HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-04 City Council Summary Minutes1
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUT€S'
Regular Meeting
Monday, dune 4, 1984
LTE.M
Oral Communications
Approval of Minutes of April 30, 1984
Item #1, Appointment of Three Historic Resources
Board Members to Fill Four Year Terms
Consent Calendar
Referral
Action
item #2, Ordinance re Zoning Ordinance Changes (2nd
Reading)
item #3, Ordinance re 1681-.1691 Cl Camino Real (2nd
Reading)
Item #4, San Francisquito Creek Erosion Control 4 5 8 9
ri UJc1.i
Item *5, Catch Basin Hood Installation -. Rejection
of 8io
item #a, Water quality Control Plant Standby Power
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #7, Advanced Waste Water Treatment Facility
Lffluent Discharge Alternative Study
Item #8, Finance and Public Works Committee
recommendation re External Audit
Item #9, Policy and Procedures Committee
recommendation re Seismic Hazard Reduction Program
Recess to Closed Session re Litigation
Item #10, Proposal to Limit Office Development in
the CS and GM Zones
Item #ii, Extension of Moratorium on the Processing
of all Applications far Panning ng Approvals for,.32Q0
et al'Park Boulevard (former .Max#mart Property)
Reconsider Item #10, Proposal to Limit Office
Ue`1elopment in the CS and ECM Zones
CITY
VF-
MI N
(II_1O
P A G F
4 5 8 8
4 5 8 8
4 5 8 8
4 5 8 9
4 5 8 9
4 5 8 9
4 5 8 9
4 5 8 9
4 5 8 9
4 5 9 u
4 5 9 0
4 5 9 5
4 5 9 7
4 6 0 6
4 6 0 6
4 6 1 7
4 6 1 8
4 5 8 6
6/04/84
ITEM!
lte�s4 #12, Waste Mater Utility Plan
Item #13, Request of Mayor Klein re Fair -Share
Financing of the Bay Area Super Bowl Task Force
PAGE
4 6 1 8
4 6 2 2
Adjuur-nrnent: 12:35 a.m. 4 6 2 3
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 4, 1984
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the
Lounci l Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at
7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy,
Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley
Mayor Klein announced that a Closed Session re Personnel was held
in the Personnel Conference Room at 7:00 p.m. He also announced
the need for a Closed Session re Litigation to be held at some
time during the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
MINUTES OF APRIL 30, 1984
MOTION: Counci larember Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the Minutes of April 30, 1984 as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
.
ITEM e? . APPOINTMENT OF THREE HISTORIC RESOURCES
BOARD MEMBERS
TO
Mayor Klein announced the names of the eight candidates:
APPOINTMENT
VOTING
OF
Jennifer E. Acheson
Irene R. tier tsch
Theodore G. Erler
Carolyn George
Judith D. Higgerson
Elizabeth B. Kittas
Linda L. Northway
Hugh D. Smith
ELIZABETH KITTAS TO HISTORIC
RESOURCES BOARD
FOR KITTAS: Fletcher, Renzel, Woolley, Levy, Klein,
Bechtel, Cobb, Witherspoon Sutorius.
City Clerk Ann Tanner announced that Elizabeth Kittas had nine
votes and was appointed.
APPOINTMENT OF CAROLYN GEORGE TO HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
VW'
VOT ING FOR GEORGE: Fletcher, Renzel, Woolley,
Levy, Bechtel, Cobb
. is ti it k S i1 W A i
Klein, Sutorius, Witherspoon
Ms. Tanner announced that Carolyn George had six votes and was,
appointed.
APPOINTMENT IF L INOA NORTHWAY TO HISTORIC RES#JURC .S BOARD
VOTING FOR NORTHWAY: Fletcher, Witherspor.J Sutorius, Levy,
Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Woolley
VOTING FOR KIGGtRSON: Renzel
Ms. Tanner announced that Linda Northway received eight votes and_.
was appointed.
4.588
6/04/84
Mayor Klein congratulated Elizabeth Kittas, Carolyn George and
Linda ;:orthway on their appointments. He commented ted on the number
of qualified applicants in the community, and urged their con-
tinued applications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of
the Consent Calendar.
Councilfember Renzel said her vote with regard to Itet #2, Zoning
Ordinance Changes, contained the same objections as those recorded
at the May 14, 1984 City Council meeting.
Referral
None
Action
1TtM #[, ORDINANCE RE ZONING Q3DINANCE CHANGES (2nd Reading) (PLA
ORDINANCE 3536 entitled °ORD INANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
PX 0 ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AIID
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING DEFINITIONS OF DAY CARE
CENTER, DAY CARE HOME, FINANCIAL SERVICE, GENERAL BUSI-
NESS OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME, SETBACK LINE AND
REGARDING YARD ENCROACHMENTS IN THE R-1 DISTRICT,
MAXIMUM SETBACKS IN THE LM DISTRICT, PARKING REQUIRE-
MENTS FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS" (1st Reading 5/14/84, PASSED
9-0)
ITEM #3 , ORDINANCE CE RE 1681-1691 EL CAMII4O REAL (2nd . Reading) (PLA
ORDINANCE 3531 entitled FORD INANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
TIIE -CITY or PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18A8.040 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1681-1691
EL CAMINO REAL FROM CN TO RM-2(T)° (1st Reading 5/21/84,
PASSEn 9-0)
ORDINANCE 3538 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
REGARDING PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICES IN RN -2
ZONES° (1st Reading 5/21/84, PASSED 9-0)
ITEM #4, SAN FRANCISQU1T0 CREEK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Santa Clara
Valley Water District for $100,000 of improvements, the costs
to be shared equally between the jurisdictions, for the con-
struction of embankment stabilization along San Francisquito
Creek; and
Authorize the City Manager or : his designee to execute change
orders to the contract up to $15,000.
AGREEMENT
Santa Clara Valley Water District
ITEM #b, CATCH BASIN HOOD INSTALLATION - REJECTION Of BID
Staff recommends that Council reject the bid received
Catch Basin Hood Installation Project #83-70
f
r the
4 5 8.9
6/04/84
ITEM #6, WATER QUALITY (ANNUL PLANT STANDBY POWER (CMR:313:4)
-1-17777-- )
Staff recommends that a contract in the amount of $409,000 for the
provision of electric standby power at the Water Quality Control
Plant be awarded to Engelhart Electric Company, Inc. of Belmont,
California.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Englehart Electric Company
MOTION PASSED unanimously, with Councilmember Renzel's obJec-
tiont to Item #2, Zoning Ordinance Changes, as noted at May 14,
1984 City Council meeting.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
None
ITEM #7, ADVANCED] WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY EFFLUENT
CIE STUDY (CMR:273:4] ►-
Councilmember Woolley asked if the cost of the study would be sig-
nificantly reduced by cutting down on the number of alternatives.
Chief Engineer, Water -Gas -Sewer, Ray Remmel said it was a $15,000
study and he did not believe the dollars would be significantly
changed by eliminating some alternatives.
Councilmember Renzel asked how the alternatives proposed by Waste
Water International were determined.
Mr. Remmel said the alternatives came from the earlier reliability
and capacity study of the treatment plant.
Assistant Director of Utilities, Operations, Stephen Hayashi said
the alternatives recommended were based upon the definition of
"beneficial use or enhancement for the effluent" or trying to find
what would be an ac.ceptzble alternative to building the South Bay
Dischargers outfall north of the Dumbarton Bridge.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that if the City could demonstrate
that it continued to maintain good tertiary treated water, it
might also be relieved of the South Bay Dischargers pipeline.
Mr`. Hayashi said yes, but.. the City must also show it was doing
sonethi ng in addition to maintaining good effluent and that it was
doing something with the effluent in terms of beneficial use or
enhancement to the receiving water.
Councilmember Bechtel understood that the study was in lieu of
doing a long outfall and that nothing could be put di rectly into
the Bay unless it was piped considerably further.
iir. Remmel said it was an alternative to the "super .sewer." If
the City could show it could do some local mitigation measures
through beneficial uses in marshes, then the City had an option to
getoutfrom under the threat of a big pipeline.
Councilmember Bechtel asked if there would be a comparison of
costs and adverse effects..
Mr. Remmel said there would be a comparison of costs
natives.
the, alter-
Councilmember Cobb said' the order attached to the latest staff
report had a lot of dates around 1981 when action was supposed to
have beentaken, and he asked how the City got so far behind and
sot in trouble with the people issuing the order.
Mr. Remmcl said the orders were to yet the stuai es slat -tea, and
the reliability and capacity studies were done,
Mr. Hayashi said all studies required by the Regional Board were
done. The South Bay Dischargers undertook a five year water qual-
ity study for all three of the South Bay Dischargers and that pro-
posed study was a supplement specifically for the Palo Alto Dis-
chargers.
Gouncilmember Renzel asked for clarification that the City was
supposed to demonstrate a net beneficial improvement.
Mra Remmel said that was correct.
CouncilmemberRenzel said she read through the capacity study and
only the lagoon, yacht harbor, and conti nuation of the super sewer
were considered. There was no mention of possible discharge into
the flood basi n or the Mayfield Slough remnants, and she asked why
they were el imi noted.
t+lr. Remmel said those were added to the proposal to try and give
the widest possible choices for the consultant.
Mayor Klein clarified they were not eliminated.
Mr. Remmel said that was correct.
Phil LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, sent a letter to the City
Council, which was on file i n the City Clerk's office. He object-
ed to the part of the proposal for the creation of the fresh water
lake behind a set of boat locks. It was proposed that the lock
structure would go across inboard of the launch ramp which would
call for the construction of a levee about 450 feet long. In the
wi nter, it was possible that the ru noff water enteri ng the sewage
plant could create conditions where it was difficult to maintain
secondary effluent standards. In terms of the boat locks, he did
not believe they should be concerned with small center board boats
which it was suggested could go through in clusters of four to
six, because they can launch at the public launch ramp di rectiy
into the deep water. In a lock system, it was necessary for the
water to run downhill and it was necessary to mai ntai f resh water
depth i n the harbor. Ideally, it would be higher than the highest
tide that one would get outside i n the Bay. It was ce rtai n that
reduci ng the tidal prism and exchangi ng 30 acres of marsh for a
fresh water lake was in conflict with San Francisco Bay Area
Conservation and Development (BCDC) policies.
Fred Nichols, 1189 Harker Avenue, represented himself and was an
estuari ne scientist with particular emphasis on South San
Francisco Bay ecology. He said there was evidence of steady im-
provement of water quality in San Francisco Bay as a result of
modern waste treatment, and the only identified problem related to
the disposal of domestic sewage other than nutrient enrichment was
the condition of the sloughs at the extreme south end of the Bay
during the swine r. He believed the "super sewer" north of
Dumbarton Bridge was a massive overkill of the problem. The im-
portant issue of waste discharge with regard to Bay organisms was
their contahni nation with toxic i ndustri al chemical s, which problem
would remain under present waste management procedures no matter
where the end of the pipe was located. The issue of the effects
of chemical contami nation .on aquatic biota was subject to intense
study, and, the majority of organisms living in San Francisco Bay
adapted to the conditions found. During the past ten years, the
most important environmental i nfi uence on the organisms living i
the mud adjacent to Palo Alto, which organisms represent a prime
resource of food for fish and birds, seemed to be the extremely
wet winter of 1982, and the SanJose Sewage Treatment Plant upsets
had no measurable effect on those organisms. He did not.. expect a
significant change of the biota of South„San Francisco Bay _related
to any of the alternatives being considered, and did not believe
g/818iAsCoriB
anyone would predict the result of a complete reclamation of waste
water. The City proposed to fi nd an engi neeri ng solution to an
ill-defined problem, and he was startled that it proposed a bene-
fici al use of waste water that would be achieved at the expense of
the tidal wetl ands. The protection of tidal wetl ands i n the
United States was the focus of federal, state and local agencies
fot nearly two decades, and at least two national conferences on
wetlands were held in the; San Francisco Bay Area alone. Council
was aware that for 130 years San Francisco Bay's tidal wetlands
were developed out of existence, and the last 15 years saw the
gradual cessation of that loss, which was now estimated to be
about 85 percent of the tidal marshes in 1850. The City proposed
to fly i n the face of all that was achieved, and if Council chose
to go ahead with the study, he suggested the consultant respond to
how Palo Alto would advise the Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
BCOC, and vi rtually every conservation group in the Bay Area that
the loss of tidal wetlands could be mitigated by the creation of a
fresh water pond. A check of the channel across the mud flat to
the deep water in front of the existing outf al 1 might prove tell -
ing. The impact of a fresh water pond on native wildlife would be
the loss of shell fish in the process. Over the short- term, he.
suggested that Council spend its energy and money on convincing
the Water Quality Control Board that the "super sewer" was not a
scientifically Justified solution to known problems in the San
Francisco Bay. Over the long-term, he suggested that Council
spend the big money on total reclamation because shortage of fresh
water would be the issue i n the future.
