff recommendation approving the Palo Alto Housing Corporation recommended Below Market Rate Rental Guidelines, to include a 59 -year limit, and on page 2, Item 4, Buyer Selection, add amendment to the effect that if units not already subdivided as condominium, that the condominium conversion ordinance re right of first refusal take precedence and guidelines to be reviewed in three years. Mickey Zatz, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, believed there could he problems because a person could be in a unit and , be up to the point where they paid just about market rent and heard there would be a conversion. The person decided to stay there because of the riyht of first refusal. However, it was a BMR purchase unit, and the person might not be eligible for the unit and there could be some problems. Councilmember Bechtel understood her concern, but said her problem was the City had an existing condominium conversion ordinance, and the odds of the City ever having any new rental projects that did not already have a condominium map were extremely remote. Unless staff could come up with a way around the problem of establishing guidelines in direct conflict with the City's existing ordinance, that was where she had a problem. The City needed to be consis- tent with the existing ordinance. Ms. Lee said the ordinance on the books applied. to every condo- minium conversion in the City unless Council wanted to deal with exceptions to that ordinance, which would have to be done by ordinance. Mr. Schreiber said Councilmember Bechtel was correct. The condo- minium conversion ordinance contained a -stronger BMR requirement than would normally apply. In the remote chance the City had a condominium conversion, a whole new BMR requirement would be triggered by the subdivision act. Regarding Councilmember Sutorius' comment, therewas another situation where tenants could be evicted. In that situation, the initial condominium map was in place and there was a rental for so many years, but after that time ended, the unit . was sold. The current provision was that the unit was sold as a BMR unit. It did not provide the tenant with any riyht of first refusal, and .the problem of giving the tenant a right of first refusal. `for that unit related to the potential that the tenant went out of the BMR proyran by that time. If the unit was sold in that way, it would be sold, in effect, to a non-BMR buyer which was a complication.. The unit would be retained in the BMR program, but the buyer might have a higher ...,income than would normally be handled. ITEMS TO CONSIDER AFTER 11:U0 a.m. Mayor ,Levy suygested Council continue with the agenda. reminded the Council there were important personnel matters to consider in closed session at the conclusion of the Council. meeting. He RETURN TO ITEM #7, BELOW MARKET RATE PROGRAM RENTAL GUIDELINES Councilmember Bechtel believed it was conceivable there would be tenants whose income was such that they would not qualify for a BMR unit, and when the unit sold, they would eventually be evic- ted. 1t was one of those things that would just hafpen because they wanted to ensure the BMR units stayed. She believed the guidelines were set up appropriately, and with the amendment she proposed to be consistent with the City's present condominium conversion ordinance, she was ready to support the motion. Councilmember Woolley saw a problem on the other end. The staff report pointed_ out the rental BMR units were for a different income bracket than the BMR for sale units. For a rental unit, one needed less than 73 percent of the median income whereas a purchase unit was in the 6J -12U percent range, and Palo Alto ran at the high end of that range. If the tenant had not been in the. unit very long, they might not be able to qualify financially for a BMR for sale unit. That person would simply not qualify and that auld be the end of it.. She was not sure the amendment was needed, and believed the present ordinance took precedence over the guidelines and would prevail. Ms. Lee agreed the ordinance prevailed in any event, but queried passing a guideline that was inconsistent with the ordinance. Councilmember Woolley understood the guidelines did not refer to condominium conversions, but rather rentals which already had a condominium map. Mayor Levy said the entire motion included the precedence of the present condominium ordinance. Vice Mayor Cobb suggested an amendment to have an automatic review after three years. MAKER AHD SECOND OF MOTION INCORPORATED AUTOMATIC REVIEW IN THREE (EARS AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #7-A (OLU ITEM #1), ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO AGREEMENT OF SELF- -FUNDED EMPLOYEES' HEAL 'H PLAN, DENTAL PLAN, AND RETIREES'. HEALTH PLAN (PER 2 -q -1-5T :462:5_ Councilmember Sutorius said he discussed the item with Jay Rounds who clarified the contract language was accurate and specific. The City Attorney found a minor typographical error which could be handled without any action. MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Menzel, that. the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreement with Pacific, Administrative Services for a one-year contract extension for claims administration services. The action is not a project, as defined in Title Il of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and, there- fore, no environmental assessmentis necessary. AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL _ SERVICES MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF CITY OF PALO ALTO EMPLOYEES HEALTH PLAN AND DENTAL PLAN Pacific Admiitistratt1ve Services MOTION PASSED unanimously;, Witherspoon absent. 1 ITEM e8 REQUEST OF CUUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE NOISE utwiNANCL TtuV :,) Councilmember Fletcher received a letter from neighbors of the former Hoover School where there was a large construction project. The complaint dealt with the noise from the construction and the fact that the City's noise ordinance was being violated because the contractor started before 6:0ti a.m, The complainant also requested an extra hour of sleep on Saturday mornings. She sug- yested the starting time for construction projects be moved from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays. She pointed out a correction in the second paragraph of her memorandum to Council dated August 7, 1985. She was told by the Police Department the penalty for violation of the noise ordinance was a $250 fine, and the City Attorney informed her the fine was actually $500 plus a possible jail sentence. The problem appeared to be that the Police were a little lenient and had not issued any citations. MOTION: Councilmember ,Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel to direct the City Attorney to revise the Municipal Code Section 9.10.060(d) to prohibit construction before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday mornings. Councilmember Sutorius said the recommendation dealt with the start time on Saturdays. Ha did not have a copy of the code with him, but recalled the hours were 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. As Council considered the item, it should be aware of the specific, all-inclusive nature of the hours. Kevin Mayer, 2364 Byron Street, said he and his neighbors sup- ported Councilmember Fl etcher•' s request and believed it was a fair compromisewhich reflected the desires of the community for peace- ful weekend mornings. It was unfortunate the ordinance appeared to not distinguish between construction projects that might be disruptive to a neighborhood, and an occasional loud neighbor. He experienced that neighbors were best dealt with by talking to them and making a polite request. In the subject instance, several polite requests were ignored, and many police warnings were also ignored. He hoped a change in the starting time might rectify the problem. If not, he suggested Council consider adding more teeth to the ordinance. He urged approval of the later starting time. Councilmember Sutgrius emphasized the importance of City Manager's staff having ampl y. opportunity to input to the process. It was important that the Building Inspection Department, Utilities Department, and Public Works -Departments have an opportunity to comment. He understood that with a prohibition of construction before 9:00 a.m., it would apply to work performed by City employees or contractors performing City work on repair of util- ities. It was important to understand the pervasiveness and rami- fications of the proposal. He suggested staff feel free to com- ment on whether the end time on Saturdays should also be con- sidered for any impact. Mayor Levy asked staff for comment. He was not familiar with con- struction techniques, but believed there could be some ramifica- tions. Most construction was likely to take place in commercial areas, not residential, but he wondered about the overall impact in tens of traffic, etca in having the construction extend later intothe afternoon. City Manager Bill lamer said staff had not checked ``out the possi- bility, of delaying the time to 9:OO a.m. There would be some: effect on the building trades which, especially in the summer when there was more daylight, tried to 'get`. in as much time, as passible, on a Saturday n st ruct i on ` job I f Council decided to consider the ordinance, staff would check out -the questions and return with: some comments and advice when the Attorney returned with any mod- ifications. Councilmember-Fletcher pointed out it was not the first complaint about the early starting time on Saturdays and even permitting construction at all on Sundays. She did not believe it was not too much of a burden on a contractor to wait until 9:00 a.m. on a weekend to start construction. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #9, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS RENZEL, BECHTEL, AND KLEIN RE COASTAL COMMI SS ION BUDGEt (PRE 4) Councilmember Renzel said basically the proposed budget_ for the Coastal Commission was so small it was tantamount to abolishing the agency which was so important in protecting California's coastline. They requested their colleagues join in a letter from the Council protesting the budget cuts. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, that Council support signing a letter to the Governor re the high importance Palo Alto places on protecting California's coast- line. Vice Mayor Cobb believed everyone supported maximizing coastal protection. He would not take any steps to oppose it, but said he recently read some material which suggested the Coastal commis- sion, as previously structured, did things which might at time be called "high-handed" bureaucracy, He was not sure it was suffi- cient reason to not ensure they had proper funding to have such a commission, but there was the suggestion that some reform on how they did business might be in order. He invited comments. Councilmember Klein did not believe it was the right place to dis- cuss particular decisions of the Coastal Commission because it was - not the issue. If their decisions were inappropriate, then there should perhaps be different people on the Commission. . The idea was the coast needed protection. He did not like all the deci- sions Governor Deukmejian made, but did not favor abolishing the office of the Governor. The Governor was using that approach which was inappropriate. He believed California needed a Coastal Commission and urged support of the motion. Mayor Levy abstained from participation because it was not an item of direct relationship to the City of Palo Alto and to his respon- sibilities as a City Councilmember from Palo Alto. He endorsed the Coastal Commission, but was not in a position to assess whether the budgeted allocation of the State of California, as it related to the Coastal Commission, was appropriate and he lacked all of the information necessary to do so. Councilmember Sutorius wrestled with some of the same concerns as Mayor Levy, and did not feel, that well informed on all the par- ticulars and believed there were two sides to every issue. He had no conflict of interest and did not believe he could abstain. He had to vote either up or down. He did not have enough information in that venue to support it, so would reluctantly vote "no." .He would abstain if he believed it to be a choice, which might look better later when somebody assessed his environmental interests. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1-i, Sutories voting no, Levy *abstain," Witherspoon absent. ITEM #iU KEgUEST OF VICE MAYOR COBB RE EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM RE SUBSTANUARU L )1`S (PLA S-16) Vice Mayor Cobb said there were two instances in the last couple of meetings --one of which was described that evening during Oral Communications —with regard to the pi pbl ern, which suggested that action might be needed on a broader basis than the action previ- ously taken, and which would Probably be confirmed, in,College Terrace. While Council could not take action- that night, he suggested - the matter be agendi zed for the next meeting. He asked 6 1 8. 8 8/12/85 in what areas of town the substandard lots were more likely to be a problem. He preferred to have his queJtii3re, r answered when the matter was agendi z.ed. He was interested in staff's assessment as to -the extent of the problem with overdevelopment of substandard lots in other parts of the City. When the matter was agenda zed, he asked that staff be ready with some language that applied in terms of appropriate moratoria for those areas, whether it would be appropriate to have such an action, and what type of limita- tions, like the 50 -foot lot, would it be appropriate to use. He wanted to surface the issues so they would not be a surprise the following week, Mayor Levy clarified Vice Mayor Cobb asked what areas of town were most likely to be affected. Vice Mayor Cobb wanted staff to be ready -to respond when the ques- tion was asked the following week. By adding the matter to the agenda that eveni ny . he was able to raise the questions and give staff a chance to think about it so that Council could be more informed the next week and prepared for motions. Councilmember Klein believed the matter was appropriate for Council to consider. He found the proposed devel,oprment at 3810 Whitsell amazing and was shocked and concerned by it. He was con- cerned whether putting it off for a week would prejudice the City's legal position. He was concerned as to his recollection for the magic date from a legal standpoint for a proposed devel- oper to have vested rights, He asked what happened if a building_ permit was issued -the next week. City Attorney Oiane Lee said when moratorium ordinances were writ- ten in the past, the cut off was at the building permit because of the difficulty in determining what substantial construction was. If a building permit were issued on any lotbefore next week`, that lot would essentially be permitted to go forward. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said.. a building permit application was filed for the Whitsell prop- erty. Councilmember Klein asked about the timing on issuance. Mr. Schreiber said from the time of submission of the application, which was three or four weeks previous, it took on the range of four weeks to yo through plan check. Going through plan check did not mean a permit was necessarily issued. It depended on the identified problems in the plan check process. Sometimes the problems could be solved quickly by the architect and other times problems were found which might take a week, two, or three to solve. Councilmember Klein clarified the City had no assurance that the particular building permit might not be ready to be issued thy, next day. Mr. Schreiber said' it might be ready to be issued the next day or it might be a month away. Councilmember Klein asked what would prevent Council from ` recon- sidering its action on the substandard lots. in College. Terrace ordinance of a week previous, and amending it to include the rest of the City at that evening's meeting. Ms. Lee said the ordinance passed the previous week was not an emergency, and she suspected Council would want an emergency -type of process for anything being considered then. If Council was going to, do a regular ordinance which encompassed other geographi- cal areas, it would have to comply with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA), 6 1 8 9 8/12/85 Councilmember Klein clarified Oat Council would be better off in Lerm$ of Lime by amending the ordinance the following Monday and adopting it on an emergency basis. Ms, Lee said no. She suggested that Council let anything done in the past continue, and anything additional be done by separate emergency ordinance. Councilmember K1 e:n wanted to be able to do something legally with regard to 3810 irlhitsell and was concerned the building permit would be issued. He wanted to do something that night, and if something could not be done, he asked advice, on what should be done. Ms. Lee said staff could be directed to prepare an emergency ordi- nance for a particular geographic area, but not a particular parcel, where Council had particular health and safety problems as was normally done with emergency ordinances for the following Monday night, MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved; seconded by Cobb, that staff prepare an emergency ordinance with regard to a moratorium on construction on substandard lots City-wide. Mayor Levy said the previous week "substandard" was defined as bei ny less than 80 feet wide or less than 100 feet deep. He asked if that was Councilmember Klein's intent, Councilmember Klein said the direction to .staff was to prepare the ordinance and then Council could consider it and tinker with defi- nitions at the actual meeting. He presently had no problem with that definition. Councilmember Fletcher had a problem with the motion because only two weeks ago Council heard a complaint from neighbors of a sub- standard lot on Wilkie Way where there was a proposed dwelling which really impacted them. She preferred to make the ordinance City-wide. Councilmember Klein said Vice Mayor Cobb had the same thought and he had no objection. He did not like passing emergency moratoria at a broader level than necessary, but did not oppose a City-wide moratorium. Ms. Lee presumed, unless directed otherwise, the provisions Council wanted in the terms of that moratorium were essentially what were passed the previous week on the College Terrace area including the amendments. That was the way she was going to draft it, and Council could decide about the geography. Mayor Levy asked whether Ms. Lee had any problems on geography if it were to be made City-wide. Pis. Lee replied that she did not peosonally. If it was less than City-wide, it wo(ild have to be specified with a reap, which would be difficult. The ordinance needed to be specific and documents needed to be attached. She suggested Council might want to deal with that decision that evening. Everything had to be in place for an emergency ordinance after the Council voted. MAKER APiD SECOND OF MOTION AGREED MORATORIUM SHOULD BE CITY- WIDE. Mayor Levy clarified ,the .notion was to direct staff to .;prepare an emergency ordinance > regarding construction on substandard lots period. He asked Councilmember Klein whether it should be resi- dential. Councilmember Klein believed Ms. Lee's comments covered it ;because she would use the same language used in College Terrace. 6.1 9 0 8/12/8 Mayor Levy asked if the Council was prepared to say R-1 lots, because they referred the previous week to a special section of College Terrace which was all R-1, so there was no need to dif- ferentiate. City Manager Bill Zaner said the College Terrace ordinanceAs pre- pared by the City Attorney:.included a one-year provision. Staff discussed how long it would take to do a good jeb on a .City-wide moratorium and estimated anywhere from 18 to 24 months, Unless Council gave other instructions, staff preferred the City Attorney insert a two-year time p«'riod in the ordinance. Mayor Levy said the motion was presently to direct staff to pre- pare an emergency ordinance regarding construction on .substandard residential lots City-wide. There was no time frame as part of the motion. Councilmember :lein had problems and just wanted staff to prepare things and .did not want Council to get ,into the ;level of detail as to whether it was 12 months or 18 months, If staff could show him tnat 18 months was necessary, then he would support it. He wanted more thought given to it than a few minutes across the conference table. Councilmember Fletcher clarified the solution to the substandard lot question was primarily a matter of floor area ratio (FAR) and site coverage, and believed the solution in College Terrace might. be applicable City-wide. She did not envision that staff would go out and look for every substandard lot in town, but rather would have a general rule as she suggested, Loning Administrator Bob Brown assumed the solution to development of substandard lots night yo further than a floor area ratio limitation. The Planning Commission in discussing the issue of FAR's talked about also reviewing setback requirements, daylight plane, height restrictions, impervious coverage restrictions, and any number of other suggestions. It was probably a much broader study than just looking at FAR's and site coverage. Councilmember Fletcher meant that whatever regulations they came up with, and a specific subsection might apply to substandard lots, would be all-inclusive in terms of geography. Mr. Brown said it was possible. As part of the College Terrace study, staff intended to have a high degree of community involve- ment from the neighborhood ae, to ,what type of development restric- tions they felt they Could live with -. in terms of, restrictions on themselves and the allowable bulk of buildings to be created in the neighborhood. It might vary from neighborhood to neighbor- hood. He could not say at that point whether - one restriction applied City-wide. Councilmember Renee] said it was clear Council was beginning to see more of the problem and it was urgent that something be done to protect neighborhoods as discussed the previous week. The College Terrace "model" for a moratorium was limited in scope, and some simpler interim ordinance might be developed with an FAR that at least covered the worst cases until a further_ ordinance came forward. Then, Council would not have to maintain the moratorium for such a lony time. In dealing with substandard lots, the con- cerns were , basically the same City-wideand the sari; kinds of pub- lic input applied with respect to design issues, such as front daylight planes, and so forth. She believed those things were pretty predictable and she found it hard to believe proposed solu- tions should take 12 to 18 months. Deciding upon themmight take longer, but the parameters of the problem were fairly simple. She hoped an interim ordinance ' could- a11eOate the need for a full moratorium on the substandard lots and; enable the City to pursue better refinement of. the ordinance at a leisurely pace. She urged Council support Councilmer'1hPr Srltorius ogeed with Councilmember Klein that Council should try to embellish the motion too much that evening, but was concerned it was a potential can of worms and the length of the study added to it. Councilmember Renzel observed there might be a reasonable interim fix, and yet Council voted 1-6 . for a quick fix on the College Terrace subject when he recommended a .35 FAR. The answer might be something like a percentage--a sub- ;stand erd lot -was not. buildable when. its, length . or width was a certain percentage below the standard -sized lot. He :supported}the referral that evening with trepidation about what would return to Council the following week. He was not committed until he had a better opportunity to see and understand the unintended conse- quences for an extended period of time. Councilmember Bechtel said if there were two lots that were about to be issued building permits, was there anything legally Council could do at that point. Ms. Lee was unaware of any legal authority for any intercession by the Council or anyone else. The permits might or might not be issued in sufficient time to avoid the consequences of the ordi- nance given the tinning indicated by the planning staff. Councilmember Woolley said it seemed Council was really concerned with two parcels and now involved the whole City in terms of sub- standard lots. She was concerned about the unintended ramifica- tions of the sweeping step. She hoped staff would be thorough the following week. in helping Council realize what those ramifications were. She asked what bearing CEQA had on the action. Ms. Lee said there was an eeemption from CEQA if it was an emer- yency. If it was not an emergency, there was no exemption. Councilmember Woolley said it was a matter of Council making findings that lt was• an emergency. !. Ms. Lee said it was not only making findings, but having a suffi- cient number of Councilmembers vote in favor of an emergency ordinance. Councilmember Woolley would support the motion that evening, but had serious reservations about what Council was doing by involving the whole City in a step which was basically directed at two par- cels. Piayvr Levy said it was not directed at specific parcels, but at a general problem. The Council recommendation that evening was dif- ferent from College Terrace in that in College Terrace it was a one-year moratorium to study and solve a problem in the College Terrace neighborhood.. Being discussed that evening was an emer yency related to construction taking place helter-skelter on sub- standard lots. It seemed to him that in order to deal with that emergency, there did not have to be.a 24 -month study. There might eventually be a long-term study to deal . with substandard lots all over town, which could be the subject of a separate consi deg ati on. As',he saw it, Council had an emergency coming about because large numbers of substandard lots were being developed inappropriately. Council needed to deal with that issue quickly. LOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. ..ALJOORNMENT. TO• CLOSED. SESSION RE PERSONNEL Council adjourned to Closed Session FINAL AUJOURNMENT Final adjournment at )2:11 a.m. re 1 Personnel at 11:20 p. 6.1-9 2 8/12/85 ATTEST: APPROVED: