HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-23 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
Regular:Meeting
December 23, 1985
CITY
OF -
ALTO
ITEM PACE
Oral Communications
Approval of Minutes of September 23,
and October 28, 1985 (Out of Sequence)
6 6 6 4
October 21, 6 6 6 4
Item #1, Supervisor Dianne McKenna - Commendation 6 6 6 4
to City of Palo Alto re Disposal of Residential
Hazardous Waste Material
Item #2, Resolution of Appreciation to Jack Taylor 6 6 6 4
Consent Calendar 6 6 6 5
Referral 6 6 6 5
Action 6 6 6 5
Item 13, City Manager's Author ;ty to o Effect Changes 6 6 6 5
in Gas Utility Rates
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 6 6 6 5
Item #7, Finance and Public Works Committee
Recommendation. re 1986 Utility Revenue Bond
Issuance
Item #7-A (Old Item #4), Ordinance re New Multi -Lot
Subdivi b iris (2nd Reading)
Item 17-8 (Old item 45), Grdinance re 3530 Ross
Road (2nd Reading)
Item 17-C (Old Item 06), Ordinance re 3120 Stockton
Place (2nd Reading)
Item 48, Arastradero Road Underground Conversion
District No. 26 - increase in Contingency
Item 19, Transportation Development Act Funding for
Pedestrian/Bikeway Projects
Item 010, California Assessment District
Adjournment to Closed Session re Litigation
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m.,
6 6 6 5
6'6 6 9
6 6 6 9
6 6 6 9
6 6 8 n
6 6 8 1
6 6 8 2
6. 6 8 2
6 6 8
6 6 6 3
12/23/85
Regul ar Meeting
December 23, 1985
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy,
Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
Mayor Levy announced that a Closed Session re Litigation Century
Federal Communications v. City of Palo Alto pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(a) would be held at some point during or
after the meeting
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1985, OCTOBER 21, 1985, and OCTOBER 28,
1985 .(OUT OF SEQUENCE)
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein,
approval of the Minutes of September 23, 1985, October 21, 1985,
and October 28, .1985, as submitted.
MOTION HISSED unanimously, Patitucci "not participating,"
ITEM #1, SUPERVISOR DIANNE MCKENNA COMMENDATION TO CITY OF PALO
ALTO RE DISPOSAL OF RESIDENTIAL H US W E E L SA 5
Supervie.or- Diann McKenna thanked Council and steff for a good
year. It was a pleasure to deal with people of such nigh caliber
and professional nature, ant she congratulated Mayor Levy on a
year of no calamities in Palo Alto. She welcomed Councilmernber
Patitucci to the Councils She brought a- resolution of commenda-
tion for the City of Palo Alto, honoring Palo Alto it the area of
collection of household hazardous waste. The Board of Supervisors
passed the resolution in April , 1985. The City of Palo Alto rec-
ognized the disposal of hazardous waste was a major concern to the
residents of Santa Clara County and the disposal of household
hazardous waste was one of the areas of hazardous waste disposal
that remained to be resolved, and initiated a project for the col-
lection of household hazardous waste. By its action, the City
showed its concern for the health and safety of its residents and
dedicated its resources and support to the project. The Board of
Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara extended its appreciation
and commendation to the City of Palo Alto. She echoed the
comments in the resolution from all the Board and presented the
resolution to the City Council.
Mayor Levy said the City was honored to receive the commendation.
The City worked hard to develop waste collection and disposal of
all types. The commendation would have a place where members of
the community could see and take note not only of what the City
was dolnc4, . but also the goals of the Board of Supervisors along
those lines..
ITEM 12 .RESOLUTION OF APPR€:C IATIO f FOR JACK TAYLOR (PRE 4-2)
Mayor Levy said Item #2 was a resol ution of appreciation for 'Jack
Taylor who was retiring after many years: -of notable service. to the
City of -Palo alto; However, he was 111 and unable to be present
that.: evening. .He requested staff reagendize the item when Mr
tayior could be present.
6 6 6 4
12/23/85
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Levy removed Item #4, Ordinance re New Multi -Lot Subdivi-
sions (2nd Reading); Item #5, Ordinance re 3530 Ross Road (2nd
Reading); and Item #6, Ordinance re 3120 Stockton Place (2nd
Reading) .
MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
None
Action
ITEM #3, CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY TO EFFECT CHANGES IN GAS UTILITY
RATES (UTI 1-1) (CMR:653:5)
Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City
Manager to adjust as rates for the purpose of tracking PG&E rate
increases and decreases on a timely basis.
RESOLUTION 6453 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY
MANAGER TO ZFFECT CERTAIN CHANGES IN GAS UTILITY RATES
(SCHEDULES G-1 AND G-50) AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6338"
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
City Manager Bi 1 1 Zaner said Item #4, Ordinance re New Multi -Lot
Subdivisions (2nd Reading); Item #5, Ordinance re 3530 Ross Road
(2nd Reading) ; and Item #6, Ordinance re 3120 Stockton Place (2nd
Reading), would become Items #7-A, 7-8, and 7-C, respectively.
ITEM #7 FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE 1986
UfILtT 'R NU B D U N (UTI 1)
Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Chairperson Bechtel said
others would explain the issue in more detail, but it was a first
for .Palo Alto for the bond issue staff recommended, and the con-
sultants recommended the City go to a variable rate rather than a
fixed rate. The advantage to the City was lower financing costs
and the advantage to the buyers of the bonds was greater liquid-
ity.
NOTION: Councilmember Bechtel for the Finance and Public Works
Committee moved approval of the staff recommendation to direct
staff to:
1. Prepare the necessary documentation for a variable interest
rate bond issue to occur on December 16 1985;
2„ !Negotiate with Fuji Kant for Letter of Credit services) or
with California First Bank, should staff fail to obtain a sat-
isfactory agreement with Fuji Bank; and
3. Negotiate with the First Boston Corporation for mnderwriting
services, or with Reuscher, Pierce, Refsnes, Inc. should staff
foil to obtain a satisfactory agreement with First Boston
Corporation
RESOLUTION 6454 entitled 'A SERIES RESOLUTION AUTHO-
ifint TNt ISOANCE OF A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $12,500,000
CITY Or PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA UTILITY REVENUE BON:3,
'Ii Ob SERIES A (ADJUSTABLE CONVERTIBLE EXTENDABLE SECURI-
TIES ACCESso)'
6 6 6 5
12/23/85
MOTION CONTINUED
LETTER OF CREDIT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
dated as of December. 1, 1985
between CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, and
THE FUJI BANK, LIMITED acting through its
LOS ANGELES AGENCY relating to $12,500,000
City of Palo Alto, California Utility Revenue Bonds
(Adjustable Convertible Extendable Securities-ACCESsm)
1985 Series A
OFFICIAL STATEMENT $12,500,000
City of Palo Alto, California
Utility Revenue Brands, 1985
Series A (Adjustable Convertible
Extendable Securities-ACCESsm)
UNDERWRITING AGREEMENT
REMARKETING AGREEMENT
City Attorney Diane Lee said there were last minute changes in the
documents before Council. Ken Jones, bond counsel on the particu-
lar project, would tell `Council about the nature of the changes
made.
Ken Jones, Jones, Hall, Hill & White, said the document before
Council was the result of the initial preparation which was run
off in quantity and distributed throughout the community. Since
then, the various participants had the opportunity to provide
input to the final technical product. To some degree, they had
the disadvantage of being compelled to deal with a resolution
format as opposed to an indenture format which was more the
standard in the industry. Of the changes made and incorporated
into the final resolution, the first and most obvious was in the
principal amount of the financing. He believed the resolution
showed a principal amount of $12.5 million; they were able to
refine it down to a final issue amount of $12.2 million. The
remaining changes were technical in nature. One was based on the
fact the remarketing and mandatory purchase features of the
financing would all take place in New York, whereas the fiscal
agent appointed pursuant to the original financing under the gen-
eral resolution was located in San Francisco, being the Bank of
America. Therefore, most of the changes in the technical area
were to invest the paying agent located in New York with power to
authenticate and reregister bonds for the benefit of investors
buying those bonds in the eastern markets. The paying agent,
Chemical Bank, was given the power under those revisions to make
all the drawings on the Letter of Credit Fuji Bank was providing,
and to provide for authentication and registration of bonds to the
new buyers as they materialized. That change alone was respon-
sible for the bulk of the changes before Council. The second
major change was they proposed to establish, with Council ` s
approval, an initial interest period ranging from the next day,
which was the proposed closing date, to April 1, 1986, and an
interest rate was established for that period as part of the
marketing process at six and five -eighths (6-5/8) percent per
annum, which rate was injected into the resolution as the initial
rate. From then on the remarketing process established the most
favorable interest :modes and interest rates. To complete the
change categories, the remaining Whanyes were inserted Ito deal
with the proposed transition of the security status of the bonds
from an initial subordinate lien position to a parity lien posi-
tion. It was not ie;sally possible to put the bonds out that day
as parity liens with the outstanding 1983 bond because it had not
been possible for there to be total compliance with the conditions
of the general resolution. then , the series of events listed took
place, they would convert the bonds to parity. The technical pro-
visions which accomplished it resulted in all the remaining
changes. To summarize, there were two major category changes.
6 6 6 6
12/23/85
One change arose from the basically east coast transaction with
Chemical dank as the paying agent in New York who: was invested
with the powers usually invested in a west coast fiscal agent,
and, to work out the coordination between the fiscal agent and the
paying agent under the circumstances. The second accommodated the
fact they were issuing a bond initially secured by a subordinate
lien and which would become, in the ordinary course of business, a
parity lien. The individual changes in the wording did not change
the substance.
Mayor Levy asked if the changes required any changes for Council
from the motion before Council from F&PW Committee.
Ms. Lee said yes. The series resolution should be amended to
incorporate the material Mr. Jones just outlined.
Councilmember Patitucci asked why the principal amount was
adjusted.
Mr. Jones believed the major ingredient was the calculative of the
bond reserve account requirements. It was necessary to accommo-
date the fact they had a floating rate bond so financial consul-
tants had to compute the amount to go into the reserve account
based on some kind of an assumed rate, and they assumed 15 percent
as a maximum and were able to cut it back to 12 percent.
Councilmember; Patitucci asked if it was possible to take $12.2
million and tell Council how those dollars were allocated to what
categories so they added up to $12.2 million.
Manager, Utilities Financial aiid Administrative Services, Chuck
Adams said basically they had construction costs of $10.6 .dill ion,
income from various funds, the construction fund, which earned
$1,042,000 million, interest from the capitalized interest fund of
$74,000.
Councilmember Patitucci asked if income was added the $12.2
million.
Mr. Adams cl ar t iea income in the calculation reduced the need for
the construction cost of $10.6 mil l ion.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified further the interest earned, as
well as the money in the bank, provided $1.4 million during the
construction period which was viewed as an offset to construction
cost.
Mr. Adams said that was correct.
Councilmember Patitucci said it ended up with a total of $9.2
million for construction costs out cf $12.2 million.
Mr. Adams said the City also had earnings from their debt service
reserve of $393,1100, which brought the net construction costs down
to $9,090,;000. Added to that the City had its capitalized inter-
est for the treatment plant expansion of $962,000; debt service
reserve of $1,752,000; bond discount of approximately $80,000; and
issuing costs of $301,000, which brought the sizing to $12.2 mil-
lion.
Councilmember Patitucci asked if there was an easy explanation for
the discount in a variable interest rate issue.
Richard Clark, Security Pacific, said no. It was like any :nego-
tiated financing or competitive sale the City had done before; the
underwriter basically bought the securities at a price :less than
par, so In effect First Boston Corporation was buying securities
at a price of $99.35.
6 6 6 7
12/23/85
Councilmember Patitucci clarified it was in order to allocate some
capital gain to the return.
Mr. Clark said in effect it was also as compensation to the under-
writers for undertaking, among other things, the underwriting risk
sin the transaction of actually purchasing the securities at a
price certain to the City, and, in turn, retailing the securities
to the general public or to investors.
Councilmember Patitucci said after April.
Mr. Clark said no. The securities were fully committed in the
market place and he believed there were five investors who pur-
chased them.
Councilmember Patitucci asked Mr. Harris to comment.
Director of Finance Mark Harris believed he understood the funda-
mental s of the deal and found it very solid.
Mayor Levy spent some time going over the item with Mr. Harris and
other members of staff and was well satisfied they understood it
quite thoroughly.
Councilmember Sutorius was also sure staff understood the item
thoroughly and likewise had periodic discussions with staff and
shared information as eefinanciny proceeded on various Northern
California Power Agency (NCPA) project refundings during the same
time frame. The strange way the market performed during the month
of Oeceinoer, influenced by the huge amounts of municipal fundings
coming in trying to beat any potential negative tax reform
changes, created a huge bubble as far as short-term requirements,
and the spread between fixed and short. Therefore, the differ-
ences that once made variable appealing, turned out not to be so
great a couple of weeks ago and caused NCPA to go into a fixed
mode for a significant issue. He recognized there were some dif-
ferences, perhaps as much as a week, but queried staying in the.
variable mode at that point versus the fixed mode. There was no
question the variable mode, as reviewed in F&PW Committee, was a
sound process, but as in any process, one played the market as
things evolved, and `')r the rece d, he wanted assurances the flex-
ibility the City received was not offset, by any significant dif-
ference in the cost of the financing and the rate the City would
pay on it if they were wholly in a fixed mode.
Fir. Clark believed the markets were evaluating a very short-term
oriented situation vis-a-vis the proposed tax legislation and its
possible effect on all types of taxes and financing. The prohibi-
tions on advance refunding as it affected NCPA-type refunding,
recently undertaken, probab?y induced there to take a transaction
in the marketplace at a point in time where potentially they might
not have gone if they had lost the access to the advance
refunding. In the subject instance, they were looking at a longer
term situation where they were trying to build in a level of flex-
ibility a,ail abl a to the City to live with a variable rate on the
transaction for what could be an extended period of time, but
maintain accessibility to the long-term financing marketplace at
such time as the City chose to go that route. One of the provi-
sions of the new tax bill was the possible restrictions on rein-
vestment of unspent bond proceeds. He bel ieved they preserved the
City's ability to obtain maximum reinvestment earnings on those
bond proceeds, and hopefully, when they got to -April 1 and a new
interest rate, they would begin to see some of the advantages of
the fully variable nature of the securities.
Mayor Levy asked what additional cost the City incurred to have
the variable rate issue versus a more normal fixed rate.
6 6 6 8
12/23/85
Mr. Clark said the categories of expenses on a variable: rate
transaction included some extraordinary expenses including a
letter of credit, which was not a requirement typicaily on a fixed
rate transaction. ' They would pay the Fuji Bank an origination fee
as well as an ongoing annual fee. The bank's origination fee con-
sisted mainly of compensation for their ley al counsel, and their
ongoing fee amounted to a quarter of a percent per annum. The
second major category was the City would pay a remarketing agent,
again the First Boston Corporation, an eighth of a percent per
annum to provide for remarketing services during the term of the
transaction. The third major category of expense differences had
to do with other costs of issuance, including_._somewhat higher
trustee or fiscal agent and paying agent expenses, but those were
counterbalanced to some extent by the lower underwriters discount
attributable to that type of security, just due to the short-term
nature and the type of original underwriting process they went
through.
Mayor Levy clarified the total cost as Sec urite Pacific saw it
over and above a normal fixed cost bond issue was three -eighths of
a percent, and the expected savings over the life of the bonds
approached two and one-half. percent.
Mr. Clark said that was correct.
Mayor Levy said the bottom line was the City saved an average of
about two percent per year over a 20 -year period.
Mr. Clark said that was the expectation.
Mayor Levy asked the City Ati:orney if it was appropriate to move
to amend the motion before Council to incorporate the changes enu-
merated by legal counsel.
Ms. Lee said yes.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, to accept
mi:+ eel 1 aneous changes to back •'p docusi nt as indicated by Bond
Counsel.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously.
Mayor Levy thanked staff and the consul tang team. He . was
delighted with the financing and was eager to see it move for-
ward.
MAYOR LEVY RE COMBINE ITEM #7-A ORDINANCE RE NEW MULTI -LOT
UBD IS ON M # -8 R IAA _ RE 30 R SS ROAD; ND M
07-C, URD N R 120 S CK ON PLACE
Mayor Levy suggested Council combine items #4, #5, and 06 for pur-
poses of discussion, and after hearing from the public, the items
would be voted on separately.
ITEM 1l -A OLO ITEM #4 ORDINANCE RE NEW MULTI -LOT SUBDIVISIONS
2nd . Read ng rLA -1
ITEM 07-B; (OL) ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE 3530 ROSS .ROAD (2nd Reading)
TPLA 4-1
ITEM #7-C„_ COLD ITEM #6, ORDINANCE RE 3120 STOCKTON PLACE (2nd
Reading) (PLA 3-1)
City Attorney Diane Lee said the items were second readings, and
there were some constraints on what Council could do in terms of
changes to the ordinances without having to start all over again
at first reading. Essentially, the scope of the ordinances
remained the same_, as well as the general intention. In her mind,
6 6 6 9
12/23/85
what it meant to say the scope was tine same, was the same gerierel
categories of land use reyul ations were going to be present; in
other words, FAR, and front and rear yard setbacks. If some:dif-
ferent concept of regulations were to be incorporated, she
bei irved it would be necessary to start at first read ine again.
Vice Mayor Cobb understood Council was going to have a proposal to
change the FAR formula from one number to another. He understood
it was completely within Council's procedures that evening, and
kept them on second reading. If, on the other hand , Council
offered a similar kind of change, but one which offered a little
more complex formula mainly moved from one curve to` another but
still the same basic concept of an FAR, it was still within the
context of a second reading that evening.
Ms. Lee said that was correct.
Rosemary Bednar, 25 Churchi 1 l , Property Manager for the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) said the PAUSD, as owner of 38
lots subject to the new combining district regulations, found the
language contained in the first reading responsive to two of its
concerns. Certainty as to what the regulations contained well in
advance of .lot sales was one, and the second was comparative or
relative simplicity in statement and number of restrictions.
PAUSE) did not believe, however, an FAR of 0.4 without exempting a
400 square foot garage fully addressed the concern for equity.
The Board of Education sought to balance its need to maximize
income from surplus property sales with community concerns
reyardiny house size by contracting the services of two consult-
ants in addition to tie marketing services already being provided
by Enshai Developments. Knox Associates assisted the District in
evaluatir, the options available to control building size.
Steinberg Associates quantified the maximum dwelling size which
could be built under the various options, including the Council
referral list. She believed Council saw a copy of the Steinberg
Zoning Study. The consultants and PAUSD staff met with City staff
on many occasions. PAUSD .staff and Board members met with neigh-
bors to share their concerns Ind attempted to resolve the matter
equitably, PAUSD at the same time accepting the idea that some
restrictions to building si ze were, necessary. The Board of
Education adjusted what it considered a fair FAR restriction from
a 0,45 excluding a 400 square foot garage to a sliding FAR, and
sti 1 l again to an FAR of 0.4 excluding a 400 square foot garage.
PAUSD asked the Council to reconsider the severity of the FAR as
contained in the December 9, 1985 ordinance language and modify it
to exclude a 400 square foot garage. As compared to existing
ordinances, the FAR recommended by City staff and then presented
to the Planning Commission as a PAUSO Alternative 8 was an FAR of
0.4 excluding a 400 square foot garage which resulted in n 29
per-
cent reduction in MBA, and was a greater reduction even than the
Planning Commission recommendation which was 25 percent reduction.
The December 9, 1985 ordinance on first reading effected a 37 per-
cent reduction. , The PAUSO hoped Council would find the reduction
effected . by an FAR of 0.4 excluding a 400 square foot garage ' ade-
quate to deal fairly and equitably with concerns of both the com-
munity and the PAUSD.
Jean Johnson, 3942 Duncan Place, encouraged Council to exempt the
400 Square foot garage in the FAR ordinance. If the garage was
not exempt, she expected they would see some creativity in fol-
lowing the letter of the law on building minimum garages. She
opinoad the proposal clearly devalued the lots. If she chose to
buy a lot, and bought one across the street even if it had a house
on it on which she could build a house as large as she wished, the
lot across the street was of more vat oe to her than one in a
multi -lot zone as the ordinance suggested. The PAUSD was
balancing its budget by selling its lots and developing the sur-
plus school sites. It seemed to her to put such a crimp in the
size devalued the lots by about $20-$30,00Q. The 400 square foot
garage made a significant difference in the size for a 7,000 to
5.5 7 0
12/23/85
3,000 square foot lot such as the ones on the former DeAnza site .
1� one looked at $20,000 per lot less and multiplied it by 38
lots, one cage up with close to $800,000 difference PAUSD could
raise from selling the two subdivisions, which was more than
enough to give a seven period day to all the secondary schools,
and it was the kind of number Council changed by making the lots
so small . She encouraged Council . to exempt the garage when recon-
sidering the ordinance.
Council member Patitucci asked whet per• Ms. Johnson calculated the
amount earned in excess of what was anticipated at Ortega and
Crescent Park over the original estimated amount, and how it com-
pared to the $800,000.
Ms. Johnson repl ied the $800,000 was a ballpark figure of what it
meant to somebody buying a ict. She had not worried about the
difference in the Ortega and Crescent Park amounts achieved as
compared to amounts expected because the amounts expected from the
new lots would be cal cul atcd based on the amounts achieved from
them.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified there was a degree of pleasant
surprise by the School Board on the actual prices obtained and the
total amount received from the sites. On Crescent Park alone, he
estimated between $800,000 and $900,000 above any estimate he saw
prior to the actual sale.
Ms. Johnsen eederstood , but i`€ the dollar had a higher value and
one was oin to Europe and
9 g got a pl easant surprise, one cal cu-
lated purchases based on the pleasant surprises, and she believed
it was the kind of calculation going on in people's minds.
Neil Bell as, 725 Christine Drive, said Mr. and Mrs. Jack Earner,
er,
who spoke at the December 9 Public Hearing, intended to be there
that evening, but Mr. Miller had a stroke the previous night and
they were unable to attend. They had beea through the issue from
the first Planning Commission meeting, just as Mr. Miller, and
supported what he said. He commended the City Council for its
actions taken on zoning restrictions on December 9. After a log;
series of Planning Commission meetings, meetings with the School
Board, and appearing before the City Council , he believed they
finally reacned an understanding and resolved the issues. They
did not meet all the neighbors needs, but they were willing to
1 ive with them. When Or. Crocker wrote a letter to the City Coun-
cil (which Is on file in the City Clerk's office), all of a sudden
the issue was up for grabs again. He believed the zoning issue
had al ways been how to avoid creating another island of oversized
hoeiee at Ross Road which did not fit in with the character of the
surrounding neighborhoods. He did not believe the issue Council
was addressing that evening was how to maximize the income the
PAUSD would receive feom the sale of school sites. He hoped Coun-
cil would not take actions that evening to ensure the PAUSD maxi-
mized all the moneys they could get from the school sites. The
issue was, and continued to be, how to develop school sites so
they bl ended with the surrounding neighborhoods. Instead the
stress was to max imp ee income from the sale of school sites. Dr.
Crocker requested an exemption be granted for the '400 square foot
of garage. The last PAUSO recommendation of November 6, the
P1 anning Commission remembered the PAUSD said to go with 1,000
:square foot second floor restriction and to have a 27 foot height
restriction in ;addition to the 400 square foot garage exemption.
it seemed the PAUSO found it in their favor to ask for a 400
square foot garage exemption. The City Council made the decision
un December 9. The restrictions did not Meet all the neighbors
needs, but they were will my to compromise and live with them, and
the PAUSO shoql_ d do the same. He urged. Council 'move t.o preserve
their; ae-tions of December 9 without a change in the second
reading. .
6 6 7 1
12/23/85
Doug McUonel1 ; 3649 Ross Road; 1 ived down the road from the former
Ross Road school site, for over 12 years. They had two children
in the first and second grades at Palo Verde School His wife
volunteered at the school and they 1 argel y supported the educa-
tional process in Palo Alto. It was unfair what PAUSE' did to
playing fields and open space and how much they contributed to the
overcrowding of Palo Alto. That afternoon he went with his
children to Ortega Park, and it was sad to see the houses on the
edge of the park, and it was unfortunate what the PAUSO was trying
to perpetrate at Ross Road and DeAnza. He was told by one of the
members of the PAUSE' all they cared about was the children. When
they. made 1 ife unpl easant for people trying to be good parents for
the children, they were not taking a global view of the problem.
PAUSE' did enough mischief in the south part of Palo Alto, and he
urged Council 'to keep the December 9 resolution.
din Chin, 727 Christine Drive, appreciated that Council walked
through the different school sites and neighborhood to arrive at
the December 9 decision, which helped to preserve the neighborhood
character and the image of Palo Alto as a beautiful , well planned
city. He presented some of the results of an analysis of the Ross
Road School site and the ,percent increase above the largest neigh-
berhood houses based on Council 's December 9, 1985 derision, which
were based on the November 15 staff report to the Planning Commis-
sion where the largest neighborhood houses were between 2,150 and
3,050 square feet. The great majority of the houses were substan-
tial l y smal I er. In the third col urfln, the first Lot 4, for
instance, the Council decision was 49.3 percent larger than 2,150
square feet, which was the smaller of the largest houses; and 5.2
percent larger than 3,050 square feet, which was the largest of
the largest neighborhood houses. As could be seen, the Council
decision on December 9 was already generous as compared to the
neighborhood character.- He stressed the neighborhood character
should be used as a reference to limit the size of the houses.
The maximum al'rowable under the current ordinance did net
represent the character of the neighborhood. Essentially, the
PAUSD trying to reduce from max imu3n all owabl e was not the right
approach. He urged the City Council retain the December 9 deci-
sion, and hoped Council would consider a City-wide ordinance in
the not too distant future.
Dick Walker, 3512 Ross Road, was a neighbor of the Ross_ Road
School site. The house size was discussed at length at many pre-
vious meetings including the December 9 meeting when Council
adopted the current standards. The standards adopted were more
restrictive than the PAUSD asked for, and were also more generous
than the neighbors wanted. The results were a political compro-
mise as usually happened in those cases. Once a decision was made
it did not seem fair, at the end of the process, to change things
and make the houses larger than Council otherwise decided at the
December 9 meeting., when the whole City could not have a chance to
input. He hoped Council would leave their resolution as adopted
on December 9.
Peter Taskovich, 751 Gailen Avenue, said two weeks ago Council
passed an ordinance to limit the si ze of horses on the Ross Road
and UeAnza School sites. He did not bel ;eve they went far enough.
The ordinInc es, as passed on December 9, permitted four homes,
one-fi fth of the Ross Road subdivision, to be legally near or. over
4,000 square feet, which was an 0.4 FAR including the garage.. 0n
Lot #1, a person could legally build a house over 4,600 square
feet. the ordinance also permitted five homes in DeAnza School
site to be 3,500 square feet or larger. The largest existing home
was presently 2,700 square feet, which was unacceptable, and why,
duriny the Planning Commission, he recommended against using an
FAR. A 4,600 square foot house could be built on the Ross Road
site because the lot was over 11,600. square feet. However, one
could not see the back yard of the lot, just a big house in front.
He recommended to the Planning Coiamission either to put a maximum
cap with an FAR, maybe 3,$00 square feet, so a house could be no
6 6 7 2
12/23/85
more than 0.4 FAR or 3,500 latqua.re feet whichever was less, or
sere') the FAR altogether and make an average, say for the Ross
Road site of 3,300 square feet. Excluding the five largest lots
which were way over the standard size lots, the 15 smaller lots
averaged around 8,300 square feet. Of the five large lots, two
were over 11,000 square feet; one over 10,000 square feet, and two
were over 9,300 square feet. Excluding the oversized lots, the
average lot size was 8,300 square feet, which at an FAR of 0.4
gave approximately a 3,300 square feet home. Therefore, he pre-
ferred scrapping the FAR and saying ea maximum house si ze of 3,300
square feet. If Council wanted to keep the FAR to add some fl er i-
bil, ity, then maybe a maximum house si ze of 3,500 square feet.
Even if the FAR was tinkered with, by reducing it to 0.35, because
of the enormous lots at Ross Road there could be huge homes that
looked completely out of place. Considering they did not have the
1,000 - square foot second -story 1 imitation, something had to be
done to guarantee a house over 4,000 square feet was not built in
the neighborhood. To do otherwise was completely unacceptable.
Michael Fleming, 576 Maybel l , believed in considering the maximum
buildable area, everyone jumped to the conclusion everybody would
automatically build the maximum buildable rouse, which, was not the
case. If the 0.4 FAR permitted a person who wanted to build a
larger house to buy a larger lot, and even if he did at want a
larger house, he could buy a smaller lot. Considering the. maximum
bui ldabl e area, they were tal king about a ra-tio and so smeller
lots had smaller houses, which was what reduced the massiveness of
the appearance of the house, which he believed was the obj ective
before Council . He strongly suggested Council exclude the garage
from the 0.4 FAR limitation in that it motivated people to find
other ways to use covered parkiny space and to not build two -car
y arayes, just a single -car garage with a car port or some other
off -road parking. The motivation detracted from the aesthetic
appearance of the houses. He al so suggested the possibil ity of a
s1 idt.ng scale. The 0.4 FAR did not seem restrictive when talking
about an 11,000 square foot. As a developer in Palo Alto, he
doubted Council would find a 4,400 square foot house built in any
of the subdivisions because it was not economically feasible. Et
was a fast way for a builder to., go broke; people did not want to
pay the kind of money necessary for that size mouse in those
areas. When tai king about a 5,000 square foot lot with the cur-
rent reading presented on December 9, they ended up with basically
a 2,000 square foot house, which was fairly small considering the.
present building standards, no he suggested possibly a sliding FAR
for the smaller lots. Perhaps more restrictions could be placed
on the largest lots, but exc' ude the garage. He also suggested
the yuidei Ines prposed that evening be adopted for the entire City
as the problem was not limited to the mul ti -lot subdivisions. Any
time there was a new house or a remodel in the City of Pal o Al to
where a house changed the character of the neighborhood, the prob-
lem existed, probably more so where there was a single remodeling
occurred in a neighborhood.
Mayor Levy asked about the ranye of lot si zes at Crescent Park and
Ortega.
Ms. liednar respondd the lots ranged from 6,000 to 9,565 square
feet.
Counc il member Patitucci said Mayor Levy was not at the meeting two
weeks before when Council discussed the issue and he was a pro-
ponent of the 0.4 FAR with 400 squate._.feet exempted if. it was in a
garage. He supported the 0.4 believing it was within an accept-
able r'ange'of regulating that kind of activity. Since then, how-
ever, he spoke to many peopl e,members of the Council and others,
to gauge the impact and he bel ieved Council was somewhat severe in
its actions. As a result, he played around with some numbers and
passed -out a sheet to help get some perspective on what the effect
of the different regulations. He tried to relate the current
development envelope to the different FAR°s for ,different sized
6 6 7 3
12/23/85
lots, and then figured out if someone chose to build a two• -story
house versus -a one-story house the maximum lot coverage. On e
6,000 -square foot lot, the restriction reduced the size of the
buildable envelope to 53 percent of the maximum if it was under a
0.4 FAR; 63 percent if it was 0.4 plus 400 feet for the garage.
Going up in lot size, the percentages changed a bit, but not
drastically, to_ the point where the range of restrictions seemed
to limit them somewhere 52 percent and 63 percent.
Ms. Lee assumed Counci1member Patitucci wanted Section
18.13.040(c) to read "Floor Area Ratio. The maximum floor area
ratio shall be 0.4:1 with a 400 square foot exception for the
garaye."
MOTION: Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Woolley,
approval of the ordinance re New Multi -Lot Subdivisions for second
reading.
ORDINANCE 3659 entitled entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL OF tHE CITY OF PALO ALTO CREATING A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE COMBINING DISTRICT FOR NEW MULTI -LOT
SUBDIVISIONS (1st Reading 12/9/85, PASSED 6-0, Fletcher,
Levy, Rerzel absent)
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Woolley,
to modify Section 18.13.040(c) to read "{c) Floor Area Ratio. The
maximum floor area ratio shall be 0.4:1 with a 400 square foot
exception for the garage.
Councilmember Patitucci believed a restriction which cut 40 per-
cent out of the buildable envelope was a reasonable place to start
to control development before they knew what would actually hap-
pen. Under the other si zed envelope, the City had developments
that did not use the total buildable area. He suspected under
that FAR, people would go a lot closer to filling it out. Putting
the largest unit built on a 6,000 square foot lot, the living
space was a'oout 3,400 square feet, or 1,000 square feet over the
l imitations established by a 0.4 plus 400 for the garage. In that
event they were talking about at least a 33 percent reduction from
the largest houses seen at Crescent Park and Ortega. The range
was not quite 33. e If they took the largest in those different
categories, it ranged from about a 20 to 33 percent; reduction from
what was actually built._ They were not trying to accomplish maxi-
mized revenue for the Board of Education, but rather to come up
with some reasonable guide) ine. He was beginning to be convinced
after seeing some of the remodel my going on. the City ought to
have an FAR City-wide and believed - the action, even though it awas
sunsetted in the ordinance, gave an ,opportunity to see what hap-
pened with what appeared to be a reasonable FAR and garage alloca-
tion. `f s own feeling was a possibility of loo0cing at the City-
wide as a limitation in ell R-1, because he believed there were
some things going on that were worse than what happened at
Crescent Park or Ortega. Regarding the idea the City ought to
have some sort of sliding scale, in actuality, there were two
things working against the nee ;.for a sliding scale. First, mass
was mass; 0.4 of 6,000 square feet when looked at .was the same at
0.4 of 10,000 square feet relatively. He did not understand the
ogic to say mere restrictions were needed the larger the lot.
Second, the market did not support proportionate der el opment size
as lot sizes increased. In fart, as lot sizes- ;increased, people
paid more for lots. They were buying yard and wanted less cov-
erage. As far as he- was concerned, it would be quite simple with
a 0,4 FAR- plus 400 allocated to the garage. It would stimulate
covered garages for at least two parking places, getting cars off
the street. He hoped his Col l eagues would support the motion.
6 i 4
12/23/85
1
1
1
Connoi l member Rc neel agreed with Councilmombor Patitucci uowe
restrictions ought to bo applied City-wide. The only reason more
concern was expressed about what the PAUSD chid on the two sites
already developed was people saw it en masse, but it was possible
to have it occur in every neighborhood on remodels and redevelop-
ment of lots. It wa'a a serious problem faced in the City. She
did not, however, support the motion to liberalize what Council
passed on December 9; Several members of the public pointed out
when Council referred the guidelines to the Planning Commission,
most Councilmernbers chose to narrow the scope of the assignment to
the multi -lot subdivisions, but the whole purpose was to reduce
the impact of the multi -lot subdivisions on the neighborhood into
which they were being injected, and to make them more compatible
with the neighborhoods. When the Planning Commission and staff
previously considered the single-family lot restrictions, the 0.4
FAR with a 400 square foot exemption for garages, did not have
much of an impact on most of the worst cases illustrated through-
out their neighborhoods, and the 400 square feet became a fairly
significant contribution to the bulk of buildings, particularly on
the smaller lots. It was a false argument to suggest in those
$500,000 houses being built, the developer would skimp on a
garage. It would not be risked in the present marketplace because
anyone purchasing a $500,000 house would have a fairly expensive
car they wanted to protect, maybe two or three. She did not see
someone veuld build a major $500,000 house and put only one garage
or a covered carport on it. Several speakers also pointed out
PAUSD's job was to worry about their money, and Council's job was
to worry about land use in - Palo Alto. Council heard from many
members of the public about the problems of school sites and over-
building within,rteighborhoods on specific parcels, so she urged
her colleagues to defeat the amendment on the floor and support
the motion passed previously.
Counci1member Fletcher was also opposed to changing what Council
passed two weeks ago. Two of the houses which were part of the
Crescent Park open house were about a O.4:1 FAR. They: had four
bedrooms and three -car garages and were ample in terms of living
space. The main difference between those homes and the homes
around them was comfortable yards where those who built more bulky
homes barely had room around the perimeter for children to play or
any other activity.. She could not believe .the value of the lots
world be devalued that much because there was an advantage to
knowing your neighbor would not be breathing down your back, and
that the homes around you would be a reasonable size and not over-
bearing. She believed the 0.4:1 FAR, including garage space, was
adequate and generous.
Council!tember Woolley referred to Councilmember Patitucci's state-
ment his proposal provided a reasonable reduction. Council heard
comparisons between the current neighborhood houses and the pos-
sible houses under the new zoning, and also saw comparisons with
the maximum possible build -out under current zoning with what . was
being proposed. She did not believe it was reasonable to try and
achieve a reduction all the way back to the surrounding houses in
the neighborhood. Times , changed --those houses were built when
land values were peobab1y - a fraction of what they are now and
therefore the market was different. Coun-i1 needed to strike some
sort of balance in between which was what touncilmernber Patitucci
referred to as reasonable. She referred to the problem of the
garage, and believed Council made a serious mistake two weeks ago
when it ignored the Planning Co ission and staff and dropped the
1,000 square foot l i aai to t on t t the second story, but also
realized it was ovor with becaus4,Couneil could not go back to it
on a second reading. She believed the: next best: thing was to
a voic$ a second serious mistake which was l eWng the second garage
to chance. Not only was the Second gara till' keft to chance, but
also the paved area that would normally gc a ;long with the second
garage. It , was , not long.. ago Council considered the on -street
parking problem when it changed the ordinance in terms of the
weight for trucke, The day before she heard from someone on
6 6 _7 5
12/23/85
As corrected
2/03/86
Redwood Circle who was still ;poet about what on-etroot parking
was doing toiler neighborhood. Right after the Council meeting
where the ordinance was changed, someone who lived on a cul-de-sac
off St. Francis approached her wishing Council would limit one
street parking to only in front of one's own home because on a
cul-de-sac it was a serious problem. She imagined a cul-de-sac
was .what they would have in any new multi -lot subdivision, and
parking was an even greater consideration there than on the grid -
type streets. It was irresponsible of Council to ignore provi-
sions for adequate parking and - it would be wise to consider re-
quiring two covered,_paved spaces, but it was not something Coun-
cil could consider that evening. In the meantime, she believed
the 400 square foot exclusion would guarantee two garages and two
sets of paved driveways.
Councilmember Bechtel eupported the original motion and was con-
cerned about the size of the lots and the homes constructed on the
school sites, but believed the staff arguments for keeping separ-
ate the 400 square foot exemption for garage space was important.
She agreed with Councilmember Woolley -and did not want to encour-
age people to just build a one -car garage or.a carport and thereby
increase the problem of vehicles on the street. In looking at
Councilme mbet Patitucci's figures, his amendment would provide
close to a 40 percent smaller house than what could be constructed
under the current zoning which was valuable. She supported the
amendment.
AMENDMENT TO h!END IEiiT: Vice Mayor Cobb *ovedy seconded by
Klein, to modify Section 1$.13.040(c) to read, *(c) Floor Area
Ratio. The maximum Floor area ratio shall be 0.30:1 with a 400
square foot exception for the garage.
Vice Mayor Cobb went for the in between position because at. the
0.4:1 as one went to the larger lots, it allowed some enormous
houses. With Councilmember Patitucci's amendment, on an 8,000
square foot lot, the maximum living area was 3,200 square feet;
with the amendment to the amendment, it would be 3,000 square
feet; and it would be 22,800 square feet with where Council was two
weeks ago. He compared his amendment with his own home which was
a 2,200 square foot, one --story Si s hler, in the south part of Palo
Alto on roughly an 8,000 square foot lot. It had four bedrooms
With a family room, etc, He believed a 3,000 square foot house,
which would be the result of his 0.38 amendment, was a big house.
for the size lot. He was originally prepared to offex: a sliding
scale which would go with a 0.4:1 up to 7,000 square teet and
gradually move to a 0.38 at 8,000 square feet, but heard a lot of
comments it might be too Complicated. In effect, it was one-half
a -garage, and if Council went much beyond, in the 10,000 square
foot Lots, one was building 4,000 square foot houses to the extant
the market would buy it. Council did not need to give the extra
200 square feet in terms of market anyway because he was not sure
the market would support it. He did not. like to. leave that type
of potential laying around. He had a little difficulty with the
argument, in terms of trying to maximize the economic return of the
PAUSD because it Was a short-term result. In 20 years, when the
decisions were made and houses were built, the short-term economic
result w uld have long since been forgotten and they would Mill
be living with whatever size houses were there. He believed they
needed to keep it within some semblance of reason whilet at the
same time being as fair as possible to the PAUSD. If the devel-
oper were anyone but the PAUSD,-he would come down harderthan the
propgsaL before the: Council.
Mayor Levy clarified it meant instead of ea 2,400 square -foot
house., it would be 120 square feet smaller in the 6,000 square
foot lot.
Vice Mayor Cobb said that was correct.
!2,23;15
1
Councilmember Klein seconded the amendment to amendment primarily
because he believed it was the best they would get given the com-
ments of other Councilrnernbers. He preferred to stay where they
were two weeks ago, but the votes were not there, and it was a
reasonable compromise on a difficult issue. The reduction of .02
FAR chanced the maximum buildable on a 6,000 square foot lot from
2,400 to 2,280, plus the 400 square foot garage for a total 2,680,
compared to 2,400 square feet which was allowed under the motion
two weeks ago. If Vice Mayor Cobb's motion was adopted, they went
up 160 square feet as compared to 400 square feet which would be
allowed under Councilmember PatituccP s Notion. The numbers were
that much larger when talking about an 8,000 square foot lot. It
was basically a reasonable fifty-fifty compromise. He was con-
cerned about where Councilmember Patitucci's motion would lead.
He rejected the idea Council was -severe, and said severe was what
was built at Crescent Park and Ortega. He did not believe the
chart showing how much of a reduction they would get compared to
what they used to have was meaningful, and wanted to look at what
they would get compared to what he believed was reasonable. The
Crescent Park and Ortega developments were bad. He wanted a sig-
nificant reduction, and wanted to compare the ordinance to what
was desirable, which was the relevant question to him. The num-
bers Council came up with were too large in hie opinion, but he
would live with the numbers contained in Vice Mayor Cobb'.s motion
if he had to. When he looked at a 9,000 square foot lot, 3,600
square feet for a house -plus another 400 square feet for a garage
was too big, and Council would rue the day if they allowed it. He
hoped Vice Mayor Cobb was correct when he said houses at that end
of the spectrum probably were not marketables That used to be the
case in other places in town, but he did not see the economics at
Ross Road or DeAnza being particularly different than Ortega, and
the houses were: much larger than expected at Ortega. The market
in Palo Alto seemed to be such people built to the maximum allowed
or close to it ---certainly more than was anticipated in the past.
He did not believe Council could be sanguine about the market
bailing them out, and had to take the necessary precautions. The
PAUSD was a cornerstone of the community and he was concerned
about its finances. The lottery was a pipe dream fostered by its
proponents.as the money from it would not be close to bailing the
school district out of its financial difficulties. He believed
$700,000 was a lot of money to the school d,:strict, but if they
were only concerned about money to the PAUSD, the property would
have been zoned multi -family residential or high-rise office
buildings and really givers them a lot of money. The question was
where to draw the line between helping the School District and
preserving the integrity of the City's neighborhoods. Vice Mayor
Cobb correctly pointed out the money to the School District was a
one year thing whereas the houses would be there for 30, 40, 50
years or mere, and the people who lived there would either enjoy
their neighbors or suffer from an Aaverbuild situation. Council
needed to be careful and be more restrictive than was suggested.
He preferred the ordinance of two weeks ago, but as his second
choice, he would support Vicellayor Cobb's motion.
Councilmember Bechtel referred to the chart prepared by Council -
member Patitucci, and clarified on the 0.4 plus the 400, for a
6,000 square foot lot one receiveda maximum house of 2,800 square
feet; under Vice Mayor Cobb's it was 2,680. Fc: am 8,000 square
foot lot with Councilmember Patitucci's motion, it was 3,600;
under Vice Mayor Cobb's, it was 3,440. Under 10,000 square foot
the maximum was 4,400; and under Vice Mayor Cobb's, it was 4,200.
The arguments were persuasive that Vice Mayor Cobb's. motion
offered a compromise with advantages both for the School District
and the surrounding homeowners because the 2,680 square foot house
on the smaller 6,000 square foot lot was a reasonably sized
dwelling unit.
Councilmember . Sutarius believed valid points were made on the
original motion and the amendment. Regarding the effect of the
limits in either direction on design and the type of constauction,
6 6 7 7
12/23/85
whenever a FAR approached site coverage, there was difficulty in
terms of how the site would be. designed. It ended up coaxing out
the first floor because the economics of any second floor don-
ctruction would not be there when the FAR--was,practically equal to
the site coverage. He referred to the structure size analyses
Councilmember Patitucci passed out, and on a 6,000 square foot
lot, the maximum ground floor was conditioned on building site
area coverage at 35 percent. It was presently in the zoning and
totally unaffected by anything Council did there. As a result of
FAR, anything additional became an important design and economic
decision as to how one utilized it. In the case of 2,100 square
feet at ground level, it should be remembered it was site cover-
age, and si!:e coverage included the garage even with the exemption
because site coverage was totally separate from FAR. Therefore,
in Councilmember Patitucci's example, if they wanted to max it
out, an additional 700 feet could be constructed at the second
floor, and present day construction design economics did not sug-
gest a 700 square foot second story. Regarding the Planning
Commission recommendation, 1,000 square feet was economical, but
anything below was not. There were situations where the economic
and design decision would lead to a choice where everything was
put on the ground floor; whereas, a separation between the FAR and
site area coverage lent itself to creating more open space, not
using the entire site area coverage allowance to construct the
building, and he believed there was more open space than under the
0.38 FAR. While he expected the rationales for using the 0.38
FAR, and understood the reasons for its support, it would have an
unintended consequence, and, therefore, he would oppose the
amendment and support the main motion. a
Councilmember Renze3 supported the amendment because it was better
than the main motion, but continued to believe the arguments
expkessed so far bore noe relations:ip to the reality experienced
with existing development. The impacts of what was passed a
couple of weeks ago were minimal on the sites already developed
and affected only the worst cases. Mr. Chin's chart illustrated
the restrictive measure passed a few weeks ago in relation to the
Ross Road neighborhood was five percent over the largest existing
house in that neighborhood. An ordinance more restrictive than
what Council was talking about that evening was fife percent more
than what existed in the largest possible house in the existing
neighborhood. If Council wanted two garages built into every
house, it should require two.garages be built into every house and
not leave it to chance. She was willing to do that, and it was
much simpler than allocating 400 square feet to garages where ►hen
the door was closed, there might not be a car. It was usable
space; part of the bulk of the building and would impact them.
She did not support Councilmember Sutorius' position about the FAR
approaching the ground coverage meaning there would be full build -
out 5n the first story. The 1,000 square feet could be subtracted
from any of the maximums and say it was going to be a second story
and there was still ample for a first story of 1,000 feet. In the
case of the smallest 6,000 square foot lot,. there could be a 1,400
square foot first floor and 1,000 square foot second floor which
gave 400 square feet for the garage and two 1,000 -foot floors for
the housing. She did not believe anybody objected two two-story
houses per se, but rather two-story houses, six feet from the
property line and running for 40 feet solid, like an apartment
h Ouse being built_ next door. With the 0.4 or 0.38 FAR, regardless
of how the people decided to build, they had to make choices and
a1lobate their space leaving a .certain amount of space, either
vertical or horizontal open space around -their house- so they did
not impact their• neighbors so severely. . She failed to understand
_What Council achieved by the motions that evening because it only
affected the tip of the iceberg of the problems in the School Dis-
trict sites. There woul r be another two neighborhoods rearing i.n
on them after -the next barrage because the motions that evening
did note have Much of an impact.
6 6 7 8
12/23/85
As cousim
1
1
Gouda iimember Pati i,uce i believed tiie Council hod to realize the
differences in the . proposals amounted to less than five percent of
the total square footay.e of any of the developments that.could be
built. The discussion, however, was worth Council's time because
he believed they were really discussing what would ultimately
result in a decision on whether to apply the standards to all the
houses in Palo Altn. As the first time the City used a FAR, Coun-
cil should be concerned about clearly communicating what they were
doing. He clarified 0.4 and 400 square feet was a simple way to
communicate with the neighbors, and to regulate it, and he did not
see the benefits of taking 120 square feet out of 2,800 to achieve
compromise. He did not support the amendment to the amendment.
Mayor Levy clarified if the amendment to the amendment passed, the
proposal before Council\ would read: "Regarding the Floor Area
Area, Council approve the maximum FAR being 0.38:1 with a 400
square foot exception for the garage," so Council was teen voting
to change the language in the amendment on the floor from 0.4:1 to
an FAR of 0.38:1.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Sutorius,
Patitucci, Woolley voting "no."
Mayor Levy clarified the amendment as amended would change para-
yrah (c) in Section 1 under paragraph 18.13.040 regarding site
development regulations to read the maximum floor area ratio
should be 0.38:1 with a 400 square foot exception for the garage.
Councilmember Renzel said Council watered down what was sent to
the Planning commission, and eliminated the rest of the town
except for the multi -lot subdivisions. What Council was votiny on
had a minor impact on the worst case of what they had already
seen. It did not impact the .;3eneral overbuilding seen on the
Crescent Park and Ortega school sites, and the gross scale differ-
ences between the sites and their neiyhborhoods. It was ridicu-
lous if Council believed it would not get complaints about what
was going in on those school sites because they would be just as
bad as already seen with minor exceptions in a few of the worst
cases. It was unfortunate, and she urged her colleagues to recon-
side` and vote "no."
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED passed by a vote of 7-2, F1etcher4 Renzel
voting "no."
Mayor Levy said the ordinance before the Council was amended in
such a way it qualified as a second reading.
Councilmeraber Renzel said she would support the motion in order to
take off the tip of the iceberg. She hoped the record was amply
clear it would not correct the problem.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unatimously.
Mayor Levy said that brought Council to Items #5 and #6, which
were the second readings of the application of the ordinance to
Ross Road School and UeAnza School.
MOTION: Couacileember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of. the ordinances re 3530 Ross Road (2nd Reading) and 3120
Stockton Street (2nd Reading).
OKD I NANO£ 3660 entitled "ORD I N ta OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
MiriiinrAWELTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.04b OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING NAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3530 ROSS ROAD
(FORMER ROSS RUAD SCHOOL SITE) FROM R-1(743) TO
R-1(0Ui)(743) (1st Reading 12/9/85, PASSED 6.0,
Fletcher, Levy, Renzel absent)
6 6 7 9
12/23/85
MO I IUM CONT I f UEU
ORDINANCE 3661 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY -OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3120 STOCKTON
PLACE (FORMER DeANZA SCHOOL SITE) FROM 1-1 to R-1(SUB)"
(1st Reading 12/9/85, PASSED 6-0, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel
absent)
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MAYOR LEVY RE COMPLETION OF AGENDA
Mayor Levy proposed Council finish the agenda without a break.
ITEM 08, ARASTRAUERO ROAD UNDERGROUND CONVERSION DISTRICT NO. 26 -
INCREASE IN CONTINGENCY (UTI 8-8Y (CMR :649 : 5 )
Councilmember Patitucci asked for clarification on whether Council
was approving a budget amendment.
City Manager tai i l Zaner clarified staff was requesting Council
authorize staff to add $100,000 to an already existing contingent
fund. Staff had no authority to put the money in that fund.
The funds would then be expended in accordance with CMR:649:5.
The money existed; there was no amendment required. The contract
was a 1 ittl a over $1,000,000. There was a contingent amount
authorized by Council of about $100,000; i.e., if the contract ran
over, staff hao authority to spend an additional $100,000. Staff
found the money to be insufficient and needed an additional
$100,000 beyond the first $100,000.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified instead of spending (,026,000,
staff anticipated spending $1,226,000.
Mr. Zaner said that was correct.
Councilmember Patitucci said in his four City Council meetings,
there were five or six amendments to contracts to increase the
amount the City would spend. He realized he was new to the game,
but had no context for whether Council was doing it properly. It
seemed there were probably a lot of contracts the City managed
where Council did not see any overruns and possibly it had some
underruns , He found it difficult to Beal with the matters on an
ad hoc, individual basis. He asked if t was possible, since they
were nearing the end of the calendar year, to get a summary of all
the contracts completed during the recent year to see the ones on
which he City was over, and the ones on which it was under. He
did not believe it needed to be for the whole City, but it seemed
as if Utilities and Public Works were the major contracting opera-
tions. He wanted some idea abut how the City managed the aggre-
gate amount of its contracting and whether there was a pattern of
overrunning, or whether he happened to be at four random meetings
where there were five random overruns,
Mr Zaner believed Councilmember Patitucci hit an unusual streak.
Normally, staff requested a contract amount and a
10 to 15 per-
cent contingency. It was a good rule of thumb with any kind of a
Public Works or Utility contract. Occasionally, the money was
insufficient. In that case, staff returned to Council to request
an increase in the contingency fund. Occasionally, the City did
not have funds to increase the contingency fund which necessitated
a budget ame ldsent to move money from unappropriated funds into
the contingency. In ` the subject case, the money was available,
but staff did not have the authority._: to move it. The information
Councilmember Patitucci requested Could be found in the Capital
Improvement Program each year as staff wrapped ' it up because the
projects with contingency funds were the capital projects.
1
6 6 8 0
12/23/85
Councilmember Patitucci said if sonic existing docuiueet satief ied
the requirement, he should look at it first and see if there was
other information he needed.
Mr. Zaner said at the end of each year staff produced a status
report of all capital projects, how much was budgeted, how much
was spent; and, if the project was going over to another year, how
much was being carried over.
Councilmember Patitucci said Mr. Zaner referred to projects and he
referred to individual contracts.
Mr. Zaner said staff did not have a contingent fund on individual
contracts ---just on capital projects.
Councilmember Patitucci said it was a project fund where he
assumed there were multiple contracts.
Mr. Zaner responded in the subject instance it happened to be one
contractor, but the City did not nave contingent fends, for
example, in a contract with senior citizens. It was a set amount
and that was all there was. In Public Works contracts, the City
had contingency funds because they were not sure what would be
seen out on the street.
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to
adopt staff recommtndati an to authorize an increase of $100,000 in
the contingency allowance for the Arastuadero Underground
Conversion Project, bringing the authorized change order limit to
$202,698.
NOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #9, TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING FOR PEDESTRIAN;
BIKEWR( PROJECTS (PWK 2-2) (CMR:5a1.:ST
Councilmember Fletcher asked staff what the safety improvements
encompassed.
Associate Planner Gayle Likens said lighting was one of them. It
was intended soMe of the funding was to putt lighting on the blind
corners on the Va ian Bike Path, and other minor improvements such
as striping, signing, and improvement of the entrances to the
path.
Councilmember Fletcher believed it was a worthwhile project. She
was surprised the City needed to do work on the Terman path, and
she risked staff to elaborate.
Ms. Likens said field studies concluded a number of locations
where there were significant base failures which needed to be
repaired, and cracks in the path would continue to deteriorate if
the City did not make some repairs then. The repairs, together
with 'he resurfacing, would restore the path to its full width and
were needed repairs to keep i.t in good shape for the future.
Coenc i lmember Fletcher asP d if it extended over the bridge into
the Los Altos territory.
Ms. Likens said no, it was only on the Palo Alto side.
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded` .,%y Levy, to
adopt staff recommendation authorizing the City: $aniver to file a
claim for allocation of $70,000 in TDA Article- funds in FY
1,85-87 for the following projects:
1, $40,000 .f-wr resurfacing and other safety improvements on the
Tenon a,td Varian Bike Paths; and
2. $30,000 for installation of two permanent barriers on the.
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard.
5 6 8 I
12/2 /85
MOTION CONTINUED
RESOLUTION 6455 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
Twrarru-nro ALTO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A .L IM
WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR
ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 -
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #10, CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (PLA 4-6-3)
MOTION: Councileember Klein moved; seconded by Cobb, to
authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
AGREEMENT FOR GENERAL BONO COUNSEL SERVICES
Jones Hall Hill A White
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Mayor Levy said since it was the last Council meeting of 1985, he
wanted to convey to his colleagues and to the members of the
public his best wishes and thanks for their cooperation during the
past year. He also conveyed his appreciation and that of his.
colleagues to the members of the advisory boards, commissions and
committees, consisting of many public-spirited citizens who served
the Council well and generously of their time. He conveyed his
personal greetings to all of the employees of the City of Palo
Alto who served the City with professional competence, an appre-
ciation of the needs of those who lived and worked in the City,
and sensitivity to the fact the employees of the City of Palo Alto
were truly public servants in, the best sease.- Finally, he
extended his personal greetings of the season to all the residents
of Palo Alto. He hoped they had a good 1985 and was sure his
cone -agues joined him in best wishes for a joyful and fulfilling
1986.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION
Council adjourned to Closed Session re Century Federal
Communications v. City of Palo Alto pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.914 at 9:40 p.m.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
h 6 .8 2
12/23/85