Dr. William Cl ark, 859 Northampton Drive, remembered being a Coun-
cilmember and working with the County to preserve a shallow pond
where bi rds could be watched. There were few pl aces where people
could see the effects of the tide and the change of the bi rds as
was the case around the yacht basin. The Castle Island at the
bottom of the lagoon on the west side of the duck pond was one of
the few pl aces where everyone could see the birds, and if anything
was done to raise the .level of the lagoon, the island would be
lost. The area was unique and it seemed silly to study someth i ng
that might wreck it.
Dan Peck, 680 Rhodes, said he heard Mr. taRiviere on the radio and
unless he had a crash course i n locks, there was not much good i n -
formation in his statements. He was a sailor and a staunch advo-
cate of the harbor and familiar with lock..s. The kinds of locks
being proposed would not have to be 13 feet ;tai 1 , and the head
would not have to be seven feet. The locks could be effectively
handled by one person without mechanics. It could be built like
the Panama Canal, but for a reasonable amount a lock could be
built to protect the inter -harbor for much less and keep the water
in, allow boaters to move in and out at will, allow the level- in
the i nter-harbor to be monitored and mai ntai ned at a level below
that of high tide. High tide would flood i n it, would go down to
a designated spot the rest of the ti e, and would not di stu rb any
salt marshes, would ruin no area that might be detrimental to the
Interpretive Center, and would provide an organization of fish
life on which birds lived. He believed the issue needed to be
studied —it was an important potential _ to a large segment of the
people that used the Bay. Palo Alto had a unique asset, and a
lock was one way to preserve the asset for a variety of users of
the Bay.
Councilme ►ber kenzel cl arified that Mr. Peck was saying that the
water level could be mai ntai ned in such a way so as to not destroy
the salt marsh. Since salt marsh needed to be both i nu ndated and
dried, she asked how that would be done.
Mr. Peck responded that the salt marsh lived in tide range of
about three or four feet, and did not require a low tide to be
dried out. The salt t marsh:: needed to have water on it .a certain
amount of the 'time; It would probably be changed somewhat, and he
did not k.ow the - exact range, but it should be part of the study.
As C°i4;11;11
Counci lmembc r Renzel asked how the sal t marsh would su rvive in any
elevation .i.f there was rrothi ng but -fresh water input into .the
l ake.
Mr. Peck responded that there would not just be fresh water input
i nto the 1 ake. If arranged properly, it would be at a mai ntai ned
level of bel ow high tide. The high tide would come, inundate the
area, put one, two, or three feet on top of the water comi ng i n,
and then move out and down to the level at which the basin would
be vi able for boaters.
Councilmernb(r Renzel said once tides were permitted to come i n, it
increased siltation problems beyond Its current level because
there was a barrier to the silt going out.
Mr. Peck said the siltation problem also needed to be studied, but
it would be a mni nor matter i n that the foot or so of coverage corn-
ing in would not carry that much silt. Most silt was carried in
the . 1 evel s bel ow the top three feet, and that would be a better
guarantee of less silt. It was an important issue and should be
studied.
Councilmember Reuel agreed with the speakers who expressed con-
cern about the loss of salt marsh. She was almost outraged that
any proposal would be brought before the City Council which spoke
to the destruction of salt marsh. She knew salt marshes requi red
a change i n tidal levels, and could not survivewith some constant
level of mostly fresh water d ecniai ng it. Charleston Slough was a
drowned marsh, and the ITT property dried out. Palo Alto had more
than 30 ac res of prime sal t marsh in the harbor area, and it was
unconscionable to consider any proposal that would almost cer-
tainly destroy the marsh. The dikes and locks would cut off about
30 acres of tidal wetlands plus the lagoon which she believed
would become a sti nki ng sewer hole because there would be no ci r-
cul ati on. If it was raised to any level above its current level,
it would drown Castle Island. If it was not permitted to be
raised above its current level, there would be no method for
ci rcul ati ng water through there, and the only water that could get
to it would be the processed sewer water, which Sy defi n1tion
would occasionally be contai reed for spills.
MOTION: Cote ncilmee+ber Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
approve the contract proposals aap.t. for dikes and Iocks.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER XING CONTRACT
Waste W ate r International
Consul ti ng Engineers
Councilmerber• Renzel commented that she had no objection to study-
ng the discharge location at the harbor if it might do some good,
but she did not. want to . have it cut off from tidal action.
Councilraernber ' itherspoon said the staff report said "fresh water
marshes were considered to be more . desi rable by some state and
federal agencies." She did not know why, but said given no more
dredi ng, i n five years or less, there .would be no more tidal ac-
tion at the present Yacht Harbor. It would ecologically change
dramatically i n the next three or four years, and she pointed ,out
that 85 percent -of the tidal wetlands were lost, but that was not
because of relocating effluent outfalls. She believed it was un-
fair to imply that the study would somehow aggravate the problem.
It was worth studying --it might prove to be expensive and not
feasible biologically or financially, but the City had a great
resource in the Yacht Harbor, and there was no reason to not see
if there •was a way to ecologically preserve it without dredging.
It would not cost. any more to study the alternative, and she urged
that Council defeat the motion.
AMENDMENT : Coo nc1 lmembe r Woolley moved, seconded by.
Witherspoon, to include proposals re locks and dikes.
4 5 9 3
6/04861
As Co
;y5
Councilmember Woolley said, as she questioned staff and others
about the study, the words used most frequently were "it
depended." There were a lot of questions about the height of the
levee, whether there should be locks, possible designs, the amount
of silt carried in water at various levels, but all questions were
technical and needed to be studied. All alternatives should be
presented because the consultant was well qualified to answer the
technical questions, and had hands-on experience with other marsh
discharge projects. After receiving an expert's evaluation, Coun-
cil could make a decision on. which alternative to use. The
minutes of that evening's meeting would make the consultant aware
that the evaluation needed to include the effect of each alterna-
tive on the pr servation of the salt water marsh. She did not
believe anyone wanted to see it destroyed, but on the other hand,
she was not convinced it was a necessary result of any of the
alternatives presented.
Councilmember Fletcher was persuaded by Mr. Nichols, who spent his
career studying marine biology, that the particular alternative
would destroy wetlands and biological organisms and would do those
things which Council was on record as being against. Regarding
the tidal action after the dredging stopped, she did not see that
ti{al action could be stopped at all unless additional levees were
built. She was convinced by the testimony that evening it was not
an idea that merited any study.
Councilmember Kenzel said even limited tidal action over whatever
dike might be built would require a concrete reinforced dike of
some sort or it would wear away quickly and be difficult to main-
tain. Some agencies preferred fresh water marshes to salt marshes
because game birds used fresh water marsh, and the salt water
marshes were used by the shore birds, which were not game birds.
There was no questio:• that a salt marsh could only occur where
there was tidal action, and limited amounts of it remained. In
terms of siltation, the City had technical reports, and every time
an obstacle was put in the way of the tides carrying mud, the ob-
stacle accumulated silt in front, behind, and around it because it
slowed down the velocity of the water and the silt dropped out.
Outside the harbor, and outside of the dike, there would be in-
creasing silts coming in at the opening to the flood basin, and
increasing silt at the public launch ramp, which was the only pub-
lic portion of the harbor area. The locks were irrelevant to the
discussion because they were simply a way to pass through the
dike. The serious concern was building the dike at all, and she
totally objected to it. She urged the Council to defeat the
amendment.
Councilmember Sutorius said, through the process, he saw several
aspects which seemed to parallel the recent discussions and Coun-
cil action with respect to the proposal by the Santa Clara valley
uistrict regarding the flood basin. He was initially concerned
about Palo Alto spending more time and money to study something,
but in the course of the hearing, it was clear that the subject
was complex and a study through a consultant process was appropri-
ate. Subsequently, the report was received and he was convinced
that it was a worthwhile expenditure. Council was talking' about a
modest total cost to the entire study, and staff indicated that
deleting a portion would have no measurable effect on its cost.
he believed Council should get the information because if it bore
out some of the strongest concerns expressed that evening, it had
the potential of adding . that bit of professional information that
Council needed to contest the "super pipe" as suggested by Mr.
Nichols. He supported the entire study and the amendment.
Councilmember Cobb had a great regard for Mr. Nichols' profes-
sional : expertise. He also wanted more information, and in : sup-
porting a full study, he was i n no way committed to take any steps
which might have any of the kinds of impacts expressed by Mr.
Nichols,
4 5 9 4
6/04/84
AMENDMENT PASSE .. . f 5 • h�
PASSED �# � a vote - o d :�-�, Bechtel, , Klein, Fletcher,
kenzel voting "no."
Councilmember Renzel said she would oppose the main motion since
it incorporated a totally unacceptable proposal.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8.1, Menzel voting "no."
ITEM #ti, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS (F&PW) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: Councilme.ber Cobb for the Finance and Public Works
Committee moved regarding the External Audit that the City Coun-
cil:
1, Authorize the City Manager to oversee the conduct of the 1983-
84 financial audit until such time that the City Auditor can
assume the responsibility; and
2. Approve the contract with Deloitte Hask i ors & Sells for audit-
ing services as outlined in the April 9, 1984 letter, not to
exceed $41,000.
AGREEMENT
Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Acting Director of Finance Mark Harris clarified there was a
$9,000 option for Deloitte Haskins & Sells to type and ,print a
financial statement in full compliance with current generally
accepted accounting principles. It was confirmed that Deloitte
Haskins a Sells would not start work on that financial statement
without prior City approval.
Mayor Klein said there were many items where Deloitte Haskins &
Sells listed "typing" as something it was doing for the City, and
he asked why the City was not doing its own typing.
City Manager Bill Zaner said the wording of the April 9, 1984 let-
ter regarding services was a stylistic notation. Staff did not
expect to receive raw mateuial , and more appropriate wording. might
have 'peen "...to audit and submit a report to the City," an the
various items listed in tie letter.
Mayor Klein asked for clarification of the $9,000 option.
Mr. Harris said the option was for Deloitte Haskins & Sells to
prepare the City's report so it would be eligible for a Certifi-
cate of Conformance which meant the City of Palo Alto's financial
statement met all approved standards of a particular accounting
format. Currently, the City prepared report was not in full com-
pliance with generally accepted accounting principles and
Ueluitte Haskins & Sells could type and print .100 copies. There-
after, staff could prepare the report, but that was an option for
the new City Auditor, It was a\ one time cost because once the
document was in appropriate format, staff could continue its prep-
aration.
Mayor Klein urged staff to bring the report into compliance, but
could not believe the City did not have the capacity to do i t, or
that the work was worth $9,000. He asked how far out of line the
statements were from the requirements of the. Municipal Finance
officers Association
tir. Harris said a fair amount of work was involved to bring the
statement into proper format, and accountants were expensive, but
it would save staff a lot of time for Deloitte Haskins & Sells to
90 through the statements. There were various options where
Deloitte Haskins & Sells:. might suggest a format and the City could
print it, but in order to achieve full compliance, financial
statements had to be more timely generated. A cost :estimate for
the service was made on a time and materials basis, and: it was a
"not to exceed" figure. The point was well taken, and it would
-not be done unless absolutely necessary._
4 5 9 5
6/04/84.
Vice Mayor Levy asked if the item eeu d return to the Council for
approve.' rather then be discretionary with staff.
Mr. "Liner said yes, tut the process would be more difficult in
terms of giving the new auditor a scope of duties in order to get
on with the work. With regard to the financial statements, staff
would hold off until the auditor was on board in order for that
person to make the decision, but it could return to Council.
Vice Mayor Levy understood the City'ss credit rating was the high-
est it could be for a city its size.
Mr. Harris said that was correct. The F&PW Committee discussed
that the City might want a letter perfect financial statement
because when going to the bond market, its financial •statement
coula speak for itself. He believed the value of the report's
being in full compliance was marginal in the market, but it should
be kept in mind. It was a matter of professionalism in terms of
the City's report being recognized as acceptable by the industry.
Vice Mayor Levy said everyone was sensitive to San Jose's problems
over the past couple of weeks, and he asked how the audit related
to the City's cash reserve investments.
Mr. Harris said the financial audit did not go into investment
policies. The auditor would ensure the City's procedures were
appropriate to protect the flow of funds. The auditor made no
judgment about the investments beyond whether they were legal and
done appropriately. The types of investments and timing were not
audited unless specifically requested by the City=
Vice Mayor Levy asked if the auditor would confirm that the City's
practices were correct in terms to generally accepted municipal
investment practices.
Mr. Harris said no. The auditor only looked at how the City kept
its books for accounting purposes; and unless the specific study
was requested, it would not be reviwed.
Vice Mayor Levy asked about the extra cost for such a study.
Mr. Harris said he would have to request a figure.
Vice Mayor Levy understood the golf course maintained its own
financial statements in order to be evaluated on an operating
basis, and he asked if the costs of - hat audit were properly allo-
cated to the golf course.
Mr. harris said yes. The City set up a . nonprofit corporation to
finance the golf course, and by law, a report must be prepared
every year.. Reports beyond the basic audit generally related to
an external requirement, and he explained that the sewage treat-
ment plant audit was provided for the- partner cities because An
independent auditor coul d,. verify that the City's costs were . main-
tained .correctly. Many other .audits . related to requirements of
the federal governments The ;golf course` report was not prepared
because the golf course operated on an enterprise basis and a non-
profit corporation was set up to finance the .clubhouse construc-
tion.
Counci lmember Cobb asked whether it wa.s more appropriate for an
auditing or investments firm to go through and provide an evalua-
tion in terms of safety andappropriateness of a City's investment
portfolio.
Mr. Harris said most firms like Ueloi tte Haskins & . Sells had a
broad field of financial services, and different aeloitte Haskins
& Sells staff members would do that. audit, but staff would probab-
ly recommend there be an independent judgment on investment
policies.
4 5 9 6
+5/04/84
AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, that the $9,000
option to reformat tiiri City's annual report not be exercised with-
out approval of the City Council.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Woolley voting "no."
Vice Mayor Levy was concerned about the recent occurrence in San
Jose and at the Council's next meeting he would make suggestions
with regard to following up on City cash reserve investments. He
had no reason to believe there was anything wrong in Palo Alto and
wa.s generally impressed with the way it handled those investments,
but wanted to ensure that Palo Alto's practices were properly
audited and overseen by the Council.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #9 , POLICY AND PROCEDURES (P&P) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE
Counci l member Bechtel said the item was initially before the Coun-
cil about two years ago, and the original staff recommendation was
rejected. A committee was forged, chaired by John Northway, and
met for approximately one year. Other members of the committee
included Richard Pennington Scott Carey, Virgil Carter, David
Jury, Ann Miller, Bob Nerrie, Clarence Rinne, Don Mullen, Roland
Sharp, Ted Thompson, and Gordon Wright and included members of the
Architectural Review Board, Chamber of . Commerce, merchants, ten-
ants and owners of properties, and structural engineers. When the
committee's recommendation went to the P&P Committee, there was a
conflict between the committee and staff recommendation. The P&P
Committee first rst heard the item in February and arrived at a con-
clusion, but following that meeting, members of the Seismic Hazard
Committee asked for another meeting because it believed essential
information needed to be given, and at that meeting the P&P Com-
mittee made its unanimous recommendation, She was pleased with
the staff report, which took a confusing meeting and pulled it
together well. The recommendation was closely tied with staff's
and the committee's feelings and satisifed the concerns. Essen-
tially the Committee recommended mandatory inspection and engi-
neering reports.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel for the Policy and Procedures
Committee moved re Seismic Hazard Reduction Program that Council:
1. Approve the concept of mandatory inspections as outlined by
the Seismic Hazard Committee with the change of increasing
under Category II, 18 months to 24 months, the date the engi-
neering report should be submitted;
2. That all engineering inspection reports are to be followed
within one year by the owner's >,statement of actions, if any,
to be taken and a timetable;
3. That the engineering reports, as well as subsequent one year
response by the property owner, would be submitted to staff,
who would intern monitor action or nonaction and would submit
in a semi-annual report to the City Council;
4. Request the Seismic Hazard Committee to report back .to the
Council at the time the Council considers the ordinance with
recommendations for strengthening the ieplementatioe;.of cor-
rective action;
6. Include Item 14 of staff report (CMR:123:4) dated February 2,
1984, "Owners of buildings be required to notify tenants that
a steuctural analysis has bees cowl ete4i avid is oe file . with
the City;"
4 5 9 7.
6/04/84
MOTION CONTINUED
6. By a vote of 3-1, Levy "no," recommends the Historic Resources
Board make a recommendation 00 how to tine the engineering
reports with the historical structures and to work with staff;
and
7. Rescind the Policy and Procedures Committee's action of
February 21, 1984, with the exception of items 15 and 16 on
page 14 of the staff report (CMR:123:4). 15 "City staff be
directed to develop and implement a city-wide earthquake pre-
paredness educational campaign.` 16 *City staff be directed
to develop an earthquake specific emergency plan."
SUBSTITUTE. NOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by
kenael , re Seismic Hazard Reduction Program, to adopt the staff
recommendation that the Council direct the City Attorney to draft
an ordinance that contains the following elements:
1. Mandatory structural inspection of the following building cat-
egories with the specified time lines:
Category I: All unreinforced masonry buildings - 18 months;
Category II: All pre -1935 buildings other than unreinforced
masonry with 100 occupants or greater - 24
months;
Category III: All buildings with 300 occupants or greater con-
structed between 1935 and August 1976 - 2-1/2
years;
Category IV: All buildings with I00 to 299 occupants con-
structed between 1935 and January I, 1956 - 3-1/2
years;
Category V: All buildings with 100 to 299 occupants con-
structed between 1956 and August 1976 - 4 years;
and
Citeyory VI: All pre -1935 humldings with 25 to 99 occupants
except residential buildings with less than sic
dwelling units - 5 years;
2. Uhrei nforced masonry structures are to be .analyzed according
to the City of Los A \gel es Standard;
3. Categories II through VI to be analyzed for conformance with
the 1973 Uniform Building Code;
4. The submitted reports are to be revi ewee by the City for con-
formance with the ordinance;
5. The report review fee to be credited tofuture plan review
fee;
6. The . building owner is tosubmit a letter of :intent, including
a project time line for corrective action within -one .year fol-
lowing the report seb.i ttal ;
7. Staff shall report to the Council on a semi-annual basis on
the progress and effectl'eness_of.the program;
8. An 18-monthexception be enacted. for Historic Buildings Cate-
gories I through IV. During this period the other items
recommended by the. HRB are to be pursued; and
4 5:9 8
6/04/84
MOTION CONTINUED
9. An exception be added for buildings that have undergone sub-
stantial alteration for resistance to earthquake forces since
the adoption of the 1973 Uniform .Building Code.
In addition to the ordinance, staff should also be directed to
implement an educational program of earthquake awareness and to
develop an earthquake specific emergency plan.
Councilmember Woolley said she received a call from a constituent
who asked when the notices were mailed because that person's was
postmarked May 31.
Chief Building Official Fred Herman said the notices to the gener-
al g
al_ public were mailed of May 31, 1984.
Councilmensber Woolley said mention was made of an earthquake pre-
paredness educational campaign and an earthquake specific emergen-
cy plan, and during the budget hearings it was learned there was
no specific item in the budget for that purpose, and she asked
what department would undertake the assignment.
City Manager Ui11 Zaner said the .emergency responsibility fell
with the Fire Department, and putting together the kind of plan
discussed in the final paragraph of the recommendation would use
coordinated efforts by the Fire Department and Building Inspec-
tion. It would be done with in-house staff.
Mr. Laner said the same people would be used --County and School
District resources would all be pulled together.
Councilrr<ember Cobb asked for clarification of item #6 on Page 4 of
the staff report that the building owners would submit a • letter of
intent including a projected time line for corrective action one
year following the report submi ttal If the building owner was
unable to do anything about the building for economic or other
reasons, he asked what would happen.
Counci l member Bechtel said the committee i►Mended that the program
be voluntary and if it did not work out, it could become a manda-
tory'program later. It would be up to each building owner to let
the City know its plans and a timetable, 4nd if nothing was
planned, the City would have that information.
Vice Mayor Levy said the property owners were strong in their be-
liefs that they would respond to the engineering reports, but
wanted the flexibility to do it on a timetable that took into ton-
sideration the specific situation of each property. It was the
purpose of Item #b to first allow the property owner one_ year to
prepare the report which would give the owner the substantial
amount of time to analyze -the si tudtion with the property and
tenants. It Was intended that corrective action be taken or ini-
tiated in ewe_ year,- but each particu-1 a_r property would be a
separate case
touncilmember Woolley asked about the educational part of the cam-
paign.
Council member Cobb believed there -would be ' situations where it
would not be economically feasible for a propertyowner to do any-
thing in a near -term timeframe, and the alternative would be to
appropriately post the building, accept the building as one which
could not be dealt with and not one the City wanted to have torn
down, or accept the fact that .i t would be. torn down and some pos-
sibly ■ore .intensive structure put in its place. He did not be-
lieve there would ever be 100 percent and wondered if the City was
prepared to accept that.
4 5 9 9
6/04/84
Couheilmeiiiber Witherspoon asked since the effort was voluntary
whether the committee considered the report review fee in its
rationale.
Mr. Herman said the, report review fee was discussed with staff
following the P&P Committee meeting and after the cost to the City
to review those reports was determined. Staff wanted to recover
those costs but still give a benefit to the owner who paid it. As
an incentive to correct, the most reasonable way to impose a fee
would be to credit it toward the plan checking since that portion
would already have been done.
Councilmember Witherspoon clarified it was not discussed in the
committee.
Councilmember Fletcher said she remembered discussing the issue of
notification to building tenants subsequent to the disclosures of
the engineering report. It was not included in the written recom-
mendations and she asked if it needed to be added.
Mr. Herman said staff intended to include all of those items con-
tained in the P&P Committee's final report. The staff report sum-
marized the major changes from the committee pror:osal with their
entire package of the mandator•, analysis
mandatory �.,..�ysf� only program.
Councilmember Fletcher believed it was mentioned in the P&P Com-
mittee, and was told it was included because it was included in
the Seismic Hazard Committee recommendations on which the P&P Com-
mittee based its recommendations.
Mr. Merman said it .would return to Council for the final along
with the ordinance.
Councilmember Fletcher said Council seemed to overlook the exter-
ior hazards question and she asked if that was dropped.
Mr. Herman said exterior hazards would be analyzed at the same
time as the bul di ngs, and since the City was no longer splitting
mandatory repair or analysis it would be .a one function program.
James Stone, Chairman of Historic Resources Hoard, said he was
available to answer questions regarding Item #6 of the motion.
Fred Webster, 511 Bay Road, was concerned the ordinance might not
go far enough with regard to hazardous waste and the storage of
hazardous materials. He was concerned that something important
was being overlooked.
Torn Harrison, 232 Homer Avenue, was a native Californian and lived
with earthquakes his entire life. There was more trouble in the
epicenter of an earthquake regardless of building preparation, and
outside the epicenter, there were possibilities for injury or dam-
age. At the first greeting of the seismic ,committee, he asked for.
a definition of the problem, and was yet to see a definition in
terms of the risk to Palo Alto of future earthquakes. There could
not be solutions without a definition of the problem, and the City
must know the possibilities of an earthquake because -legislation
needed to be clear on its.. intent. Earthquakes caused a variety of.
damages, and the seismic committee worked for two years, and there
was no full time member from the Fire Department or medical com-
munity. To address the problem of what an earthquake might .do to
Palo Alto, a committee- must be assembled to deal with the problems
to provide solutions. There were about .47 buildings of unrein-
forced concrete, and brick in the City, but if nothing was done for
five years, the marketplace and natural attrition would take care
of upgrading the buildings If the Building Department was hard-
nosed about new or reconstruction standards for erthquake pre-
paredness, the old buildings would be replaced. If the City knew
how many people were at risk by the ofd buildings, it a ade' sense
to let the, natural marketplace dictate what happened to those
4 6 0 0
6/04/84
buildings. His business did less than $250,000 per year and he
estimated it would cost'about $100,000 total to redo the two walls
he shared with two other businesses. The cost of engineering
stuoies and unforeseen expenses translated to about $1,250 per
month for 1U years. His overhead would suddenly increase by
1,25u per month, and not many businesses could stand that type of
an increase out of their earnings without increasing those earn-
ings. The invested money did not Improve the building or lowered
insurance.
Philippe Lehot, owned 407• California Avenue, which he believed
used to be City Hall and a jail for the City of Mayfield. It was
a reinforced building, and he associated himself with the comments
of the previous speaker.
Phyllis Munsey, 520 Ramona Street, was part owner in the family -
owned unreinforced masonry building on Ramona Street, which was
currently in the process of a seismic engineering report. It ap-
peared a retrofit of the building would be necessary and part -of
the report dealt with the fact that a moratorium was proposed for
historic buildings during a time when professionally prepared
reports should, be done in conjunction .with the engineering
reports, and she asked what that meant, and what the additional
expense would be to ner. She planned to go forward immediately
because of immediate problems other than seismic conditions.
Mr.. Herrman said there was an 18 month exemption prior to any
notice or action on historic buildings. Staff recommended that a
report be prepared at the City's expense in order to achieve uni-
form documents and criterion but there was nothing to prevent a
property . owner from going to the Architectural Review Board and
starting construction.
Ms. Munsey clarified that the professionally prepared report would
be done through the City.
Mr. Herrman said staff recommended it be followed through at the
next step, but it was up to Council to decide.
Ms. Munsey confirmed that recommendation was included in the mo-
tion.
Councilmen=,ber Bechtel said at the first P&P Committee meeting in
February there were several hundred people in the Council Chambers
and about 40 of wtrorrr spoke. to the Committee. There was an equally
large number at the next meeting, and there were many who partici-
pated during the Seismic Hazard Committee meetings. The result
was a good dialogue and understanding by the P&P and Seismic
Hazard Committees, property owners and tenants, which was why man-
datory repair of the buildings was not recommended... The recommen-
dation was mandatory inspection of buildings --not just the 47 un-
reinforced masonry buildings. She clarified that, fairly recently
constructed vui l di nys, such as tilt -ups, might be more dangerous
because they housed many people and tilt -ups were not necessarily
properly hooked together.. Some were not properlyanchored at roof
and walls so that some shaking could cause a total collapse.
Regarding toxics, staff and structural engi nee,rs were concerned
about the problems with some of the tilt -up buildings where toxics
were located, which was a reason for the mandatory inspection. It
was interesting those members of the Seismic Committee who were
initially opposed to anything being requited, found it appropriate
to make voluntary improvements as they became more knowledgeable.
The rationale for the historic information was to the benefit of
the property owner to provide any additional information which
might be a mitigating reason to ultimately not be required to make
improvements. The information would be useful to the property
owner as well .as the City. She supported the motion.
4.6 0 1
0/04/84'
vice mayor Levy asked for clarification of item aft related to the
lb month exception for historic buildings. There was a report
from the Historic Resources Board (HRB) which was not voted on
specifically by the P&P Committee and he asked what elements of
that proposal would be enacted as part of the motion.
Mr. Herman said the 18 month moratorium was to provide time to
complete the recommendations of the HRB detailed in that report.
Prior to the termination of the 18 month period, the HRB would
return to the Council with a recommendation.
Vice Mayor Levy asked if there would be the employment of a con-
sultant, which was item #3 in the HRB recommendation
Mr. Herman said that was the staff's recommendation.
Vice Mayor Levy asked if there was an estimate of those costs.
Mr. Herman said the costs were estimated at less than 510,000 and
further data estimated about $7,500.
Vice Mayor Levy asked why reports were requested on historic and
architectural characteristics of historic buildings.
Mr. Herman understood the idea was to pick out those unique inter-
ior and exterior points which made the building historic.
Vice Mayor Levy asked why it was part of a seismic hazard ordi-
nance.
Mr. Herman said it tied in with later recommendations from the HRB
that items such as facade easements might be necessary to preserve
those areas in a way to ensure they were not abated One way to
correct a faulty parapet was to remove it, which might not be the
best solution on a historic building. The HRB would return to the
Council with controls or recommendations as to how to upgrade a
historic building.
Mr. Stone said the question implied what would be learned thet was
not already known and what would be done with the information.
Inventoried historic buildings contained brief descriptions and
loose indications of what interested the consultant and the evalu-
ation committee, but they were inadequate to guide an owner,
structural engineer making an analysis, or a contractor or the
City in determining the best way to preserve as much as possible
in the event vari oua actions were undertaken by the owner volun-
tarily or otherwise. He believed the information was important
even in those cases where the buildings seemed relatively modest
in scale at first glance. Some owners were proud of their build-
ings from a historic standpoint, and others were not indifferent
but were likely to provide low priority to that aspect if there_.
were other weighting considerations. Consequently, an independent
brief consistent analysis of all the buildings in question would
make it far safer to arrive at any judgments. Ms. Munsey was the
owner of a building already on the historic inventory and included
under the historic preservation ordinance, and if she wished to
proceed tomorrow, it would be reviewed by the HRB and recommenda-
tions would be made. There was no hold up in that particular case
with respect to the plan. If historic information was received at
a timely point, it could be taken into consideration during struc-
tural analysis itself as illustrated by the question of what to do
with different kinds of ornamentation, and would be part of the
owner's and staff's analysis process from the outset. An owner
might ultimately be told that the building required certain
changes, and if that unsafe condition was to be removed, the goal
of the .Council was to ultimately remove the unsafe condition with-
out demolishing the building, but sound information was required
to do that.
4... 6 0 2
6/04/84
�� Mayor
Levy
i Z i e i J L borne
by Ulu City,
t
Vice E�1{i�C�}r clarified � �cd the costs would be uu+die L ,y,
and he asked if $7,500 or $10,000 represented the total estimated
cost.
Mr. Merman said it was the preliminary budget review figure for
the project.
Councilmember Fletcher was pleased with the outcome of the P&P
Committee recommendation and believed it identified the problems
and provided latitude for building owners to set schedules and ex-
tent of corrective ad.tion. It was open-ended to provide flexibil-
ity to property owners, and keep Council abreast of what was hap-
pening in order to determine whether the situation should continue
en the voluntary basis or whether an ordinance was needed.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel , an
aaditional Item 110, that building owners be required to notify.
tenants that a structural analysis has been completed and on file
with the City.
Councilmember Fletcher clarified the language was taken from page
14 of the staff report (CMR:123:4) dated February 2, 1984.
AME 41)MFUT PASSED unanimously.
Councilmember Fletcher said it made sense for buildings undergoing
extensive renovations to be brought up to earthquake standards at
`h- time of rernv tion=_and she asked whether it might be a wise
c.{�� �:liiv vs .
addition to the motion, or whether it would happen regardless.
Mr. Herman did not believe it would happen regardless, but at one
time, the requirement that 50 percent or more of the value of the
building be brought up to current code for lateral forces, was in-
cluded as a code amendment. Staff had no problem with the re-
quirement and deferred to the Seismic Hazard Committee Chairman
for comment.
Planning Commissioner John Northway said the Seismic Hazard Com-
mittee did not discuss the 50 percent requirement as part of the
procedure. A major renovation often included a change of use
which
- c __ . that buldings ngs be .brought up to exist-
ing � i c l l automatically � C la 3 1 G U that i 4t 4 u .s � .a ,
ing codes. The committee did not discuss or make recommendations
on major remodels of over 50 percent of the value, but when build-
ing owners spent that kind of money currently, the buildings were
upgraded. An example was the building at the corner of University
and High where lr..Keenan voluntarily upgraded to the Los Angeles
standards. When spending the money to do extensive remodeling,
seismic engineering was generally done to protect the i nvestr.ent,
but the- building was not required to be upgraded if the use was
not changed.
Councilmember Fletcher asked whether staff had discretionary au-
thority to require upgrading without the ordinance or whether it
should be included.
plr. Henan did not believe staff had administrative discretion and
such discretion would have to be in the code to show the archi-
tects and engineers.
Councilmember Fletcher asked if staff preferred to have that dis-
cretion included .in the ordinance.
Mr. Herman said yes, but clarified it was discussed by the commi t -
tee.
AMENDMENT: Cuuac11aeober Fletcher moved, seCondeal by Bechtel
to require mandatory upgrading when the cost of resoef ing, alter-
ations or repairs exceeded 50 percent of the replacement cost of
the building,
4 6 0 3
6/04/84
Couiie,iliiiembei' Renzel clarified that fair market value was a cur-
rent ain raisal as opposed to tax assessments under PT'opusitiun
13.
Mr. Herman said it was the replacement construction value on a
square foot basis as published monthly and did not include line
costs.
Vice Mayor Levy said the concept was not discussed at the P&P Com-
mittee and he was uncomfortable voting on it without the benefit
of considerable public input. He preferred to refer the item back
to the P&P Committee for further discussion.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by
Cobb, to refer the matter to the. P&P Committee rather than an ac-
tive part of the main motion.
Councilmember Sutorius appreciated the spirit of the amendment to
amendment, but . referral to the committee might take a relatively
precise item and consume more time than necessary. Council was
airecting the City Attorney to draft an ordinance, and he believed
there was ample time for staff, interested public and the Seismic
Committee to give further input. The record reflected an existing
City requirement on a change of use or ownership when such
when � JY1r i1 ix re-
modeling modeling occurred, and it was already indicated that an individual
property owner undertaking those financial modifications generally
initiated the retrofit. He did not believe the item would turn
out to be controversial or one which required belaboring at a P&P
Committee meeting. He would not support the amendment to amend-
ment
Councilmember Bechtel understood that the requirement was previ-
ously contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code and was deleted.
She agreed that staff was being directed to prepare an ordinance
and that no final decision was being made.
Councilmember Renzel said if the value of construction exceeded 50
percent of the replacement value of the entire structure, it meant
it was physically more than 50 percent of the entire structure
being added, remodeled, or rebuilt in order to even fall into the
requirement. When someone was doing that extensive of repairs or
change, it was reasonable for the structure to b: brought up to
proper standards. If the standard was 50 percent of the replace-
ment value and construction was underway, the cost of the current
construction would .define the replacement value of everything
else, and it would be less than the replacement value because of
handwork that might have been in the previous structure. She did
not know what value there would be in a referral back to Commit-
tee, and did not support the amendment to amendment.
Councilmember Fletcher associated herself with the comments of
Councilmember Sutorius.
Councilmember Cobb asked if the 50 percent number was a sensible.
Mr. Herman said the 50 percent figure was briefly discussed during
the Committee process and was included in one draft of the ordi-
nance. The Committee believed the 50 percent'. level was high and
not many buildings would fall into i t, but he did not believe a
vote was taken, A rate of 25 to 30 percentwas being considered,
and he believed 50 percent was reasonable.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 1-8, Levy voting
cayeew
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously.
4 6 0 4
6/04/84
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Woolley roved, seconded by Sutorius,
that staff be directed to prepare a proposal for a density trans-
fer study to apply to historic structures in Categories 1 -IV in
the downtown area and the proposal include cost alternatives and a
mechanism for coordinating the study with the Downtown Study and
Historic Resources Board Study.
Counci l member Woolley believed the 18 month exception portion of
the main motion would be facilitated by the study, and during that
period other items recommended by the HRB could be pursued. Item
#Z, of the April 11, 1984 minutes of the HRB, was a recommendation
that the density or air rights transfer concept study immediately
be authorized to help mitigate financial strains on owners of
buildings of architectural or historic significance. Timing was
important, and if the idea was to be useful, it was better to
study it now rather than recommend review of the idea at the end
of the 18 month period. The two events should come out even. She
did not believe its effect would be detrimental since density was
being transferred not increased in an area. Dependent on how the
plan worked out, it could conceivably decrease density because
sometimes the owners of the_rights were not allowed to use 100
percent of what was purchased.
Councilmember Witherspoon supported the amendment.
Councilmember Bechtel said the P&P Committee discussed density
transfers at earlier meetings and related tc the Downtown Study,
and she believed there were earlier motions to delete the concept.
She opposed the motion because she had a problem with the density
transfer concept becauseshe was concerned about where the density
would be transferred and the consequences.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Bechtel, and
said zoning was temporal and there might be times in the future
when another City Council or Planning Commission found it neces-
sary to change the coning in a particular area. It was compli-
cated when development rights were transferred to an area that
might get rezoned, and keeping track of the meaning of those
aevelopment rights would be difficult. There were problems with
the entire planning process when the ability to build was shifted
from one part of town to another, and from a planning perspective,
it was not a process she wanted the Council to pursue. She
believed it was only used in New York City which was no recom-
mendation in her opinion.
Vice Mayor Levy supported the amendment because . it was only a
study and increased obstacles were being put in the way of con-
tinued historic buildings in Palo Alto. The seismic ordinance
would undoubtedly mandate more expenditures for those unusually
small buildings, and the ordinance provided a reverse incentive to
the owners of the building to demolish an historically worthy
building. The City must begin to provide incentives to owners of
historic buil..dings and if developed with the cautions expressed by
Counci lmembers Bechtel and Renzel, it could be a carrot, and the
concept should be studied.
ayof Klein did not support density transfers, arid believed its
result would be increased density in the downtown. The Council
was under increased pressure from all parts of the community about
too much building downtown, and he believed there were other ways
to, preserve the City's historic buildings.
Councilmember Witherspoon referred to, page 12 of CMR:123:4 which
listed the eight buildings being discussed, their square faotages
and floor area ratio. She assured the study would be on the im-
pacts of density transfers as applied to those eight buildings
and believed it would be unthreatening and the fine line on which
property owners decided whether to' keep them.
4 6 fi 5
6/04/84
Councilmember Sutorius said he seconded the amendment because he
believed it was carefully crafted and had no associated threats.
It provided the opportunity to deal with the situation that many
historic structures were built under density and the alternative
land use had a far greater threat toward demolition. The poten-
tial study could provide actionable criteria and a valuable pro-
cess and he encouraged its support.
AMEMDMEMT PASSED by m vote of 5-4, Fletcher, Renzel, Klein,
Bechtel voting "no,'
Councilmember Witherspoon said the staff report indicated that
structural inspections would be mandatory, and she asked if the
ordinance would contain guidelines in terms of structural factors
to be inspected in order to ensure consistency in town.
Mr. Herman said criteria would be spelled out in the ordinance.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the report review fee would
return to the Council for discussions.
Mr. Herman said there was an existing fee in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code of 3U an hour for plan checking fees.
Councilmember Cobb did not believe the City would ever get 100
percent compliance with the Los Angeles standard, but complimented
those involved for avoiding the mandatory clause which might ulti-
mately result in the destruction of historic buildings and greater
intensification of land on which those buildings sat.' He hoped
that would be kept in mind and believed there would be good com-
pliance.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously.
COUNCIL RECESSEU TO CLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:50 .m.
ITEM 010 PROPOSAL TO LIMIT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CS AND GM
TarrrTt,
.
Councilmember Cobb said a number of property owners asked whether
the item was noticed because most learned about it from the news-
paper. He believed an action to limit office development in the
CS and GM zones should be noticed to the people involved and asked
for comment.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the newspaper was the
only practical means by which to notify such a large group of
people. It would take time to generate the list for direct mail
notices since it included many properties throughout town.
Cour►ci l sernber Cobb said there was a moratorium possibility in some
areas but the downtown area was the most impacted by cfflcc -__--
tures. He was concerned about limiting off l ce devel opment in a
piecemeal manner even though it covered a lot of ground because it
might net be equitable, or people with commercial properties would
be treated differently..
Mr. Freeland said the proposal affected all CS and GM areas. Cgm-
merci al derel opment was al lowed in the CC zone, and. a study of
the zone was c:oipl eted With the California Avenue Study.. A study
of the CC zone downtown was i n, progress, and the only remai of ng CC,
zoned areas in Palo Al to --were .Stanford Shopping Center, the i,mme-
di ately adjacent parcel =.by San Franci squi to Creek, and Town and
Country :Village.. Through separate initiation/ Steff=-considered a
-_change in the CC district to limit the intensity -of projects - in
shopping center situations Which would _shortly go to the Planning
Cdnmiss1on. Even. though -not presently proposed for incluSion in
themorateri um,:all of_ the CC area, with the exception of the one
-hear -San i` ranci squito Creek, were being dealt.- with through
4 b 0.5
6/04/84
sepdrdtely initidted dctlons, did he believed all commercial zones
in town were treated similarly with the steps being tailored to
the circumstances of the different zones.
Councilmember Witherspoon d•id not understand the comment on page 1
of the staff report (CMR:316:4), "to avoid a repeat of the situa-
tion" in terms of the ARB application for an office building.
Mr. Freeland said staff was surprised when two applications,
totaling 60,0110 square feet, were before the ARB for an office
development in the area along Park . Boulevard where staff assumed
the use pattern was pretty well set and not a potential office
center The situation pointed out the potential for rapid change
in presently inactive areas, and staff did not want to be sur-
prised again.
counci lmember Witherspoon asked how long the moratorium was pro-
posed.
Mr. Freeland said a six month moratorium would provide time for
staff to process zoning changes, and hopefully have them in place
prior to the end of the six months.
Counci lmember Fletcher asked whether the moratorium only applied
in office developments, or whether research and development was
included.
Mr. Freeland said the only change limited medical, professional,
and general office buildings, which were not allowed in the CS or
GM zones, but were allowed in LM districts. The research and
development classification was separate under the zoning ordi-
nance.
Anne Ercolani, [U40 Ash, represented Anne Godfrey and Betty
Meltzer who supported the moratorium but believed the downtown
area should be included in a separate moratorium because it was
where most building was happening.
Jon Parsons, 323 Macl;;ane, supported the moratorium even though .it
contained an escape valve and allowed the construction of 5,000
square feet. Palo Alto was dealing with a phenomenon .which would
have repercussions far into the future. Considering the current
pace and scope of development, he believed it was appropriate for
the City to take stock of where it wanted to be in a comprehensive
manner. The moratorium was an excellent step in the right direc-
tion; it was time bound, limited, had the escape valve of allowing
construction, and provided the opportunity to figure out what was
going on before proceeding further down the path. He shared some
of the concerns regarding the equal applicability of the
restraints and urged that the moratorium be expanded to include
all development regardless of the zone.
Bob Moss, 4010 Urge, said the Barron Park Association submitted a
letter to .the City Council which was on file in the City Clerk's
office. Staff hod many special studies, and that evening was
assigned the special.: study of density transfers for historic
buildings. There were so many unusual assignments in the past
couple of years that the normal annual Comprehensive Plan update
due that year could not be done. It was appropriate to pause,
step back and provide an opportunity to the public, staff, Plan-
ning Commission, and City Council to reexamine the intensification
of office uses particularly ip areas not normally believed to be
office intensive zones such as the urban lane areas, the areas
along El Camino, and the (iM zones. If the proliferation of of-
fices were not prevented, Palo Alto would lose control of land use
and zoning, the yobs -housing imbalance, and traffic in the City
because offices would be springing up in areas which, when origin-
ally zoned, had theconcept of - being commercial. The basic struc-
ture of the City_ would be thrown irrevocably' o +t of balance. He
believed 5,000 square feet was a substantial office building,
4. 6 0 7
6/04/84
and according to the table in the CAE zone review, 5,000 square
feet would have encompassed most of the existing offices in the
neiyhborhood commercial zones. The staff recommendation was rea-
sonable and realistic, and his only concerns were that it should
encompass the CC zone, which had the most potential and most
existing office growth, and that the cutoff date should be the is-
suance of a building permit --not the submission of a concept to
the ARB. During his campaign for City Council last year, the pro-
liferation of office space in Palo Alto, particularly the downtown
and California Avenue areas,; was the issue which came up most
often. He heard occasional complaints about offices along El
Camino from the people most directly impacted, but everyone City-
wide mas upset about the office development in the CC zones down-
town, and he believed it was important to control. He urged that
the ordinance be adopted, and that staff return as soon as possi-
ble with a similar ordinance for the CC zones.
Ms. Ercolani, represented the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Associa-
tion, and understood the Council's role was to set policy to guide
the City's operations and development. Over the past three to
four years, one proposed development after another was before the
Council for. a decision on a specific project. With citizens ob-
jecting to density, traffic, and noise and developers wanting to
build mostly within the guidelines of the zoning, it was obvious
that Council was overdue in looking at its overall policies re-
yardinco office development so citizens and developers would know
its direction. A.process could be established and relied upon to
implement those policies. Imposing a moratorium would not neces-
sarily preclude building, but Council would have the time and op-
portunity to look at potential build out under the zoning, analyze
its impacts, decide what changes, if any, were necessary, and im-
plement those changes before development occurred. Another sug-
gestion was to add another step to the approval process by requir-
ing Council to review every project for a certain period of time,
but Council was already overburdened and citizens and developers
would have to attend the meetings. There was some feeling that
too many moratoria indicated poor planning, but a lot of the
recent development was a surprise to all. It was believed that
development would fill in the empty spaces, but perfectly good old
buidinys were being torn down and replaced by larger ones. If
that growth continued with the associated traffic and parking
problems, the character of the community would irreversibly change
and already prohibitive housing costs would go up. The major is-
sue in the last election was growth of office development, and
citizens expressed their concerns. The Council had an opportunity
to respond to those citizen concerns by supporting the proposal
with an amendment to include the CC . area downtown or i ni:i ate a
separate moratorium. Office growth was most obvious downtown, and
current parking restrictions imposed by the Council were believed
to oe tantamount to a ''moratorium, but At the May 3 ARB meeting
alone, 7U,UU0 square .feet of offices were proposed for the down-
town area. Since the City was spending many dollars to study the
downtown area over the next year, a moratorium was necessary so
that options were not precluded by projects built during the
study. There was legal precedent for the cutoff date to be the
issuance of a building permit, which she preferred, but otherwise,
ARB approval should be a cutoff for any moratorium so that hastily
thrown together plans, which eight be dramatically changed by the
end of the approval process, would not be encouraged. She urged
Council to review the. City's policies an office development ,by
adopting the proposal as amended to include the CC zones down-
town.
Uenny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, supported the staff recom-
mendation, and believed all properties shown on the maps attached.
to the -staff report, were vulnerable to, redevelopment. She . was
concerned about housing and increased pressure on the existing
housing .'market, and did not want to see thesmaller service indus-
trial and service commercial_. businesses, which zones provided the
last bastion for the small businesses, forced out of town. ' The GM
4 6 0 8
6/04/84
area on San Antonio Hoed was complicated by large developments and
many small ones. The small ones provided a number of important
services to commuters, and tended to keep the bayshore approach at
a low intensity. She could not conceive of heavy intensive use
being developed on the 8ayshore approach, and supported the other
speakers who said the City needed to look at the downtown CC zone
for inclusion in the proposed moratorium or its own moratorium as
soon as possible. _ In the housing element study, there was a
figure of 553 housing units in Palo Alto being new since 1980, and
there were about 6,000 jobs added within that same period. If the
approximately 1.5 jobs per household and the 553 new housing units
housed 1.5 jobs„ about 823 working people in Palo Alto were served
by those 553 units. More arithmetic revealed that from those
6,000 workers, a tiny amount of housing was added, and a huge
housing deficit was created for 3,437 people. Low and moderate
income housing and some new ,rousing was Added, but she could not
say how many former tenants of low and moderate income housing
were displaced. The City got in that position by adding 2,000,000
square feet of commercial space .to Palo Alto in those four short
years, and it was interesting to note the San Antonio Road area
where actual employment from 1980 to 1984 nearly doubled the pro-
jections to 1990, and the same was true in the downtown. Accord-
ing to the intensification study, in the four years, 350,000
square feet of office went into downtown, and of that, only 14,000
was retail. Adding the 70,00U square feet of office now at the
AKb, which would likely be approved, there was 420,000 square feet
of office in Palo Alto in the downtown only. It was critical to
include the CC area in the moratorium. She saw the moratorium as
a time out to look at what was happening and make a policy purely
on its own merits because Palo Alto was in a downward spiral.
Tim Ames, 719 Rosewood Drive, was an attorney with offices in Palo
Alto, and represented Alsberry Mechanical Corporation, whose of-
fices were located on San Antonio Road and in Palo Alto for 42
years. Alsberry was a construction business with a sheet metal
shop and -plumbing business. Alsberry recently entered into an
critical agreement with Wells Fargo Bank for financing which
required that Alsberry sell a vacant piece of property located at
824 San Antonio Road within the -.next year, and the proposed mora-
torium would affect the marketability of that property. He did
not have enough notice to prepare an alternative, and appreciated
Councilmember Cobbs comments regarding noticing. The one-half
acre lot on San Antonio was encompassed by the blanket ordinance,
and he believed more notice would have resulted in more interest
and input. He urged further Council consideration of the 5,000
square foot specific condition as to whether it fit the needs of
the people in the various situations. He did not believe a simple
rule could be applied across the City without some adverse . ef-
fects.
Jack Wheatley, 2240 Cowper, associated himself with the previous
speakers regarding notice and that more study was needed in terms
of an interim policy. He began the process on a piece of property
over a year ago, which was held in lesser use, loss of income,
six month moratorium, andan extension, and that stimulated growth
in areas not already closed. The architects in Palo Alto were
busy because everyone was scared that tomorrow there would be a
new moratorium to encompass their area. The City needed to plan
by fairness and- reason, and he did not believe there was are emer-
gency, and that more citizen and staff input was necessary. He
hoped Council would consider ways to stimulate affordable housing
growth in the City.
MAYOR KLE IK RE ITEMS TO BE. CONSIDERED AFTER 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Klein proposed that Council complete its agenda.
4 0 0 9
6/04/84
RETURN TO ITL i rf1u, PROPOSAL TO LIMIT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguoa, supported the moratorium. An emergency
measure was controversial and required a clear need, which he
believed existed due to the explosive growth of offices in the
City at large. The Council and Planning Commission gave staff
many assignments, whose time was limited, to carefully draft
required zoning modifications, and he believed the moratorium was
appropriate for six months. He was a member of the Downtown Study
Committee established by the City, and as an individual member of
the study group, hie requested that Council follow the staff recom-
mendation. The work of the Downtown Study Committee would deal
with office development and possible limitations to such develop-
ments, and its conclusions --although dealing specifically with the
downtown area --would be applicable to other commercial areas of
the City. The work was to be completed by the end of the year,
and its conclusions would be available to the Council. He did not
believe further office development should be allowed while the
study was underway. There was need for the moratorium, and he
urged its support.
David Kelly, 1009 High Street, owned a small design firm in down-
town Palo Alto and was presently in three buildings on University
Avenue, Bryant Street and High Street. He wanted to be in the
same building, and bought a piece of property at 975 High. A con-
sultant was hired to review the zoning, and he entered into a
financial agreement with an architectural firm and others to reno-
vate the 6,400 square foot building. The building was two doors
from his house, and he believed his neighbors preferred a tasteful
building, as opposed to the present garage. He did not want to
proliferate office buildings in downtown Palo Alto, but renovating
an existing building for his design firm did not seem that major
an event.
Eric Richert, 5a5 Ramona Street, was an architect who represented
himself and David Kelly Design. He understood and supported ef-
forts to reassess development potential in the City's various zon-
ing districts and the need to stabilize while the reassessment was
conducted. A moratorium and a 5,000 square foot limit on offices
applied indiscriminately constituted a blunt tool that could harm
as well as benefit those efforts, and that harm might be avoided
if the moratorium was applied with sensitivity and skill. He
specifically referred to the CS zoned properties along Alma, High,
and Emerson Streets between Forest and Addison, and said over the
past several years, there were many renovations of old buildings
in the area for professional office use. Originally built for in-
dustrial or autornoti ve uses, tiro _buildings were attractive to a
variety of smaller professional firms as an alternative to the
more typical office space offered elsewhere in' Palo Alto_ and the
office space now being constructed downtowt t. It resulted in the
preservation and upgrading of many .older buildings and a locking
1 n of the existing extent of development on those properties, and
a stahlilization as sought by the proposed estudy. In addition,
professional firm` with strong ties to Palo Alto and commitments
to the co i unity found a location within their ecdnomi c needs to
physically establish themselves _fc r the long-term future. He pro-
posed that the moratorium and 5,000 ' square foot limit not be im-
posed on the renovation or reconstruction of existing buildings
and existing floor area. Permitting such seconstructi on ac -ti vi ty•
would not undermine the intent of the proposed moratorium,. would
encourage a healthy :renovation and restoration trend, and would
contribute to the stability sought in those zones.
Ron Hall, 158 Park Avenue, said a moratorium on development in the
GM. and rS zones was netessaryi because commercial offi a develop-
ment in those zones exceeded all expectations in the community=.
There was a 1 of -of . pubi i c input' on development i ssoes. -oven the
past couple of years.due to the impacts of current development On
parkin, traffic flow, and .the jobs -housing imbalance, and he
4 6 1 0
6/04/84
suggested consideration of the cumulative impact of high density
oftice development in those zones, which was crucial in order to
li perform planning.
Gordon Finwall, 181 Lytton, associated himself with the comments
of Jack Wheatley. He owned property at 975 High, and was in the
process of selling it to Mr. David Kelly, and felt converting a
forger auto body shop and existing building to a design studio
would be an asset to the community in terms of design and reduced
traffic. He hoped Council action would not preclude that type of
proposed use. He had no notice of the proposed moratorium and was
advised at 5:00 p.m. that evening that the matter would be before
the Council. He urged that Council take more time to review its
approach to moratoria in order to give property owners and small
business people the opportunity to be heard.
Councilmember Cobb was troubled that property owners were not
noticed for the emergency measure, and asked how much time it
would take -to notice the property owners.
Uirector of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
it would take several weeks to generate the mailing labels, and
would delay the process to early to mid -July.
Counci 1 ';.ember Cobb asked what mechanism, short of a moratorium,
would have similar effects while staff reviewed the ordinance and
made necessary changes.
Mr. Freeland said part of the requested action rags a referral to
the Planning Commission of changes in the CS and zones, which
process would include full public hearings. There would then be
City Council hearings so that the exact requirements, i . e. , 5,000
square feet or some other limitations as the basic restriction
curing the period of time the studies took place, would all be
debated in full public hearings at the Planning Commission and
City Council. They were talking about having a moratorium in
place during the immediately coming months while the more perma-
nent restrictions were formulated, and the only risk of no mora-
torium was that people could make applicatio' Through the process
while the- other zone changes were in progress. It was possible
for the Council- to express its interest that no major projects
were welcome and the ARB could, through that process, use its
powers to refer projects to the Council, which process would be
cumbersome and would discourage some applications at best. Once
received for architectural_ review the project had to be dealt
with on that basis, and Council might find itself having to deal
with projects it felt obliged to continue. It was a question of
exposure during the three to four month period when changes to the
uasic ordinances were in process. Staff originally requested six
months in the event of unforeseen problems.
Counci 1 men ber Cobb asked if a major effort might result in the
entire process taking only three, months.
Mr. Freeland could not make that commitment because although staff
could get a report to the Planning Commission that fast, public
hearings could result in important questions, which made It' hard
to commit to sucha tight schedule
Mayor Klein- asked whether it was possible to grandfather in. a sec-
tion to the -moratorium that only applied to projects which
received ARB approval prior to June 4, 1964, --in the event Council
continued the -item to dl l ow: for wider noti de:
City Attorney U1 ane Lee said yes,.
Counci l member fl etcher said the property could be used for manu-
facturi ng and other commercial uses plus offices of 5,000 square
feet, which was generous considering the explosion in office,_jobs
in Palo Alto -and the crisis being_ created by the office;;:
4 6 1 1
6/04/84.
employment,. Nothing was being taken away ---development was still
allowed --but office space was limited. It was a reasonable
mechanism to allow Council to get a handle on a situation before
it reached crisis proportions, and she commended staff for taking
the initiative.'
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to
adopt the staff recommendation as follows,
I. Refer to the Planning Commission the consideration of Zoning
Ordinance amendments to place limitations on the size of
allowable office projects to the CS and GM Districts;
2, Adopt as an emergency action an ordinance placing a six month
moratorium on office developments of 5,000 square feet or more
in CS and GM zones; and
3. Instruct staff to initiate a series of area studies to give
detailed consideration to the land use policies for all areas
affected by the proposed office limitation.
ORDINANCE entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ICLTO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM FOR SIX MONTHS ON THE
PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEW OFFICE USES OF 5,000
SQUARE FEET OR MORE IN. THE CS AND GM ZONES AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY'
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Fletcher's and
staff's assessment of the severity of the problem, and several
members of the public who spoke to the increase in office con-
struction and that Palo Alto was double its 1990 projections for
employment expansion. The capacity of the City's sewage treatment
plant was marginal and its 1992 capacity projections were based on
Palo Alto's residential population increase projected to 1992.
The City's employment created the largest part of its sewage,
which facet was significant in terms of what happened with the
City's land use. With the burgeoning development, she feared the
City's own capacity projections for sewage were grossly overesti-
mated because they were based on population increases which the
City did not expect. There were many serious demands in the com-
munity for electricity and housing, and if Council did not take
hold of the problem and deal with it prudently and unpressured,
the "chickens would come home to roost" which would be unpleasant
and costly to the public of Palo Alto.
Councilmember Witherspoon requested that the motion be divided
because she did not intend to support the moratorium.
Councilmember Woolley asked whether the moratorium covered the
downtown south area, and whether it was part of the Downtown
Study.
Mr. Freeland said the downtown south area was part of the Downtown
Study and was ..covered by the moratorium. Within the Maximart
moratorium, the Maximar-t site and some smaller parcels along
Lambert Street were included. A study of the area concluded that
existing land uses along Lambert were appropriate, and the only.
concern was the potential in the CS zone for office development.
The cross -hatched area would return = to Council with the rest of
the "SP spur area" for additional consideration of the most appro-
priate ways to restrict uses other than the types already there.
The reports on the Maxirart site and .the GM zone were going to the
Planning Commission for hearings on June 6, 1x'44, and he saw no
need to further study either area.
Councilmember Woolley asked how a situation where the Downtown
Study was completed before the study proposed might be resolved
without haviny to wait until the entire study was complete.
4 .6 1 2
6/04/84
Mr. F reel aead said if the uowutown Study ,..deteriti.i ned the area was
appropriate for offices of more than 5,000 square feet, staff
would initiate a zone change to cover the area. As the areas were
reviewed, the restrictions might be changed or lifted.
Councilmember Woolley shared Councilmember Cobb's concern about
property owners being noticed, and was also concerned about the
length of time it would take. If the matter went to the Planning
Commission and returned to Council where a zoning change was
passed, she wanted to ensure time was limited on the zoning change
so that it might be reviewed within a limited period of time.
Mr, Freeland said consideration of a sunset restriction could be
done when the matter returned to the Council.
Councilmember Cobb said when the matter returned from the Planning
Commission, he intended to move the inclusion of a specific sunset
clause in the zoning changes because he believed that by the time
all the various downtown studies and Comprehensive Plan were
completed, C6unci 1 should be in a position to decide whether the
changes were correct or whether there should be more stringent
changes. He was troubled by the lack of notice and even though
there were many property owners, it was not a good way for the
City to do business.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb droved, seconded by Klein, to con-
tinue staff recommendation #2, (ordinance only) for one month with
the intent that any resulting moratorium be retroactive to June 4,
1984, to include any project not receiving ARB approval.
Councilmember Cobb believed the amendment would provide the City
with the protection it needed and an opportunity to give people
proper notice.
Mayor Klein asked if within the amendment there was a provision
that direct mail notice be given to the landowners within the
affected zones.
Councilmember Cobb said yes.
Councilmember Sutorius said section two of the proposed ordinance
read "notwithstanding this moratorium shall not apply to a pro-
posed new office use:, application for architectural review
pursuant to Chapter 1`6.48 was received before June 5, 1984." The
amendment changed that language significantly, and he asked that
it be reconsidered so that ,.the -language might be in keeping with
what was already included in the proposed ordinance. The words
used in the amendment were "approved by the ARB," which was not
the intent of the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Klein said Councilmember Sutorius was correct. The language
-suggested was not mandatory, but precatory since the item was
being continued. The language suggested that the grandfather date
be June 4, 19n4, and was a statement of intent because the actual
ordinance might not pass when considered in July.
Councilmember Sutorius did not want to leave a false impression on
therecord as to what Council intended by its vote. He intended
to support an ultimate action if worded as proposed by staff.
Councilmember .Cobb concurred with the comments of Mayor Klein:.
Councilmember Renzel was prepared to act that evening and opposed
the continuance. The intent of grandfathering projects was when a
great deal of effort was exerted and work was completed, and
application to the ARB did not necessarily reach that stage. She
was unhappy that soase Councilmembers considered ARB application as
a cutoff point because it could mean significant increases in
office space just with what was on -hand.
4 6 1 3
6/04/84
Ccuncilmember Fletcher caked rue t.lartfication that if Council
continued the action fur d month, it would not get referred to the
Planning Commission for an adds ti o'nal month.
Mayor Klein said Councilmember Witherspoon requested that the mo-
tion be divided into three parts to be voted on separately. Coun-
cilmember Cobb's amendment to continue only applied to Item #2,
regarding the moratorium. If all three parts of the motion were
affirmatively supported, the Item #1 referral to the Planning Com-
mission would take place immediately.
Councilmember Fletcher clarified that the moratorium would not go
into effect,, but would be retroactively grandfathered if it passed
in a month.
Mayor Klein said yes.
Councilmember Fletcher was concerned that between now and July,
people could get into the process.
Mayor Klein saio Council was on record teat the cutoff date was
June 4, 1984.
Councilmember Fletcher clarified thet it was an emergency mora-
torium.
Mayor Klein said Council's ability to enact grandfather dates was
wide, and he only wanted Council to be fair. Council never really
used its total 1 egal authority, and if public notice was given,
the June 4, 1984 date was fair.
Councilmember Fletcher said public notice was given.
Co',rnci 1 merrrt►er Bechtel believed the proposal was a defacto mora-
torium because the nicety of allowing an additional mailed notice
to property owners, made the proposal difficult for staff. If, in
a week, application was made for ARB approval of a 10,000 square
foot office project in one of the areas, and the applicant was
told that Council had not yet adopted, bu't indicated its intent,
to adopt a moratorium, but it was too late because it was after
June S. The message was unclear, and staff would not know what to
do until Council decided whether to adopt the ordinance. She was
unsure about the clarity of delaying for a month with a retro-
active date.
Mayor Klein believed Council was being clear, and one of its chief
responsibilities was that people not only be given legal notice,
but have the feeling that the notice was adequate even if went
beyond what the law required. His vote was not committed, and the
amedment would provide more public testimony for consideration.
If more people wanted to testify, the Council would listen.
Councilmember Cobb believed staff's message to potential appli-
cants would be clear that any project application received .after
the subject date would be at considerable risk and might not go
anywhere because Council was considering .a moratorium retroactive
to a date that would preclude the project. If a .land rush oc-
curred, he believed it would have the effect of making the mora-
torium more likely. The message was simples and it probably was a
uefacto moratorium, but it bought the same time and provided the
opportunity for Council to review the proposed moratorium, some of
the ordinance changes, and get public input. Something as sweep-
ing as the proposed ordinance needed to be done in a way that all
involved believed it was done fairly, and the continuance provided
every protection.
Vice Mayor Levy supported the amendmet because it was fair and -
did not change the substance of the moratorium which still used
June 4 as its base date. It was important for the public to be
given every chance to respond to .the sweeping measure.
4 6 1 4
6/04/84
Councilmember Renzel asked what obligations the City was under to
process applications received during the interim period, and what
would happen to something that actually went through the ARB and
received approval.
Ms. Lee said the City was under continued obligation to process
projects, and if a project had not been issued a building permit,,
and substantial construction in good faith had not occurred pur-
suant to that building permit, the project would stop wherever it
was.
Councilmember Renzel said in the meantine. any Council vote that
evening expressing intent to pass the moratorium in the future
whether ray emergency ordinance or not would not have any binding
effect on the process itself which might create binding obliga-
tions on the part of the City.
Me. Lee concurred with the first part of Councilmember Renzel's
statement, but was unclear in terms of "binding obligations."
Councilmember Renzel clarified that the process might reach some
stage where the moratorium would no longer apply despite Council
intent.
Ms. Lee said in the practical sense, it was hard to conceive that
it would happen if the timing was as set forth that evening. It
would be difficult to get a project all the way through if appli-
cation were not already made, and she deferred to the Planning
Department.
Mr. Freeland said it would be difficult, but not impossible, and
it depended on what might happen if and when the moratorium was
passed. If it was not passed as an emergency ordinance, it took
another 45 days to take effect, and there was a slim chance that a
new application could be reviewed and construction started.
Councilmember Woolley said the City did not have much choice ex-
cept a time out. She often objected to stopping projects once
they made applications for approval, and agreed that "changing the
rules in the middle of the gage" was unfair. She suggested that a
time out was necessary to change the rules for everyone. She sup-
ported the amendment because she believed the City needed to hear
from more people as to fine tuning of the process.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Fletcher, Renzel voting
"no."
Councilmember Cobb was concerned about the CC zone growth downtown
and whether the City was being fair by not applying the moratorium
to that zone. The Ci.ty's credibility was involved, and it must be
done correctly, and in a way which made -sense and applied the same
standards to all developers.
Mr. Freeland said the area of the City experiencing the office
development was,.. without question the CC district. There was lit-
tle actual office development in those areas proposedfor change;,
but staff saw those areas as a great potential change. Staff did'.
not bring forward the downtown CC zone because a public study
process was already underway for the downtown, and the only ques-
tion was whether development should be stopped while those other
processes were undertaken..
Councilmember Cobb said there was a public study process underway,
out notating to stop development. He was troubled by imposing a
moratorium on property owners where no significant development was
underway, and having no moratorium in the downtown where heavy
development was being experienced and where a property owner could
put up an office building regardless. He could understand the
first property owner's feeling of getting the "fuzzy end of the
lollipop.
4 6 1 5
6/04/84
Councilmember Fletcher invited Councilmember Cobb to include -the
CC zone wticn it returned in July. -
FIRST PART OF MOTION TO REFER ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO
PLACE LIMITATIONS ON THE SIZE OF ALLOWABLE OFFICE PROJECTS IN THE
CS AND GM DISTRICT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIOW PASSED
unanimously.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to
add the CC zone to the moratorium.
Mayor Klein did not support the amendment, and believed previous
actions were sufficient for the time the studies were in effect.
He was concerned that Council was going wild with moratoria, and
believed there were differences between the CS and GM zones, and
that the CC zone was intended for a certain amount of office
space. The Council might be able to reduce the amount of develop-
ment in the downtown area, but the area did not have many alterna-
tive uses. Uoing everything by moratorium held out a promise to
the people that there would be no more office development down-
town, which promise Council could not keep,
Councilmember Sutorius was inclined to be in accord with the
remarks of Mayor Klein, and asked staff to calculate the square
footage of office buildings that were coming through for the
downtown CC zone after the imposition of the parking ordinance
control.
Mr. Freeland said tnere was one large new project on Lytton Avenue
before the ARB, and he believed less than 100,000 square feet came
in since the imposition of the on -site parking requirement.
Councilmember Sutorius clarified that the cases which went through
were known to be in some applicant stage at the time the hearings
were held on the on -site parking requirements.
Mr.-. Freeland said the large development on Lytton Avenue --not the
University National Bank --was one about which staff was unaware at
the time.
Councilmember Sutorius opposed the amendment to include the CC
zone, and fully expected it would have further discussion as a
result of the continuance. He did not rule out the potential that
something might transpire, but did not want to include it in the
motion.
Councilmember Fletcher did not intend to include areas which were
already studied, such as California Avenue. She purposely left
out the CM • zone, and did not intend to include the Embarcadero/
East 8ayshore area which was already studied. It would not put a
stop to development because it would still allow offices up to
5,000 square feet.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Fletcher, and
for those\who believed the downtown was taken care of, the mora-
torium downtown obviously did not deter at least 100,000 square
feet of offices. It was easy to see the potential for more in
that area, and while Council adopted the more limited parking
requirements as part of the moratorium she was not persuaded
those parking requirements were adequate, and it would no:t be
known until it was seen how they operated. The whole problem of
what was going in was not solved with the parking requirements,
and options were taken away from an area currently under study as
that much change took place. It was important for each Council -
member to take responsibility for what was happening, and in terms
of fairness to property owners, they had the current uses, and
lots of potential within the limits established in the . zones, and
Council should start thinking about fairness to the Palo Alto tag -
payer who had to pay for road improvements, higher';electric bills
because the City exceeded its current allocation, millions of
dollars to expand the sewage treatment plant because the City
would start discharging secondary and untreated effluent, and the
City was quickly running into problems in many areas. Everyone
must recognize that Council, was responsible..
Gouncilrrcember Bechtel clarified that the motion included the CC
zone strictly for the University Avenue area.
Councilmember Fletcher said yes.
Counciime:aber Cobb clarified that if the CC zone was added, those
property -owners would also have to be noticed.
tr. Freeland said yes, but in that case the mailing lists already
existed, and there was not much research involved.
AMENDMENT TO ADD CC ZONE AS IT APPLIED TO DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA
FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Fletcher, Renze1 ; Bechtel, Cobb voting
"aye.'
THIRD PART OF MOTION FOR STAFF TO INITIATE A SERIES OF AREA
STUDIES TO GIVE DETAILED CONSIDERATION TO THE LAND USE POLICIES
FOR ALL AREAS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED (OFFICE LIMITATION PASSED
unanimously,
ITEM #11, EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING OF ALL APPLI-
vrtr7F1PROVALS 1 -OR ,izuD et a1 PAW BOULEVAR1
flAXimAKT-PROTlRTY1 1C1 :370:4T rv1 1)
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the study took longer
than originally anticipated partially due to the GM study which
occurred next door. Both studies would be befcrc the Planning
Commission on June 6, 1984, and staff believed it made no sense to
resolve the policy issues for one without having the other infor-
mation also available. The existing moratorium on the Maximart
property was about to lapse, and if Council believed it was neces-
sary to have that protection during the rezoning hearings, it
needed to be extended.
Mayor Klein clarified that an emergency vote was needed for the
extension to avoid the possibility of a gap period.
uenny Petrosian, 44:5 Ventura Avenue, supported the extended mora-
torium.
Counc i l memoer Witherspoon said she did not vote for the original
moratorium, and would not vote for its extension.
MOTION: Countslmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
approve the staff _recommendation >,to extend the moratorium on the
former Maximar't property and on adjacent properties to October 30,
1984, and finding that it will not have an adverse impact on the
environment.
ORDINANCE 3539 entitled °ORD IWANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
rmmirrirmnr-PALT0 EXTENDING THE EXISTING MORATORIUM ON
THE PRUCESSIN4 OF ALL APPLICATIONS Pia PLANNING
APPROVALS IN THE.. AREA GENERALLY BOUNIMB BY PARK
BOULEVARD, LAMBERT AVENUE, AND ASH STREET, 1NCLUD ING AND
SURROUNDING THE FORMER ' MAX IKART` SITE' AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY"
Coclnci lmember Sutori ins - said if he was on the Council when the
original moratorium was discussed, he would not have supported it,
but if he did not support its extension now, it would not receive
the necessary four -fifths vote. He would support the moratorium
continuance with respect for the situation of the property owner
and acknowleding that the property had an opportunity to speak to
the extension, but was confident that a fair planning process
would be promptly concluded..
4 6 I 7
6/04/84
MOTION FAILED AS AN EMERGENCY ITEM by a vote of 7-2, Witherspoon
and Cobb voting 'no.'
Councilmember Cobb changed his vote with the same argument as that
used by Councilmember Sutorius. He did not believe the moratorium
was ever needed, and its support condemned the area to 15 more
years of status quo. The dream of moderate income housing in that
location in the near future was futile.
MOTION PASSED AS AN EMERGENCY ITEM by a vote of 8-1, Witherspoon
voting "no."
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM #10, PROPOSAL TO LIMIT OFD' ICE DEVELOP -
MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by
Renzel, to reconsider item #10, Proposal to Limit Office Develop-
ment in the CS and CM zones.
Councilmember Woolley opposed reconsideration because several
people could be away in July.
Councilmember Renzel said the full Council was present that eve-
ning, and since the item was continued with the understandi ng that
there would be some degree of fairness in the presentation or the
issue, Council should attempt to have it return when the full
Council was present to avoid numbers games by its continuance.
MOTAON TO RECONSIDER PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Woolley and
iii tOerspoon voting "no."
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that
the moratorium ordinance return on July 9, 1984 instead of July 2,
1984.
City Manager Bill Zaner said the Arastra item was scheduled for
July 9, and it would be a lengthy meeting.
Councilmember Renzel said an attempt should be made to hear the
item on a night when the full Council was present.
Mayor Klein was troubled by Councilmember Renzel's theory because
people had various travel schedules, and if Council tried to ac-
commodate everyone at all times, nothing would get done. If a
Councilmember felt strongly about an issue, that person should ac-
commodate the schedule.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Woolley, Klein„ Cobb,
Witherspoon voting "no."
ITEM °#1[, WASTE WATER UTILITY PLAN (CMR:311:4) (DTI 7-4)
Assistant Director of Util tties,Oper'ations, Stephen Hayashi said
the Regional Water • Quality. Control Plant (RWQCP) was a regional
facility with Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos as the major
ayenci es. Palo Alto had subagreements with Los Altos Hills, East
Palo Al to Sanitary District, and Stanford University so that the
study reviewed capacity needs for: the entire service area - not
just Palo Alto. The consultant was charged with contacting the
various planning departments to review population growth, land
use, and. weather conditions. Regarding:, the actual flows in 1982,
ld millions of gallons per day (ragd) reflected the 20 year rain-
fall period in that rainfall for that year would occur once every
LO years, and the rainfall for 1983 occurred every 100 years. For
purposes of baseline information, 1982 data was used for project-
ing flows, and; in projecting Palo Alto's flows, the 1987-1992
flows were relatively constant, and staff was looking at a trade-
qff in tens of infiltration/inflow (I/I): reduction to go along
with the capacity, growth, and expansion in Palo Alto. Increased
growth and additional capacity needs were particularly being
4 6 1 8
5/04/84
studied for the City of Mountain View, :hi ch included its north o f
1ayshore development, and East Palo Alto Sanitary District who was
looking at developing some commercial properties. Regarding the
monthly rainfall from 1979 through 1983, he noted the most recent
wet years of 19d2 and 1983 where the City had a lot of rai nfal 1 .
Significant rainfall made the flow for the month go up at the
plant, and the general trend over the past two years showed higher
peaks and gradually increased low flows. Staff was not just look-
ing at one number for an average annual flow or a monthly flow,
but -also on a daily basis. A typical June day in 1979 showed an
average flow of approximately 25 mgd, and the plant underwent a
"diurnal variation" where the low flow was about 15 mgd and the
peak flow was somewhere around 32 mgd, For a similar day in 1983,
the average flowwas 32 mgd, but the low flow went down to only 20
mgd and the peak flow was up to around 40 mgd. Regarding a rain-
fall event, in February, 1983, the average flow for the day was 57
mgd with a peak somewhere over 70 mgd, which showed the effect of
rainfall on the _plant and what. needed to: go into the design.
Staff recommended a phase construction of the plant expansion.
Phase 1 would treat to tertiary levels or advanced waste water
levels, everything on an average basis of 38 mgd and handle peak
flows around 60 to 70 mgd and only the highest flows above 60 to
70 rage would be treated to secondary levels. Staff believed the
cost effective basis would be to look at each individual user
agency to eliminate those peak flows. In terms of projecting the
waste water flows for Palo Alto, using the 1982 data as a base,
the total waste water flows for Palo Alto were 13 mad. comprised
of about 8 mgd of sanitary sewage and 5 mgd of I/I. Projecting
from the 1982 levels, the flows would be about 15 mgd, but staff
proposed to reduce the I/I to something less than the pre -1982
levels so that in 1992 there would be a projection of 13 rngd with
9 mgd of sanitary and only 4 mgd of 1/1. He deferred to Doug
Pursell on how staff planned to reduce the I/1.
Water -Gas -Sewer Supervising Engineer, Doug Pursell, said CH2M Hill
did an infiltration/inflow study in the City's system, and flow
morritorsne was included which divided the City into various basins
for drainage followed by source detection work, including ground
water infiltration, smoke testing, television, .and manhole i nspec
tions followed a sewer capacity analysis. "Inflow" was elicit
flows that might come from root leaders or basement drains or from
a drop in lid. along the street or othee direst flow into the sys-
tem, and "infiltration" occurred_frorn ground water through the bad
joints in the pipes or breaks. During a storm in .February, 1983,
while Palo Alto had a population of 32 percent of the entire ser-
vice area and about 40 percent of the land area, it had 74 percent
of th I/I. Smoke testing involved blowing 'Smoke into the 'assns,
and a broken service line would exude smoke. TV work -inside the
sewer was an example of -4 leaky joint, root intrusion at; a bad
joint, and separated joints were displaced, A sewer lateral from
a residence coming in from the side throwing clear water constant-
ly indicated that the ground water was flowing through defects in
the pipe. In a manhole with a, serer line ne at the bottom, a damp
shelf and stains of water along the side of the barrel in the man-
hole indicated leakage, With leakage at the top, there was deter-
ioration just under the casting. Part of -the' study included capa-
city analysis of certain trunk lines examined:_by the consultant on
both the basis of dry weather flow and wet weather flow, Some
portions- of those lines were _, deterii reed to require enlargement in -
conjunction with the rehabilitation of the various collector.lines
in the sewer system. The scheduled.rehabslitat#on included sewer
spot repairs, grouting and lining in place without having to dig
it up, Manhole repairs, and . the repair_ of clean outs and service
lines which served the private property with a portion being pub-
lic, and replacement of maihaa A spot- r'epai r might include:a line
having to be excavated in the street and:a service lateral- ml ght
have to go i n frog the side. The City would commence with _.a re-
habilitation during the next. fiscal year, and the costs and expfer-
i ences gained would -1)e used to move on to other basin groups.
4 6 1'9
6/04/84
Oasi n droop I would have a aoe ece det6ct i on study in the next
year, and staff would then move on with source detection in the
other oasins. The concept was to correct the situation in 807,
which was where the sewer went out of the manholes at high ground
water situations in the worst storms. The progress of the project
would be checked at all times for cost effectiveness comparing the
cost of treatment at the plant with the costs in effect for the
repair of the system. The difference between working on public
property and private property was considerable and staff hoped the
ground water level would be sufficient --not so high --that staff
could accomplish the decrease in I/I in order to meet the target
flows at the plant without having to go on private property. That
way the work might be accomplished without undue stress on the
population.
Assistant uirector of Utilities, Mark Harris, said the programs
mentioned were extensive and had a total cost in excess of $7 mil-
lion over the next four or five years. The programs would not be
funded by stdte or federal grants where in the past up to 87.5
percent of the City's sewage treatment plant upgradi ngs were ex-
panaed through grant money. Today's average City rates were ap-
proximately $5.1U per month and compared with the average for
Mountain View and Menlo Park, projecting an eight percent infla-
tion rate for normal operating costs for the other agencies, all
expenses for the City at eight percent, plus the programs, the
City could come out of the process in about four or five years
with rates about double its current rates, but still competitive.
That assumed no infiltration/inflow problems occurred in those
cities. Given the cash flow and the activities described by Mr.
Hayashi and Mr. Pursell, the City would probably have to float a
revenue bond sometime next year for an amount between $5,000,000
and $6,000,Uu0.
gob Moss, 4010 Orme, concurred with the thrust of the staff at-
tempts to clean up the wastewater treatment plant and reduce in-
filtration, but a lot of water went through the sewer system, and
if that was prevented, it had te go somewhere. He suggested that
as staff went through the system and closed it to infiltration,
they review where the water went. He hoped the project would not
be taken in isolation and would be tied to stream flow and flood-
ing potential when the infiltration was cut off. He did not want
to see the storm sewers used as drains, but did not want to see
the plugging of infiltration creating unexpected flooding in major
portions of the area,
Councilmember Menzel _said toe staff report discussed Phase I which
would dri ng the capacity expansion up, but there was no discussion
about what that entailed.
Mr. Hayashi said the physical facilities to be included with the
expansion were an additional sedimentation tank to go along with
the existing four, two final clarifiers, and an extension of the
underground effluent line within the plant to the existing junc-
tion box.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that Phase II would only be done if
the City was required to bring its peak wet weather flows into
tertiary treatment. Further, the capacity ' study indicated two
more fixed film reactors, and she.. clarified those were not
presently included in the plan.
Mr. Hayashi said that was correct.
Councilmember Renzel said discussion of the projections in the
report said different components of City sewage were analyzed, but
under Solids Handling System, it said there was a per capita .23
Pounds per day on the average daily flow, and future sludge
production was estimated by applying the population growth _rate.
She asked if all 1992 projections were made by the population
growth rate or whether they included land use plans.
4620
6/04/84
iiayashl i said the projections Caille I r'uill Lhe other entities in
terms of projected populations and land use. Fur Mountain View,
the City looked at the build out condition for its north of Bay -
shore development and what it would mean, and it was included in
the projected 12.9 mgd for 1992. Mountain View's water engineer
and planning people said the projection would increase if the
north of Bayshore development was developed residential which
would create an increased capacity. Under current planning condi-
tions, everything was taken into account.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that the rampant change in office
development for Palo Alto was incorporated in th.e projections.
Mr. Hayashi said the projections for Palo Alto were based on the
Comprehensive Plan and the latest elements included for residen-
tial and commercial. The only difference for Palo Alto was ., that
i t wnu1 d reach its peak sooner than originally planned in terms of
sanitary flow.
Councilmember Renzel asked why population growth was used to pre-
dict sludge increase.
Mr. Hayashi said solids were based on a per capita basis, and with
respect to the 111, it did not add solids to the Solids Handling
Facility which was based on population.
Councilmember Renzel said a flushed toilet in an office building
would send d the same stuff down that a flushed toilet in a house
would.
Mr. Hayashi said that was correct so that based on the population
for 198Z and extrapolating it to 1992, it was based on population
versus what the I/1 might be. Staff did not figure it would add
any solids to the system.
Councilmember Renzel asked whether staff was confident that the
38 mgd would essentially tertiate treat all of the City's normal
average flow.
Mr. Hayashi said _fifes in terns of the 38 mgd on an average looking
at average peaks, but it would not treat the peak flows above 70
mgd at a tertiary standards --the advanced wastewater standards.
Councilmember Renzel asked if Phase II would eliminate the heed to
store sewage in the trunk lines.
Mr. Hayashi said that would be done with Phase I.
Vice Mayor Levy said it was contemplated that the City would in-
crease the sewer rates 15 to 20 percent per year, and he asked if
that would be all that would be necessary to fund the entire proj-
ect including the bond issue planned for 1985-86.
Mr. Harris said the 1985ry-86 bond issue would levelize the payments
and the 15 to 2U percent increases could then cover the costs of
running the plant.
Vice Mayor Levy clarified that everything would come out of sewer
revenues.
Mr. Harris said that was correct.
C unciimemoer Renzel said it was suggested that the household rate
would double from $5 to $10, and she asked what would happen with
the industrial and commercial rates.
Mr. Harris said an increase woul be based on cost of service, but
assuming everything was in line with what it was currently, those
rates would also double._
4.6 2 1
6/04/84
i
Counci i mcmbcr Renzc 3 recalled .that those were based on flow iiwch
water was -purchased from the City.
Mr. Harris said if they -were- over 50,000 gallons per day, the
.billing .was based. on -flow and'chemical constituents of the sewage
so it -could be done as close to cost of service as possible.
Councilrnemoer Menzel said at one time there were ten users that
used more than half the capacity of the sewage treatment plant,
and she asked if that was still the case.
Mr. Harris said it eight have been _another utility. The City's
top ten electric users took up about half the system.
KO ACTION TAKEN
ITIM #13, RE 'MST OF MAYOR. KLEIN RE FAIR-SHAR': FINANCING OF THE
rt
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that Palo Alto not
fund a portion of the Task Force's budget, i.e., $15,000, and that
the Mayor be directed to so advise the Task Force.
Counc l ember Bechtel understood the Mayer's rationale and the
fact that Palo Alto had certain costs, but. she believed the City
would receive some intangible benefits to having the Super Bowl.
She suggested the spirit of cooperation would contribute some-
thing.
mayor Klein said the City was contributing $100,000 that no other
community in the Bay Area was contributing other than San
Francisco who did promotion work. For example, Menlo Park, San
Mateo and Santa Clara County would receive the sauce economic
benefits without incurring any costs. He did not believe Palo
Alto was getting credit for the police and fire services, and it
was making six times the contribution being requested by the Task
Force.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Cauncilmember Bechtel moved that the City of
Palo Alto contribute $63000 to the Super Bowl Task Force budget.
MOTION. UIEU FOR LACK OF SECOND
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Bechtel voting 'ran."
Counci lmernber Sutori us said the Finance and Public Works (F&PW)
Committee was aware that the 1984-85 budget included some $350 in
the Parks budget for color planting in prominent locations, such
as travel routes in and out of the City.. In January, there were
not many flowers -and it was creative on the part of staff to
incorporate something in the budget. He wanted to authorize staff
to supplement their current plan and increase color plantings, and
accelerate any scheduled tree planting that would add to the
beauty and reception provided byPalo Alto at Super Bowl time. If
the motion gassed, he had no objection to the Mayor including in
his letter to the Super Bowl Task Forte that the City authorized
the additional expenditure in the spirit of friendliness and
extended beauty in the amount of $1,500.
MOTION: Counci lmember Sutori ass moved, seconded by Klein, to
establish a policy to spend an appropriate amount on flowers and
color plantings for beautification of the City for- the Super Berl
event.
counci lmeraber Menzel . had no trouble spending money on flowers in
the planting areas, but wondered whether the F&PW Committee
already recommended a base amount. If not, she suggested the
motion go through the F&PW Committee as a recommendation along
with the base amount. She was concerned that by Council saying
$1,500, it might authorize a base amount before the Committee made
its recommendation.
4 6 2 2_
6/04/84 .,
Counci lmember Sutorius said the F&PW Committee proceeded t rough
the Parks budget as part of the overall. Public Works budget, and
as was the practice on all items, *he Committee took tentative
action on each item. Tentatively, the F&PW Committee approved a
budget for the Parks Uivisir'n of the Public Works Department which
included the $350.
Councilmember Woolley agreed with Ccuncilmember Renzel. She sup-
ported the idea of beautifying the City as much as possible, but
was uncertain as to the amount. She asked if it might not be a
better plan to ask staff to return at the budget wrap up with a
specific amount.
r i ty Manager Bi l l Zaner said if the Council wanted to establish
a policy for the City to do some beautification in anticipation of
the event, it . would be done. He assured the Council that staff
could handle �/l the
q matter with whatever amount, and it was the
policy that counted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 12:35 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: