Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-23 City Council Summary MinutesO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ITEM Specs al Meeti ng Monday, July 23, 1984 - 6:00 p.m. CITY M[O ALTO PAGE Oral Communications 4 8 3 2 Item #12, Planning Commission recommendation re Arastra Citizens Advisory Committee recommendations as amended for a Master Park Plan for the Arastra Property 4 8 3 2 Approval of Minutes of June 18, 1984 4 8 4 9 Agenda 'Changes, Additions and Deletions 4 8 4 9 Item #25, Request of Mayor Klein re Support of Stanford Blood Sank Item #1, Award from Western Area Power Administration to Conservation and Solar Division Consent Calendar Referral Ikea #2, Consultant Selection for Fiscal Year 1984-85 Consultant Projects - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee Item #3, Downtown Palo Alto 1 (Underground District No. 24) - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee 4 8 5 0 4 8 5 0 4 8 5 0 4 8 5.0 4 8 5 0 4 8 5,0 Action 4<8 5 1 Item #4, Resolution Supporting ACA 75 (Amendment to 4 8 5 1 Water Resources Policy) Item #5, Summary Vacation Easement Item #6, Visual Arts Jury Ordinance Public Utility 4 8 5 1 Item #7, Golf Course Cart Paths -. Park Improvement Ordinance 4 8 5. 1 4 8 5 1 Item #8, Swimming Pool. Equipment Maintenance 4 8 5. 1 Item #9, Storm Drainage Improvements in the 4 8 5 1 Vicinity of Oakhil l Aven4o and Mesa Avenue Item #1O, Security .'Service. Center for Municipal Service Item #11, Compensation Plans for Various Groups Employes 4 8 5: 2 Item #13, Revised Hcusing,:Mitigetio.n Ordinance ITEM Closed Session re Litigation Revised Housing Mitigation Ordinance (Continued) Continuation of Items 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26 Item #14, University Avenue Lot J Parking Garage Assessment District Item #15, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re Zoning Administrator's Decision re Variance for property located at 409 Sherman Avenue Item #16, PURL 1C HEARING: P1 an l no Commission recommendation re Application of James K. bell for amendment to existing Planned Community Zone 1992 for property located at 700 Welch Road Item #17, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re Application of Lee Brandenburg for Preliminary Parcel Mrep for property located to the south and southwest of southern .terminus of Alexis Drive PAGE 4 8 5 8 4 8 5 8 4 8 6 '7 4 8 6 7 4 8 7 3 4 8 8 0 4 8 8 1 Reconsider Item #I5, Variance for 409 Sherman 4 8 8 2 Avenue Item #21, Sign O rdi ,ance Amendment 4 8 8 3 Item #27, Request of Mayor Klein and Vice Mayor Levy 4 8 8 4 in connection with Item #23, re Decorative Banners Adjournment: 12:5u a.m. 4 8 8 4 5 Special Meeti ng Monday, July 23, 1984 6:00 p.m. 1 I The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, in a Special Meeti ng commencing at 6:05 p.m. PRESENT:, Bechtel, Cobb (arrived 6:20 p.m.), Fl etcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutori us, Witherspoon, Wool f ey r:ayor Klein announced that Item #12, Master Park Plan for the Arastra Property, continued from July 9, 1984, would be heard im- medi atel y fol l owi ng Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM #12, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE ARASTRA CITIZENS PAR€C YLAN 1 UK 11L AHAS11:A PRUF'EATT iu e Mayor Klein said the public heari ng was concluded on July 9, 1984, and only new speakers would be allowed to address the Council. Jane Grubgeld, 3746 La Call e, said she spoke before the Planning Commission, and favored usi ny the Arastra property as a Youth Hos- tel. She used hostels as an individual and in groups, praised their diversity, and was happy Mountain View was considering one. There was a lack of hostels, but one could now use them to travel through the area. Her hosteling experience was on foot, and she found 15 miles to be ideal spacing. Only hikers and cyclists should use hostels and cars should not be .. allowed. A parki ng 1 of might be built on the main road for groups arriving te, car and hiking up John Marthens Lane. A hostel could offer the same ex- ae Hence as the Sister Cities and Students from Abroad programs. Palo Al tans would learn about the rest of the world, and others would 1 earn about Cal i f orni ans. A hostel could be developed i nex- pensively and gradually. The property was a legacy, and those who previously stopped the massive development of the hills should again be supported. The large initial expenditure to buy the property did not hurt the City, and if it could not support a hostel, the I and should not be sold, and a use to benefit the whole City should be found. The worth of the property was beyond price. Councilmetaber Bechtel asked whether parking would be permitted\ on Arastradero Road, and John Marthens Lane closed to visiting c;rs so that only hikers and cyclists eo1d be permitted from the Park- and-Ri de lot on Page . Mill Road near 280. If so, she asked if the park would open shortly. Zoning .Administrator Bob Brow n.said the minimum requirements would be fencing along Arastradero Road to prevent :four-wheel drive vehicles accessi ng the property, and signage to the, park." Depend- ing on. the Council's decision, other requirements might be made such as closing the access to Foothills Park which would require one or two extra ranger positions to patrol the property. If there was to be a parking lot, there might be, difficulties in en- forcing the no parking" 3n Arastradero Road, which might impact the Police Department. Councilmember Bechtel asked if it could done. Mr. Brown said yes. Staff could report back to Council on the en- forcement difficulties and how the nonprovision of parking affect- ed other properties .in the vicinity. 4 8'3 2 7/23/84 1 Councilmember Witherspoon asked for confirmation that it would cost approx i ma tely $ 140,000 to bring the Reimer house up to code and improve John Marthens Lane to make the facility available as a hostel. Mr. Brown said $140,000 to $150,000 was still a ball park figure. Possible expenses regarding the septic -tank-- and water systems would neea to be resolved in the near term as well as standard on- going maintenance. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the City was required to supply the power if the house was converted to a hostel since PG&E pres- ently supplied it. Mr. Brown said in its present condition, the City was not expected to supply power, but if the service was substantially upgraded, the City would probably take over. Councilmember Witherspoon said the map showed a road accessing the property at the big bend. It °Jas a gravel road going up the hill currently used by trucks to deliver hay, and she asked if it was the "inadequate" road described in the supplemental report. Mr. Brown said the road was inadequate for increased traffic since it was primarily dirt with modest gravel improvement. The road would . need to be . graveled to a width of 20 feet at a cost of approximately $70,000 to $72,000. Councilmember Witherspoon asked what kind of traffic was envi- sioned as she referred only to the horse stable traffic. Mr. Brown said the road was primarily considered in terms of ac- cess to both the stable and hostel. Even for the stable only, some improvements were necessary since it was inaccessible in winter. The surface would have to be gravelled. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the road would need to be 20 feet wide if there was no hostel traffic. Mr. Brown said it had to be 18 feet or 20 feet wide to provide two-way access. Councilmember Woolley said her involvement in the youth hostel at Welchurst was a pleasant experience. A building in a county park was about to be torn down when American Youth Hostels (AYH) took over. It was in a redwood grove and ideally situated, but in the winter had only one or two visitors a week with a few more on the weekend. Since the Rengstorff hostel would open about the same time, she was concerned whether Arastra would make enough money to cover expenses. - She was also concerned about use a access because the r it Y �i J M Welchurst hostel. was 3.5 miles from public transportation, and most people hitchhiked in. However, when drivers saw a backpacker on Route g, they knew he was headed for the hostel and offered a lift. She was also concerned that the house was undervalued . at $500,000 Its Value was closer to $1 million considering the location. `. It was a sufficient loss for the City, and it should not also bear improvement costs Welchurst needed $40.0,000 in improvements. AYH did all the work and . spent only $65,000 since remaining costs were donated labor and materials. It took five years, but time was not an issue at :Arastra. She bel ieve4 the Golden Gate Council could make both the interior and exterior improvements necessary., on the Arastra property. MUM Cseaci1moiber lira)ley moods secssied by Fletcher, that staff prepare ma eptiea %• .lease the Reimer house and sarreeadi acre with the fellewies coadItIsus 1. Assts basis. tessia to de isterier aid exterior reeevatteas; 2. #s me i steeaece provided by City; 4 8 ;i 3 As c4�ifi�ifl MOTION CONTINUED 3. Youth hostel option can be exercised up to June 1, 1986 0.: suitable date suggested by staff. Mayor Klein suggested a fourth condition that staff make a recom- mendation on the term of the lease and the fees to be charged the hostel . MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO ADD LANGUAGE AS FOLLOWS: 4. Staff to recommend term of lease and charges to youth hostel. Councilmember Woolley said the house could continue as a rental until June 7, 1987, and Council should leave sufficient time to put an extension of the rental policy on the ballot or sell the house. June 1, 1986 would allow the matter to be put on the bal- lot in July for the General Election in November, 1986. She said it might not be necessary to widen the gravel portion of John Marthens Lane inside the City limits to 20 feet, but if so, Real Property Administrator Jean Diaz advised her that the City real - ized approximately $28,000 annually in rent- fr:sm -the property, the major part of which was clear. By establishing a period of two years before the option was exercised, the City would have at least $40,000 in revenue from the house with which to widen the road, which was probably more important to the stable than the hostel. As Ms. Crubgel d poi nted out, hostellers should arrive on foot. Negoti ations wi th staff eeel to 'gad` ri ng that period. Mayor Klein asked if the long-term lease to the hostel would re- qui re an undedication vote by the electorate if the Council voted n favor of the hostel City Attorney Diane Lee said it was regarded as a park use, and would not require such a vote. Mayor Klein said the swi ms ng pool was not discussed, end he asked staff's opinion concerni ng its conti nued use regardless of whether the property was leased to the AYH, sold, or leased to private parties. Mr. Brown said the matter would probably come up.,i n lease negoti a- tions. The AYH expresses concern about liability and pool main- tenance in the preliminary discussions, so it might be filled or removed f rom the p rope rty Ms. Lee said the pool was part of the negoti atians, and the opera- tor of the facility should be required to have insurance for the swimmi ng pool with the City named as an .additional insured on the pe;`icy • City Manager Bill Zaner asked the Council for further direction with regard to the terms of the lease on the property. The gen- eral instructions given to staff when leasing property was for staff to return with market value. He`;asked if the terms ofthe lease should return a minimum amount, a;fair market amount or a token amount to the City. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if it was a.city` policy when leas- ing or selling. property, to require competitive bids in order to avoid *sweetheart' deals. Mr., Zaner said the City Manager was authori-zed to lease a property for one year without the competitive bid process. For a longer period, staff had to return to. Council for any type of lease. Coufic Witherspoon clarifies that a one-year lease on the City Manager's signature was possible, but anythi ng longer required Council action based on competitive bids. It would be wonderful to have a hostel in the foothills, but the park was an important asset the City could not afford to give to a hostel group. She preferred to see the park made available to those who 'ould use it as soon as possible and not wait unti 1 1990. The City had the opportunity to sell the house and use the funds to improve the park. She was not interested in putting more City funds into the house nor in improving John Marthens Lane, which was another reason for not supporti ng a hostel . She strongly believed the property should be sold at ful 1 market value, which was closer to $1 million than $500,000, access should be closed on John Marthens Lane at the house except for fi re access to give a minimal sense of privacy, and the historical access to the stable area from the g ravel road should conti nue. Many more people would benefit by selling the house to improve the park, and she believed that given its location, it was unrealistic to believe it. could be a community center. One of the greatest facilities in the City was the Baylands Interpretive Center, which people did not use much even though it was more a}cessi bl e, so she doubted peopl e would drive to the old Reimer house to have meetings. She would not support the motion, and preferred to see the undedication pos- sibility put on the ,)allot. If the citizenry preferred that ,it remain as park use, the Council could then decide whether it should be a hostel or put to some other community use. Ms. Lee confirmed that the City Manager could lease City property for a one-year tern or less with no monetary constraint imposed. Mr. Zaner recalled a City policy stipulating that if the Council wanted to lease a piece of p rope ety, a public process was neces- sary so anyone could bid for it. Councilmember Sutorius quoted from Policies & Procedures i-11 in the March 30, 1984 packet to the Planning Commission: Open com- petitive and/or bid processes would be used to solicit proposals or provide opportunities to others prior to awarding an option to lease." The policy also discussed the criteria for permitting uses and the RFP process, and he was concerned Council was getting 1 nto muddy water, and putting the cart before the horse. Mayor ;lei n asked the -Council to first focus on general policy and decide what to do with the property before deciding in detail how the l ease should be carried out. Councilmember Fletcher supported the motion, but said the lease was a special case si nce not many uses were avail able to potenti al bidders on dedicated parkland without goi ng through the undedica- tion procedure. If the Council wanted to put it out to bid, it should fi rst decide whether i t should be kept as parkland or put on the ballot. It would be a complicated process to go for bids without knowing whether the voters would approve the undedication. The bidding process was not used for the old fire station, which was now the Peni nsul a Conservation Center. Goi ng back further, some proposals were received for the Senior Center, although there was. no formal bidding process. The hostel mould be a public ser- vice, and the City did not expect to make a profit, only asked the hostel to keep up the property without City expense. Some arrangement could be. worked out to el imi nate , the need fora second ranger by having the hostel . manager act in that capacity as part of the function of operating the hostel, which might save money. She used hostels since her teens when she 1 ived i n England and made a 1,000 mile bike tour. of Great B 1 tai n using hostels all the way. The diversity of people in youth- hostels helped make it one of_her most me,iorable vacations. P=eople in hostels came from nee uy---a ed of vr r the world, and it was a resource that would add to Palo Alto's image. The staff report commented that it was not on a common bike route such as the coastal one, but the .open- ing of the Oumbarton Bridge meant many more cyclists coming through on the way to the coast. The present parking spaces were adequate, and she preferred the hostel be used purely as such to cut down on traffic, parki ng needs, _ and the cost of building park- ing. The hostel could be a limited resource center for people who needed to make an emergency phone call or fi rst aid, etc., and a manager on site would be an asset for the park. She urged her colleagues to support the motion. Councilmember Bechtel was concerned about John Marthens Lane and access to the hostel . She did not want to attract more people, and believed the approximately 35 people who presently used the road to reach the stables, together with the hay trucks, etc. was sufficient for the area, and agreed that no additional parking should ;be made. The main motion offered an option to lease between the present time and June 1, 1986, which would afford the AYH the opportunity to explore whether it had sufficient funds for the necessary rehabilitation and whether the hostel would be needed if the Rengstorff House project went to fruition. The first payment would not be made until June 1, and in the interim such matters could be worked out. The City would also have an opportunity to back off if it desi red. The five-year term would commence upon the agreed date. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, that no additional parking be installed, and access be only on foot or bike with exceptions for youth hostel staff and handi- capped access. Mayor Klein presumed the motion would require no additional paving of the parking lot, and requested staff to develop a system to. identi fy illegal parkers by means of a permit. Councilmember Renzel asked how many spaces presently existed in the hostel area. Mr. L rown said no spaces were eu b; i nfed on - the circular driveway, but about seven or eight vehicles could park there. Mayor Klein clarified that the intent was for all users of the hostel to arrive on foot or by bike except for the handicapped. The parking spaces would be used for del \veries or for the manager of the facility. Councilmember Renzel asked if ,the amendment precluded someone from driving to the .rastra parking l of and walking in from there. Councilmember Bechtel said people could park i n the lot on A rastrade ro Road, the Park -and -Ride lot, take a bus, or use any number. of ways to reach the hostel . Councilmember Renzel clarified the intent of the amendment was to prevent people from using John Marthens Lane for cars. ANEMONES" PASSED unanimously. A$EMD$ENT: Cou nci lmeabe r Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, a payment of one dollar ($1) per. year. (rental charge) . Vice Mayor Levy said the amount seemed right if everyone was clear about the cost .to the City. He understood the original motion ,to mean that -except for the widening of John Marthens Lane, no expense to; the City was intended. Mayor• Klein = did not believe the motion spoke to any widening of John Marthens Lane, Vice Mayor Levy agreed, but said Councilmember. Woolley's motion essenti ally envisioned" no operating or or maintenance -expenses to the City. de asked if a lease could be developed that ensured'. all. m3i ntenance costs were absorbed by the hostel. Mr. Zaner said such a lease could be developed, but whether the AYH organization would sign it was another matter. Vice Mayor Levy said a five-year term seemed unrealistically short. Given the kind of lease that would transfer all expenses to the hostel, he asked Mr. Zaner to :define an appropriate term. Mr. Zaner said he was also concerned about the term since it was a short period of time over which to amortize a substantial amount of improvements If he were a lessee, he would be reluctant to enter into a short-term l ease and put a great deal of money into -the facility. If the Council wanted to be more flexible, i t might discuss the point with the AYH organization to find a sensible solution. Vice Mayor Levy said water, sewage, and possible electric expenses were mentioned. If those expenses were necessary, he asked whether the City would expend the funds, and if they would still be necessary if the property wus sold. Mr. Zaner said the utilities provision was necessary for the oper- ation of the hostel. If the house was 9cizd for that purpose, the City would bill the occupant in the normal way. If the building wasg sold, there might be no utility charges, depending upon its use. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that in either case the costs would be absorbed by the user of the property and not the City. Mr. Zaner said that was his understanding of Council's i nstruc- tions. Vice Mayor Levy said on that basis and with the understanding that the lease term be sufficiently long to allow the expenses to be properly amorti zed by the hostel, he believed one dol 1 ar per annum to be the correct sum. Councilmember Sutorius agreed the amount was right for the way in which the matter was progressing, but did not know whether it was realistic with a five-year situation. He emphasized that Council was precising many things that seemed clear to him. A review of the CounOl's established policies and procedures needed to be put together i n='a manner that advertised broadly to give any and all groups, individuals, organizations, etc. ample opportunity to become aware of the intent and to participate in the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Mr. Zaner agreed. The pol icy called for a Notice of Intention and a published notice in the press for organizations to submit pro- posals for the property in response to an REP staff would issue on the Council's behalf. As the discussion progressed, Council was effectively removing any community day use of the facility the AYH or other groups might have relied upon as a source of income, so he -wondered what kinds of bids might be received. The use of the facility was limited to the poi nt where it was so restrictive thet only one bid might be received. That was all right, but such spe- cificity eliminated community use of the facility.. Councilmember Renzel said the lease term :wa:.,:too short for the -- si ze of Investment a potential lessee would h:' asked to make. The rent to be' charged and the to m should be interrelated. A more thantoken rent might be appropriate for a 25 -year lease, whereas. for a ..short-term lease of up . to 10 years, $1 per annum might be appropriate because of the other expenses with which a potential lessee might have to contend. Regarding the option to lease, a similar situation arose with the Winter Club and ' the Geng Road property. With dedicated parkland, only a limited number of con- sistent useswere possible, and she expected any Notice of Intent to state that. the ;use would have to be consistent with the park use of the property. Other applicants could come Into bid on the 1/3384 property after proper notice was given as long as their uses were consi stent with park use. In supporti ng the motion she hoped the term would be more negoti aul a within the framework of the City' s Policy and Procedure 1-11. Mayor Klein referred the Council back to the amendment to charge $1 per year rental. He confi rmed that any consideration of the lease would requi re all the improvements set forth in Mr. Brown's report, and lessors would in fact pay much more than $1 per year because they would have to pay for the improvements. Councilmember Sutorius had no problems with the charge of $1 per year, but the - process was such that he would vote "no" on the item because he believed Council would be better served by pro- viding philosophy, concepts, certain particulars or guidelines to staff, and requesting them to return wi th a draft proposal that would more properly refl ect . the nuances i nvolve€) in the entire action the Council might take. Council was stipulating "$1 a year," but being unclear about what it meant. Councilmember Renzel's comments about the necessity for a reassessment provision and increasing the amount at a subsequent date caused him to say Council should not dictate such terms, but give staff guidelines to come back with a specific proposal. Regarding Mr. Zaner's com- ments i n terms of the co,nmu ni ty use, it was an important and valid observation. He would vote agai nst the $1 per year rental charge, not because of the amount, but because of its precision. Councilmember Renzel E sked if the motion intended to include community use. Mayor Klein said the discussion was the amount of the rent, and a motion on community use should be brought up separately. Councilmember Cobb associated himself with the comments of Councilmember Sutorius. Mayor Klein supported the amendment as staff needed such guide - 1 i nes. It i nformed staff that Council was not interested i n making money on rental payments on a lease. If staff was not di rected along such lines, they would not know whether to ask $1, $1,000 or $5,000 per month, and could not proceed on a basic term such as the amount of rent without guidance from the Council. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 74, Cobb and Sutorius voting Councilmember Bechtel was convinced the terms of the lease should be broad and negotiable. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded. by Renzel, that the term of lease be for d minimum of five years with the exact term to be negotiated by staff. Mr. Zaner said staff was comfortable with the amendment. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Rehzel moved, seconded by Klein, that there be no daytime or nighttime community use other than for regular hostel activities. Councilmember Renzel said regardless of whether it might have been perceived as a possible revenue source, the community "use worked its way into the hostel proposal partly because of the strong emphasis on trying to demonstrate some community benefit apart from the hostel The hostel, itself was a significant benefit to the community, but; daytime community use would present more prob- lems than it would solve. The AYH could operate the hostel in terms of revenue source without it. 4 8 3'8 7/23/84 Councilmember Bechtel understood it was not intended that the com- munity not use the hostel, but rather to discourage meetings during the day which attracted many cars, etc. A group of perhaps 15 from the local community could make a reservation at the hos- tel . She suggested the amendment be worded to ban "meeti ngs" not "community use." Councilmember Renzel said the Council already voted not to increase the size of the parking lot and that peopl a either walk or cycle i n. The nature of the daytime use would have to be con-- si stent with such previous decisions and would not be contempl ated as part of the official hostel proposal. Councilmember Bechtel clarified that Councilmember Renzel wanted to allow overnight hostel use. The amendment said there should be "no daytime community use," which implied she did not want members of the community to use the hostel. Councilmember Renzel said she did not intend to exclude members of the community from using the hostel —only to not allow the concept as it arose at the P1 anni ng Commission to occur. Mayor Klein said Council did not want the hostel advertising for weddings, Saturday night parties, political gatherings, etc. Councilmember Renzel said normal hostel activities would be permitted. She understood that hostels did not generally have daytime activities. Councilmember Witherspoon said the previous staff report gave the various uses of a youth hostel group and demonstrated that some groups did not spend the night, but rather had meetings. She sup- ported the amendment although it effectively killed the financial viability of the hostel. The AYH budget showed it as the area from which they planned to make the majority of the income. Hostel users came in the late evening after cycling or hiking all day and left the next morning. It was the kind of use to which the motion spoke and one which she could support even though she might not support the full motion. As she understood the projec- tions, the use was not the kind that could finance the required improvements, and the Council did not want the intensive use envisioned by the AYH in the foothills. Councilmember Renzel said several major costs associ ated with improvements for the hostel were associated with the daytime com- munity use --parking lots, road improvements, etc. --which were effectively eliminated by the earlier amendments and the one being discussed. The hostel could operate as such based . on the terms suggested so far. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO REWORD THE AMENDMENTS 'O READ: 'The use of the youth hostel be for lodging only and not for com- au ni ty meetings, such as political meetings, weddings. parties, ett.• Mayor Klein cl arified that the activities mention ed were not intended to beexclusive but were given as examples only. Councilmember Sutorius would not support the amendment because of its lack of clarity and because, the lease policy adopted by the Council requi red that the City be compensated "for :the fai r market value of its facilities unless nonmonetary benefits to a signifi- cant portion of the citizens and taxpayers of Palo Alto are pro- vided .instead." Up to then, the motion could easily have been applied to.. say that community and citizen use were ruled out. Mayor Klein believed it was incorrect to say there would be no community or citizen use because members of the community could use it as a hostel, as could anyone else willing to hike or bike up and sign in. i 1 Councilmembor Suto►ius agreed the community could use it as a hos- tel, but he was concerned about some of the uses proposed by the AYH organization —interpretative center, seminars, and days amps, where there was a stronger likelihood of youngsters in supervised situations such as Brownies, Camp Fire Girls, Cub Scouts, and other youth groups who might not be staying on an overnight basis. Some educational uses, associations ana opportunities for the cit- izens could be ruled out by his understanding of the motion, Councilmember Renzel believed the thrust of the motion was to el i- mi nate additional parking and not contempt ate additional burdens on John Marthens Lane. Uses that avoided those constraints were not a problem since they did not impact the area. If a Gi rl Scout troop hiked into the park and stopped for i hterpretative purposes, no one would be burdened. The thrust of her motion was that park- a ng, the major requi rement of a community use, be eliminated. Any use that burdened either the road or the parking beyond what was al ready contemplated with respect to the hostel was inconsistent. Mayor Klein agreed. The no parking amendment covered the matter to a significant degree, but he wanted to clarify to the RFP respondents that they should not look to weddings and political meetings to generate revenues because those were not considered appropriate uses for the facility. He had no problems with a Gi rl Scout or Cub Scout troop hiking up and sitting around the hostel for an afternoon. Councilmember Fletcher was concerned that the amendment precluded park -related uses where the hostel could be a resource. She sug- gested the amendment be modified to allow staff to develop 1 ang- uage to cover the Council's concerns, and believed the appropriate wordi ng could be safely put into the RFP. Mayor Klein said the initial I angdage from the main motion di rest- ed staff to prepare an option to lease where all the language would be translated into a more foreal lease. Councilmember Fletcher preferred that the amendment not be as specific as i t seu nded although she sympathized with its intent. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Sutorius voting "no." Mayor Klein was concerned about the . poe1 because he believed it was inconsistent with the proposed park use. If there was to be a hostel, the pool should be shut down as it would be an attraction to hikers and would increase policing problems. People could use the pools at Ri nconada or Gunn. AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Reuel, that the lease include provisions to close down the swimming pool on the house property. CeoFu nci i membe r Renzel agreed that since hostelers would: be gone du ri ng the day, the pool use was inconsistent. Vice Mayor Levy opposed the amendment. The use of the pool should be at the discretion of the hostel. If they found a way to police it properly, which he believed was possible, the 419stel should determine whether it was i n their best interests. As a hiker who was delighted with the possibility of swimming after hi ki ng, par- ticularly in the summer when late swiemi ng was possible, he would welcome such a luxury on site. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-b, Kentel, Klein, Witherspoon .voting "aye." 'AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein coved, seconded by penzel, that the City ante no ipprovementv to Join Mtartben .one, 1d3/8i Counciimember.sutorius said the reasons for improvements to John Marthens Lane included safety, accommodation of- future traffic increases, reduction of liability and fire requirements. I he Fire Department subsequently said the existing paved road was not unsuitable for fire access, but he asked staff to confirm whether the portion on the Arastra property Itself needed certain improve- ments in terms of safety and liability. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said if it was put ;o a public use, fire protection was necessary. The road would have to be maintained to support fi re vehicles, which might not necessarily mean widening the road, but it would have to be able to support the vehicles. Councilmember Sutorius said Council was presently considering the the youth hostel , issue only. The stable issue was still pendi ng, and the traffic generation information indicated a proportionately significant increase. in traffic from the stable usage. At some point, previous staff recommendations would become operative with respect to the condition of the teadway. Mr. Brown said staff considerations regarding the safety of the roadway and the traffic generated by the two anticipated uses to be accessed by the roadway ,were _ shown on page 2 of the July .19,. 1984 staff report. The amendment precluding vehicular access and day use to the hostel would bring the anticipated traffic genera- tion by the barn and stable down to approximately the current rate of about 30 trips per day_. Staff expected the number to conti nue with a possible increase to 50 trips daily, which was not substan- ti al . Based on the limitations al ready imposed by the Council on the road, significant widening would probably not be necessary, and he doubted that l i ability presented a grave factor. Councilmember Bechtel did not believe Council should go into that level of detail . Staff poi nted out the one narrow spot i.n the gravel part which might have tobe mi nimally widened, and she sug- gested the motion state that the general intent of the Council was to not widen the roadway. Mayor Klei n was willing to change the 1 anguage of the amendment, and clarified that by "improvements," he meant widening. Minor adjustments would cause no problem. Ms. Lee was concerned about liability. Up to then, no difficul- ties with the road were experienced, but she believed the._, amend- ment might be construed to mean that if problems arose, ` staff would be requi red to return to Council before taking any remedial action indicated by safety factors. Although by. its amendments the Council substantially reduced the traffic on the road, safety considerations and the taking of immediate action might be sotae- thi ng Council should leave with staff. Mayor Klein had a problem because on ore hand staff wanted di rec- ti on, and on the other hand it did not. He saw no need for improvements on the road, and wanted staff to return to Council before making any improvements. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO REWORD THE AMENDMENT AS FOLLOWS: 'That there be no significant \improvements to John Matthews Lane; and, if staff has any suggested improvements, they should return to Council first.* AMENDMENT PASSED. unanimously. Courrcilaa `ar Renxel supported the -main motion. She used youth hostels in Florence and Venice and believed the system would benefit the citi ens of Palo Alto and the whole world. Benefits were derived from youth hostels in other communiti'es, and the same should be enjoyed in Palo Alto. She was satisfied that the conditions under which an option to lease would be negotiated addressed some of the significant concerns related to hostel use. The hostel would have minimal impact on the vicinity, and she believed i t was a mistake to demolish or sell the house as an i n - holding within the park. With the City's opportunity to realize market rents for the next few years, some revenues for park development could be realized, and Council would not sell itself short for high-speed development for the park by creating an in -holding, which would cause many problems. For those reasons, she believed Council could provide a valid park use i n an existi ng facility, and in the long-term the park would still be in reserve for another appropriate potential use. The Council should not take any action to preclude options in the future. Council member, Witherspoon spoke agai nst the main motion, although it was improved by the amendments. She understood that approxi- mately 200 to 250 individuals would use the property in one sea- son as opposed to the number of people who could use the park if the funds from selling the property were used to develop it as it should be. She was not speaking of overdevelopment, but only of providing the $350,000 necessary to open it. It was a valuable asset, and offered an opportunity to do much towards opening the Arastra park to non -Palo Al tans as well as to its citizens. She preferred to see it put on the ballot to find out if the citizens agreed. If they preferred a low -intensity use of approximately 200 persons per season, it was their prerogative. She believed the people would prefer to see the park opened to more people. Councilmember Cobb was in the middle on the issue, as he opposed selling or demol i shi ng the p rope rty, but ag reed a private i n- hol ding within the park was probably not a good idea. Apropos the comments of Councilmember Witherspoon, he was not sure a hostel constituted the best use as it would use a significant resource. for rel actively few Palo A' tans, He preferred to look at other possibilities that might . be developed, and particularly some to generate revenue on a leasing basis to speed up opening the park to more people. He did not strongly oppose the hostel, but did not consider it to be the best use. He wondered what would happen if the conditions imposed by Council were so severe that people could not come in. It might 1 eave sale of the property as the only alternative, which was unsatisfactory. He wanted to consider options to generate revenue, keep the intensity low, and speed up development of the park so that more peopl e could use the valuable resource. Vice Mayor Levy agreed with many of his colleagues that on one hand the hostel use was excellent, and probably the best public use, but on the other hand, the value of the property was substan- tial , and closer to $1. million than $500,000. It was a large house built in the 1950' s with many amenities, including a pool and sensational view. Giventhe fact that if sold, it would gen- erate a substantial sum of money which might result i n opening the park quickly and on an optimal rather than a .tentative basis, he tended to support an alternative use only -cif there was an out - stand/ ng reason for so doing. The ;'hostel would be a benefit, but if the City was suddenly offered fi. million, it could cover the substantial costs of opening the: property as a park with optimum pathways and equestrian trails, etc. He preferred to see the option run for about one year and to time it so that, in November, 1985, i f i t was unlikely that the hostel use would be accepted or if there were other problems, it could be put on the ballot in 1985. Regarding the costs to develop -the property, he saw figures ranging from approximately $365,000 ,at the low end to $1. mil lion at the high end, and members of the public said they looked on the $365,000 figure as being far too high He asked what staff judged the mini mum cost to be`:,to open Arastra to the public, and what was seen as the cost of opening it ,as a satisfactory park with the policies recommended by the Arastra committee. 4 8 4 2 7/23/84 Mr. Brown said both figures were stated in the staff report dated July 19, 1984. Staff believed the cost to open the park would be a minimum of about $385,000 based on assumptions contained on pages 4 and 5 for the mi nimum necessary improvements. If Council believed 'some of the improvements were not necessary as a minimum ;o open the park, staff could reconsider. Page 4 of the staff report contai ned a figure for ultimate development costs of the park based on the plan by the Arastra Citizens Committee, and was slightly over $1,000,000. Vice Mayor Levy asked when staff saw the park as being opened without any outside funds. Mr. Brown estimated it would be the early to mid -1990s. In the ultimate development costs for the park, staff included $145,000 for the hostel and $155,000 for stable improvements. Based on the Council's decisions regarding the hostel and the staff recommenda- tion that stable improvements also be made by a lessee, the cost would be reduced by approximately $300,000. The ultimate develop- ment costs of the park, excluding hostel and stable improvements, would be i n _the $700,000 range. It would include all the trails being constrncted as planned by the Arastra Citizens Committee and the various park facilities included in that use. Vice Mayor Levy said June 1, 1986 was a date connected with the main motion and he asked for clarification. Mayor Klein said the mai n motion included the provision that the option to lease would expi re on June 1, 1986. Vice Mayor Levy asked if an option expiring on June 1, :985 would give the City enough time to put the matter on a November, 1985 ballot. He suggested a one year option as a way to get the City moving ahead on the park more rapidly.. Councilmember Woolley said the expiration date was June 1, 1986 because she believed the youth hostel people needed time to under- take substantial fund raising effc rts. By the time the lease was prepared by staff and returned to Council , another couple ofe:: months would have el apsed so that i f the option expi red next June, there might not be enough time for the,. hostel to have completed the necessary substantial fund raj si ng ',drive since the City was looking to them to undertake the improvements. She asked whether time was so crucial i n the overall picture. Vice Mayor Levy was concerned about the longer time: frame of 1990 or mic.-1990s for opening the park. The_ facility was tremendous and should be available sooner to the general public. Mayor klei n said the motion did not mandate or preclude opening the park earlier. Vice Mayor Levy understood staff to say if a way was not found to devel op ` funds based on the current . financial picture, the park would not open until 1990. Mayor Klein said it was Council's prerogative to make other deci- sions and allocate the City's funds differently. Vice Mayor Levy saw the property as a way to open the park almost immediately and as a, way to enable the City to make use of the facility year round. He was concerned, about the ' question of, an in -fill and to, what degree the City would suffer by having a one acre, privately owned facility in the middle of a.large .park. He realized it was the case in many parks and that there were pri- vate areas off limits to park users in most parks so that• a pri— vate one acre area would riot damage the, larger. Arastra property and the City could take advantage of the, ,high value of the proper- ty and open the facility much earlier. He reluctantly did not support using the property as a hostel at that point. Councilmember Sutorius associated himself with the comments of Councilmember Cobb and Vice Mayor Levy. He was not uncomfortable with a process that allowed the hostel REP to be utilized and he supported the hostel concept. The expressed conditions and guide- lines that removed some of the concerns he had affecting the usage impacts on Marthens Lane provided the ability to leave the window open for exploration. - In the event the City was unable to con- clude an appropriate lease arrangement, the November, 1985' elec- tion 'would permit the City to meet its responsibilities in terms of changing the use of the property into a park use or by a vote of the people selling it off and having it become an : in -holding. He was comfortable with the longer period and that sufficient time was st -1 l available to go to a vote of the people should it become appropriate. With the conditions so far identified in the pro- cess, he supported the motion to allow- the process to proceed, although the impacts of smile of those things might make the reali- zation of the hostel less possible. Councilmember Woolley suggested that another way to 1 ook at income and po:isi bl a funding of the park development costs was that the Cit4 realized $28,000 a year from the rental of the house._ and by renting the house for another year as allowed in the lease option, the City world realize that much more revenue. She previously mentioned using the money to widen John Marthens Lane, but if Council decided it was unnecessary, the money could be applied towards opening the perk in some minimal way earlier and having two years' worth of revenue to do so was a plus. Councilmember Fletcher associated herself with the . comments of Councilmember Woolley. She did not think it a good idea to have a private residence in the midst of a public pork, and she heard that residences close to parks constantly complained about people who tried to make use of the house as a public facility. Mayor Klein .admitted to a great deal of concern on the issue, but concluded that the. City made a substantial commitment to provide a fine piece of land to its citizens as parkl;and., and i t should be done properly. Even ,though it was tempting, the City would ulti- mately lose on selling the house because it would detract from the enjoyment of the park and would cause inevitable friction between users of the land and the owners of the then private piece of property. He was concerned there not be an unnecessary in- hold- ing, and Caere was no reason to tear the house down. The hostel was the best u'Se hecould see and it provided a service to members of the community ..a.nd people visiting it, The restrictions placed on the use of the house as a hostel were necessary so that t_he hostel did not unnecessarily impact the adjacent neighbors and to ensure that the hostel itself was not an intruder into the park. The hostel was an in -holding, and he did not believe it should be an in -holding that would cause damage to the park.. but rather it should bemade an in -holding that was part of a park and consi s - tent with its uses. He supported the hostel concept, and support- ed the motion. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 1. 2, Witherspoon, Levy voting `no," Councilmember Bechtel agreed :with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee's (PABAC) suggestions that in the grand s Theme of things and in view of the needs for cyclists, the Arastradero Road shoul- der improvements at the curb should be considered. She believed they should he deleted from the recommendations. Regarding PABAC's concern about a prohibition of all -terrain -mountain bikes, that type of bicycle was geared 1. and could go, up steep hills and would use trails. a robi ems - with horses wouldeneed to be ; evalu- ated. Bicycles were allowed in the open splice district properties as well as other kinds of bicycles, and she did 'not believe the all -terrain mountain bikes 4hould be strictly prohibited. 4 8 4 4 7/23/84 MOTION: - Cuu nci laieiber - Bechtel movedi seconded by Klein, to adopt the staff recommendations to approve the conceptual. Park Muster Plan as proposed by- the Arastra Citizens. Advisory Committee with the fol l ow1 iig -exceptions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion and/or staff: 1. Bicycle parking facilities for between 10 and 16 bikes be pro- vided in the Arastradero Road parking lot in a visible loca- tion; 2. An off road bicycle path paralleling Arastradero Road be in- cluded in the Park Master Plan as a long-term improvement and in cooperation with Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County and San Mateo County; 3. --Trash receptacles be provided in the Arastradero Rod parking lot in a location not visible from the road; 4. A gate be provided at the trail connection with the Paseo Del Robles trail easement and locked during evening hours when the park is not open; 5. The Paseo Del Robles trail connection not be included on trail maps; 6. The future trail connection to Alexis Drive be eliminated from the trail plan; 7. The City fund all trail development with the use of volunteer labor, but that equestrian use of unimproved trails be pro- hibited during the wet season; and B. The stable operation be leased as -is, without City funded im- provements. The lease parameters should set forth use limita- tions and required improvements of the lessee in compliance with the recommendations for the' stable operation by the Arastra Citizens Advisory Committee. Councilrsember. Witherspoon preferred that mountain terrain bikes not be included on the i nternal trails. That was not to say they would not be appropriate as other bikes might be on some of the outlying trails to connect to trails further up or roads further into Portol a Valley. She was concerned that any type of bike was dynamite i n combination with horses, and. the City would be liable. It was a pai n in the neck to be hiking. 'i n the county and have a bicycle come tearing around the corner. Regarding the gates, she understood the mai n purpose of the trails coming in off Paseo Del Robles and the one on Alexis Drive was for the ease of equestri- ans, and the eroble#ss were solved by having the gates locked at all times and the only people with keys were the Equestrian Trail Club or people who owned a stable. It was handled that way all throughout Woodside and Portol a Valley and those clubs closely monitored who had access to the. keys and their members were also part of a volunteer group that helped maintain the trail's. Councilmember Fletcher urged that Council, delete Item #8 because mountain bikes were hard to define and there was not one particu- lar bike which could be identified as a mountain bike. Many_ of the mountain bikes were highbreds used for roads, and her daughter was one of many who had no other bike.- Some people believed moun- tain bikes had motors and others believed they had shock absorb- ers, but they had neither. She suggested that bikes retain the right to use the trails, and if problems developed later, Council could take action then. In terms of riding off the trails, signs could be posted that - all bikes must remain on the trails. She understood the trails wouldebe 10 feet wide which would provide adequate room ` for other uses as . well AMENDMENT: .�. w... f, w iJ : r• _ _ a '. J .� ..11 by Levy, �. Cou nc �.dcriabc r w ool l of mowed, seconded by Levy, to adopt recommendation 9(1) "that equestrian trails proposed by the Citizens Advisory Committee be constructed to City standards with private funds. The combined access road/equestrian trail from Arastradero Rcaad along the creek and the Arastra perimeter trail be developed or improved with City funds and permit all-weather equestrian use. Equestrian use of other nonimproved trails would be prohibited," rather than 9(b). Councilmember Woolley believed 9(a) was the recommendation of the Arastra Committee and it was also the staff recommendation. She believed using private funds to construct the equestrian trails was probably more appropriate and might result i n the trails bei ng constructed at an earlier time than if it was left up to City funding. Mr. Brown cl arified that 9(b) was the Arastra Committee recommen- dation, and 9(a) the staff recommendation. Councilmember Woolley said the Committee wanted the City to con- struct the trails. Mr. Brown said yes, using volunteer labor where appropri ate. Councilmember Witherspoon believed the City would have to be involved in any case ae it would have to approve the standards to which the trails were to be constructed and supervise the volun-- teer labor. She believed 9(b), the Committee's recommendation, was more practical. The only way it differed from 9(a) was the big access road from the creek which would be improved with City funds to permit all-weather equestrian use. She suggested staff return with that item in the Capital Improvement budget to deter- mine which way was more practical. The Council did not have to lay down a policy at that time. Councilmember Bechtel said the real difference between the two was that 9(a) requi red the users of the equestri an trails to come up with private funds to pay for the construction of those trails, while in 9(b) City funds and the use of volunteer labor to help defray the cost of trail level opment was foreseen. By supporti ng 9(a), a larger burden would be put on volunteers in trail con- struction. Vice Mayor Levy suggested that 9(a) would result i n more year- round trails than 9(b). Councilmember Bechtel said that was ' not spelled out and was not necessarily the case. Vice Mayor Levy asked to have the point clarified because he desi red to have the maximum practical year- round use. Mr.. Brown said 9(a) and 9(b) reflected different funding mecha- nisms for the same trail system. Whether the trails would be available during the winter and for year- round use was a question of when the funds became available. The i denti al trail system was envisioned for both methods. Councilmember Sutorius` opposed the amendment. City funding, including the use of volunteer labor and with the caveats offered by staff during discussion of that use, might not proceed rapidly enough and not include private groups coming forward with addi- tional proposals and 'recommendations regarding a stronger partici- pation on their part. He would stay with 9(b) . Counci 1 member Renzel asked if a park development ordinance for Arastre would ultimately be developed. If .so,. it eight speak to the physical improvements but not say how they were to be acc.om pl fished to give the fl exibll ity Indicated by Councilmember Sutori us. Ms. Lee agreed it would address the physical improvements, and site and design because of the location of the property. Councilmember Renzel asked Ms. Lee to confirm that they would speak principally to where the trails would go rather than how they were built. Ms. Lee said that they would be dealing with the horse trails just as they dealt with the golf cart paths. Councilmember Renzel asked for assurances teat Council would not be locked out by establishing a procedure in the park development ordinance. She opposed the motion and concurred with Council - member Sutorius. - AMENDMENT FAILED unanimously. Councilmember Renzel asked about the cost to the City to lock the gate every night on Paseo Del. Robl e. Di rector of Parks 8 Open Space Management Larry White said the cost was hard to estimate. Someone would have to go out every evening to close the gate. It would not be feasible for someone to go there on a special errand, and would be easier if someone patrolling the property did it. Councilmember Renzel was concerned because Council was deleting the gate from the maps and wouldbe responsible for locking it up at night. The deletion from the maps was at the request of Los Al tos Hills, and was a reasonable compromise to avoid having peo-- pl a park there to enter the park. She was concerned that locking the gate every evening placed a real burden on the City because someone would have to hike out to do so. Mr. Brown said the Paseo Del Robles access was close to the pro- posed parking lot, and would also have to be locked at night. Councilmember Renzel was satisfied that l ocki ng the gate was a rel atively easy adjunct to other necessary activities. NOTION PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Bechtel preferred to have the 77 acres dedicated, but did not believe Council would vote for it at that po2nt. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the 77 acres not be dedicated as public parkland and be re moved from consideration in the park study. Councilmember Cobb understood the motion was to defer the decision on dedication. The primary reason for so doing was the black cloud of Jarvis IV hangs ng over the City, which might change the thi nki ng of Councilmembers who were presentlyi ncl 1 ned to dedicate it as parkland. Should that unfortunate piece of legislation pass, it was\,possible Council might at some future date be forced to choose between taking some value out of the 77 acres as against losing open space for a surplus high school or middle school choice. He hoped that choice never became necessary. He pee- ferred to go ahead with the dedication, but it was premature at that time. Councilmember Renzel recognized the votes might net be there, but she was prepared to support dedication of the acreage and could not support -the motion. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-i, Renal voti ng "no. k _ Councilme_iber Pechtel said she spent soase tile on Saturday walking the property and talking to people there. At that ti e only the few people whose .horses were ,stabled there were:`allowed to use the - land and it did- not sees fair. The City had Owned :the property for a long time and many trails were in place. The gravel road- ways were adequate for hiking, a ranger was assigned, and there was also a manager. Accords ng to page 4 of the report, parki ng at an approximate cost of $230,000 prevented the immedi ate openi ng of the park, and when she asked why it was so expensive to build a 35 -car gravel parking area, she learned that much of the cost was maki ng adequate acceleration and deceleration spaces on Arastradero Road and removing about nine eucalyptus trees. There was parking about one-third tc one-half mile away on Page Mill Road i n the P ark-anO-Ride lot and bicyclists could reach the park a What was needed immediately were signs, fencing, and gates. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that staff be directed to come up with a plan to immediately open Arastra Park to the public, without providing a parking facility at that time, Councilmember Bechtel said her motion meant there would be no parking along Arastradero Road, and parking on John Marthens Lane would be for the stable users only. Mayor Klein suggested that Councilmember Bechtel repl ace the word "immediately" with a direction to staff to prepare the plan "as soon as possibl e." Councilmember Bechtel agreed to the change, as long as staff understood the urgency. She understood "as soon as possible" to mean "within a month or so," whereas staff might understand it to mean "within six months to a year." She would compromise with "within a month or two," or i n that range. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO REPLACE THE WORD "IMMEDIATE" WITH "AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD)." Councilmember Renzel asked if signs would suggest suitable parking pl aces Councilmember Bechtel assumed there would be mi nimal sign, gates and fenci r1g. She hoped staff would come up at the time the next budget with a C:pi tal Improvement P rog ram for a parking lot. MOTION PASSED unanimously= Councilmember Cobb asked where they were in terms of connecting the ultimate trai i\ system to the:..Midpeni nsul a Regional Open Space District. Mr. Brown said the Committee recommended that the Council direct staff to take i t on as an additional study I'n the future. NOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Renze1, to di rect staff to wort with the Mi dpeni nsul a Re i deal -Open Space District to come up with proposals for connecti ng the Arastra trail system Rath the iiidpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves which does not prevent the 'Palo Al tans. only' use of Foothills Part and toesis.tent with re.'.ommeudetiens of Arastra Citizens- Advisory, Com- mittee'. Councilmember Fletcher. taid:-,shen was. relucant to vote then i n favor of the motion, The mai ry damage to Foothills Park was frown traf-- fic, parking,. and :_the -paraphernalia ekople brought i n their cars for 'e xtensive picnicking and the ensuing residue. She was --.not sure she wanted to exclude;- people whp came i n.,on foot or -bike, as she_ was not convinced- they. would cause damage -to-: the park--.: She was: not 11! favor of -ap ni ng the gates -to- cars, `as ,would bri erg . multitudes . At most, six peopl a per day would go- to the trouble of. walking the : many mid a up the. hills to, reachthe park, Which would not cause -any probl ems: for Foothil l s Park. = She would not vote- i n favor'of the otion Councilmember Bechtel understood from ;naps she looked at with staff that it was impossible to get from tae Arastra property to the Open Space District without going through a portion of Foot- hills Park. - She asked if it was the intent of the motion that staff explore means of getting to those properties without going through the middle of Foothills Park. Councilmember Cobb said it was his intent that a trail system not be set up a trail highway into the park that would be a natural route for people to take. It might be necessary to use a portion of Foothills Park to get from the Arastra lands to the Open Space lands, but the Council should not encourage such traffic, as he believed it to be against what the people of Palo Alto wanted for their park. Councilmember Bechtel said she would support it if it was flexible enough to mean "through the perimeter," as there was no other way to join the trails. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INSERT THE WORDS "ALONG THE PERIMETER OF FOOTHILLS_ PARK." Councilmember Witherspoon agreed, and said there ought to be a way for hikers and horseback riders --perhaps even cyclists --to get to the next trail, system or, conversely, over the hill through the Lee property into Portola Valley since the trails went-- in that direction. There was a recommendation to form a small committee of knowledgeable people to work on the matter, and she suggested that such a committee be formed. Councilmember Cobb said it was still necessary for City staff to work with the Open Space District, but citizen input would be ap- propriate. He could not locatethe recommendation in the report, but believed the committee should be appointed by the Mayor. Councilmember Witherspoon suggested five was a suitable number and said the committee should I ncl ude people knowledgeable about horses and trails. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO REWORD THE MOTION TO READ: "DIRECT STAFF AND COMMITTEE OF FIVE APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR TO WORK..." Mayor Klein said the motion directed staff, with the assistance of a five member citizens committee to be appointed by the Mayor, to work with the iii dpeni nsul a Open Space District to explore the pos- sibility of connecting the trails from Arastra with Open Space District Land trails; such trails to be at the perimeter of Foot- hills Park to minimize as much as possible any changes to the "Palo Alto residents" policy only in Foothills Park. Councilmember Fletcher wanted to leave a possibility for hikers to enter the park regardless of residency. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Fletcher voting MINUTES OF -JUNE 18, 1984 MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius , moved, seconded by hazel, a p royal of the minutes of June ae 18, .1984, as submitted. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Fletcher temporarily absent. AGENDA_. CHANGES ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mayor Klein wanted to bring forward item 25, Request for Support of Stanford Blood Bank, to ,be heard while the"maxiaum number of the public were present. 4 8 4 9 7/23/84 MOTIOW; Nayur Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to bring forward Item 25, Stanford Blood Bank, ahead of Item 1, Award to Conserva- tion and Solar Division. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #25, REQUEST OF MAYOR KLEIN RE SUPPORT OF STANFORD BLOOD BANK Mayor Klein said the blood bank was desperately low and needed help. It was a critical item of public health that could affect any person or family. The City Clerk advised him that as part of the City's participation in the attempt to obtain more blood for the blood bark the Bloodmobile would be at City Hall on Forest Avenue between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 E m. on August 10, 1984. MOTIOW: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the City Council go on record recognizing the important work perormed by the Stanford Blood Bank and make an immediate and urgent appeal to members of the Palo Alto community to support the Stanford Blood Bank -ay volunteering to donate blood as soon as possible and on a regular basis thereafter. Mayor KI ei n i ntended to, donate bi ood--at_ that time, and asked other members of the Council, the staff, and the public to Join him. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #1, AWARD FROM WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION TO Mr. Zaner said Palo Alto was to receive an award from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), which provided a'4l of Palo Alto's power. Director of Utilities Richard. Young introduced the Area Manager for the Sacramento Office of WAPA, David Coleman, to make a presentation on behalf of the Administrator of WAPA. He expressed appreciation fo.e. the members of the conservation team who were present. Mr. Coleman said Palo Alto was one of WAPA's l arg\est preferred customers of the approximately 80 served in Cali rorni a and Nevada. Palo Alto was :one of the most progressive cities; and WAPA served it for approximately 21 years. The City .had active leadership, and he recognized the efforts of both Director Richard Young and Sam 'iahany-BraithaMit, . onservation officer. Several years ago, the WAPA Administration initiated an award to be given to certain outstanding preference customers who led in developing conserva- tion programs. It was presented three times in the Western United States during the previous two years, and the award was primarily given on the basis of residenti al and solar programs. Palo Alto demonstrated in many different ways its interest in conservation of nonrenewable resources, and he presented the award to the Mayor for the City's outstanding efforts. Mayor Klein thanked Mr. Coleman for the WAPA award and said con- servation was a high priority for the City. He appreciated the recognition the -City's efforts were receiving and hoped it could keep up the good work, and congratulated staff. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Coumcllmeamber Witherspoon moved, seonded apprtVe .the Consant. Calemdir Items 2.11. Referral ITEM 02 CONSULTANT. SELECT ON :FOR FISCAL YEAR -1984 rtirrTM:4) na nc 0 s Ons by Levy, 85 .CONSULTANT e.. M 4 :8 5 0 7/23/.84 MOTIONCCONTINUED ITEM #3, DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO I (UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 24) ►'uorfc Irons Committee 01717417M11117nrrur Action ITEM #4 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING. ACA 75 (AMENDMENT TO WATER - Keter to Finance RESOLUTION 6280 entitled "RESOLUT LON OF THE COUNCIL e i nt GUT br• FALOALTO IN SUPPORT OF ACA 75 (SHER) 1WICH WOULD CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECT WATER RESOURCES A; THEIR uKiniw ITEM #5, SUMMARY VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT - 611 Barron ,venue Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution ordering vacation of the public utility easement at 611 Barron Avenue. RESOLUTION 6281 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ALTO ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AT 611 BARRON AVENUE, PALO ,ALTO, CALIFORNIA" ITEM #6, VISUAL ARTS JURY ORDINANCE (COU 5-7; ORD IgA_ CE FOR = LRST READING entitled °'ORDINANCE OF THE Mina. IL Ot 1 AL ciTY 01- PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTIONS 2.18.030 AND 2.18.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE MANNER OF APPOINTMENT AND TERM OF OFFICE OF THE VIF.UAL' ARTS JURY' ITEM #7, GOLF COURSE CART PATHS - Park Improvement Ordinance Staff- recommends that Council approve the Park Improvement Ordinance for. construction of cart paths within the golf course. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST tOkO ING entitled °ORDINANCE OF, THE toOKIL oF' THt OE PACT ALTO APPROVING AND .ADOPTING PLANS FOR GOLF COURSE. CART,, PAT.US OVER A PORTION OF BYXSEE PARK, -THE CITY -OWNED 5AYLANDS AND THE MUNICIPAL GOLF -COURSE" ITEM #8, SWIMMING POOL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (PAR 4-4) (CMR:379:4) Staff -recommends that: 1. Council authorize the Mayor to execute a two year pool equip- ment maintenance contract with Boyett Waterworks in the mount of $20.2.41 for the first year, and subject to Council appro- priation action, $21,254 for the second year. 2. Council authorize staff to execute change orders of sip to $3.,000 for each year the contract is in force. AWARD OF .CONTRACT Boyett Waterworks ITEM #9 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF 0AKIULL Staff recommends that Council 1 1. Waive any irregularities in the hid award the contract to L. J. Duarte, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $199,426, and authorize the " Mayor to execute the contract. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up to $30,000. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT L. J. Duarte, Inc. ITEM #10, SECURITY SERVICE FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER (f IN 9-3) Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Stanley Smith Security, Inc. in the amount of $18,000. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $2,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT Stanley Smith Security, Inc. ITEM #11, COMPENSATION. PLANS FOR VARIOUS EMPLOYEE GROUPS (PER 2-1/ c- j L� -- Staff recommends that Council approve the resolutions adopting the Compensation Plans for Police Non -Management Personnel, Management and Council Appointees, and Confidential Personnel, and amending the Compensation Mail for Classified Employees. Funding for these plans as presented has been included in the 1984-85 budget. RESOLTION 6282 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF �l rT - n FWLO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL -APPOINTED OFFICERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTIO1 NO. 6180 AND RESOLUTION NO. 6199' (PER 2-1) RESOLUTION 5283 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ThrTrfralrmirno ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6455," RESOLUTION NO. 6114, RESOLUTION NO. 6149v AND RESOLUTION NO. 52038 (PER 2-1) RESOLUTION 6284 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF nrarfrinTrintro ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR POLICE NONMANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLU- TION NO. 6097' (PER 2-7) RESOLUTION 6285 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR 6032 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 6068, RESOLUTION NOS. 6126 AND 6150" (PER 2-1) City Manager Bill Zaner Said a paragraph was erroneously included in item 11, and alternate wording was provided to the Council at their places. POTION PASSED unanimously, ITEM #13 REVISED_ HOUSING _MITIGATION ORDINANCE (PLA 2-14) Executive Assistant Glenn Miller said the staff report gave the results of staff's discussions with the Palo ,'ito HOusing-Corparar. tion (PAHC) and the Chambe. k of Commerce and th ir response. I eouncllmemher Woolley staff to common o dated _ - asked comment f! n the letter C, Q �.�r'� July 9, 1984 from the Choi rman and Chief Executive Officer of the University National Frank and Trust Company, Carl Schmitt, suggest- ing the square footage of a previous structure he deducted from that of a new project erected on the same site. Di rector of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the current policy was to not do that. If a building was cleared from a site and a building subject to mitigation erected, mitiga- tion fees would be attached to the enti re ordinance. He believed Mr. Schmitt made a valid,point regarding the exclusion of existing square footage. Since currently there were no fees and none were proposed, it would apply to remodeling or internal changes.. In other words, if the square footage remained, there would be no type of fee. Mr. Miller and the City Attorney's office looked at the particular question in detail, and if Council wanted to pursue the matter, there were some advantages i n different types of word- ing. His response to Mr. Schmitt's suggestion was basically posi- tive, Councilmember Bechtel refereed to the letter dated July 18, 1984 from Mr. Robert Freel en, Vice President for Public Affai rs, Stanford University. She believed his concerns were met, and that the ordi nance would not apply to a hospital. Mr. Schreiber said all the concerns raised in the fi rst paragraph of Mr. Freel en' s letter were responded to adequately in the ordi- nance. Hospitals were exempted, and the ordinance provided for supplying nousi ng rather than a payment. The second paragraph concerned payments computed on the number of new versus old em- pl oyees and would be difficult to admi ni ster. Councilmember Bechtel asked for an estimate of what other cities in the area charged for a 50,000 square foot building. Mr. Schreiber said Palo Alto's fees were based on a talt se in the Code which was adopted by many other communities such as Santa Clara and Los Altos, who charged the same amount. For a 50,000 square foot spec office bui l di ng, at a value indicated by the Chief Building Official of approximately $2,600,000, the total bui 1 di ng and plan check fees would be a little over $11,000. Some cities instituted their own fee schedules, which ranged from a low of $4,700 i n Mountain View to a high of almost $34,000 i n Mil pi tas. The question of fees In construction-rel ated charges was more complex than just the building penal t. The greatest example of imposing fees was San Jose. A building official from that city said five percent of the building value should be con- sidered as buildi ng and construction- related fees. A 50,000 square foot building in San Jose, but not in the downtown area, would cost $130,000 i n fees at pre$ent, compared to a little more than $11,000 in Palo Alto. Councilmember Bet `.el asked for a comparison of the cost to a housi ng developer _n Palo Alto for providing ` below -market -rate (BMR) unit or an i n -lieu housing fee. Mr. Schreiber said i f a unit was provided, the impact was i n profit foregone, which ws - difficult to calculate. There was also land value not recovered through the sale of the unit, which had to be passed along to the other units. The City's current policy +.is to charge an in -lieu fee of three, percent of the gross sales price, which i n the current market translated to approximately $4.60 to $6.00 per squer'e foot if the developer could not provide a BMR unit. Council*esber Witherspoon was Rio re interested in what the City would get , for its. bucks rather than the fo rssui a Or some of the finer points ,the. Chamber of Commerce was concerned about. As the program was in effect in various forms for at least five or six years, the City must have an idea of the number of housing units leveraged or created with the, fund. i Mr. Miller said since the inception of the policy authorized under the California Envi ronmentel Quality Act (CEQA), almost $1=5 million was collected. Only one draw on those industrial funds was made-- not to be confused with the residential BMR funds --of approximately $1 million for the Tennan project to build 92 units, 72 of which were low and moderate income units. Councilmember Witherspoon wanted to get a handle on whether the program was cost effective, and asked if she should divide the $1 million by 72 or 92 units. Mr. Schreiber said $1 million divided by 72 units came out at $13,890 per unit. Responding to the question of whether the pro- gram was cost effective, two elements were involved. First, with- out the program it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put together the Terman Housing Program without going to the City General Funds as no alternative Federal or State funds could have been effectively drawn down for land costs. With regard to whether the program was effective i n terms of the total number of units, 72 or 92 units at Terman was a relatively small number of units, given the amount of development that took place in the past. In that sense it was a small compensation for the number of :employees and the impact employment had on the housing market in Palo Alto. Staff _ would argue that while it was small, it was effective and should continue, especially when the pros- pects of other state and federal supplementary sources conti nued to be weak. Councilmember Witherspoon supported recommendation 7 on page 3 of the staff report to expand the scope of the ordinance.. To get a handle on where the City could get the biggest bang for the buck, she asked for confirmation that- the $13,890 was for the land cost to acqui re the site, with constructi on costs not i ncl uded. Mr. Schreiber.,confi need that the sum went towards the land costs for the units Councilmember Witherspoon said rightly or wrongly, it appeared to have been the City' s policy to use the funds to help acquire a land bank. The policy over the past 15 years was to use City or other funds to l and bank allowing construction funds to come from another source. She asked if the City's policy was to use the fund to acqui re land on which to construct low and moderate income housi ng. Mr. Schreiber said the primary focus when using those and other funds was to purchase land. Staff welcomed the opportunity to bri ng back to the Council a more refi ned pol icy statement regarding the use of those funds. Councilmember Cobb asked how the mitigation ordinance would apply to remodeling of older structures, particularly in the case of some incidental increase in square rootage yenerdted when attempting to bring a st rcture up to earthquake standards, etc. He asked for clarification of how Table I in the staff report CMR:351:4 would •apply. Mr. Miller said under' the revised ordinance, if the remodeling wasless than 2,500 square feet, therewould be no consideration and no charge for an additional amount. Councilmember Cobb asked whether the 2,500 square feet referred to additions or the total amount. Mr. Miller said it meant 2,500 new squarefeet. Counciliember Cobb understood it to mean that a 20,000 square foot structure which was thoroughly- remodeled could have 2,500 square feet .added. The owner would be on the., hook only for 'an additional 2,500 structure added afterwards Mr. Miller said to add 2,500 square feet would cost nothinn If the resulting extra space was 2,600 square feet, the owner would have to pay for 100 square feet. Councilmember Cobb understood it meant incremental to what was there before. If the owner kept the same amount of square footage there would be no impact, plus he would have a further 2,500 square feet before he started to see the effect. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the proposed requirement was that half of the final payment had to be put up front before the permit was issued. She wondered 'if that was the kind of money a developer could get from a construction loan. It put a real bur- den on on someone with a medium-sized project. Mr. Schreiber believed many speakers would address that point. He understood it was not the type of cost usually folded into a con- struction loan, but would need a separate source of fi nanci ng. It was one of the reasons staff agreed that putti ng all the money up front would consti tute a disti nct burden, and recommended scaling it back to half . Mayor Klein decl ared the public hearing open. Jim Hal iburton, Executive Vice President of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce read a statement from the Chamber, which appreci ated that some of the Chamber's recommendations were incorporated i nto the pending housing mitigation ordi nance. The Chamber agreed that low to moderate housi ng should be i ncreased, and preferred a well cons ceired ordi nance over the current method of negotiation. It ques- tioned the legal and statutory basis of the ordinance, asking whether it was a new construction tax and subject to the two- thi rds vote requirement. Staff wanted to place the process on sound legal footi ng, but the legal basis should be established. The combined effect of three provisions in the ordinance would un- reasonably increase the cost of development. Substanti all, more projects would become subject to mitigation if the threshold was decreased from 50,000 to 20,000 square feet. Counting all prei`i-- ous development in the parcel would make the 20,000 square feet cumulative. There would be a dramatic escalation of costs from $1 to the proposed $2.43 per square foot-- a 143 percent i ncrease, or approximately 600 percent over the relatively short life of the prog ram. It was unfair tomore than double the fee and index it to the cost of living. He suggested only five percent of the demand for low to moderate income housi ng be satisfied maki ng the base fee $1.22 per square foot, :-a 22 percent i nc rease--which could be indexed to the cost of living. He urged a minimum impact of two housing units prior to mitigation be allowed, reducing the threshold to 40,000 square feet and primarily benefiting smaller busi ness developments. The smal I loss of revenue would be offset by substanti ally reducing the admi nistrative burden and would prove more cost effective. The 2,500 gross square feet blanket exemption for nonempl oyment product ng improvements was inadequate, as business i n Palo Alto, especi ally in the research park, encour- aged specialized buildings with limited uses. :Improvements that were unsuitable for employment producing uses--che,ical storage, loading docxs, cafeterias, utility plants, auditoria, greenhouses, etc. —should be exempt, and a sui table procedure substituted for the blanket exemption. Regarding ` the proposed partial payment provision, some lenders required the permits first be 'issued.. Smaller developers might not be able to pay the first half of the mitigation fee so a brief delay should be allowed when the lender fi rst required issuance of permits. The Chamber supported a 22 percent increase in the fee and indexing it to the cost of 1 i v ing; and a 10,000 square feet reduction of threshold, to be reached cumulatively. As it did not consider 'the ordinance an attempt to revise the housing mitigation fee stiNcturet the Chamber's pro- posed changes were consistent with the City's aims to comply with current=.State statutes. Sylvia Samar, Executive D+ ector of PAHA, 3380 Middlefield Road, said PAHA considered the a riginial staff report, worked with staff, and was pleased its reco'amendations were incorporated into the re- vised ordinance, which it strongly endorsed. PAHA had not con- sidered item 6 on page t of the report --to retain within the ordi- nance a provision for cvsideration to be given to those worki ng in the Palo Alto/Stanfo;a community. PAHA urged the provision in the original ordi nance -givi ng fi rst preference to employees of the company building such housing be stricken because of the eight - yea r waiting list of people living and worki ng in Palo Alto. It would ae unfair to move others ahead when it was the policy to take people in order. PAHA would on the following Wednesday con- sider the new recommendation to move people working in Palo Alto ahead . of those 1 i v i ng i n Palo Alto. As administrator of the pro- gram, she believed they were committed to take applications for ownership units i n their order on the waiti ng list, which was for people either living or workings In Palo Alto. It would be diffi- cult to tell people they would have to wait for another unit be- cause: they did not work i n the City. As di rector, she preferred to not include the provision al though the Board had not yet con- sidered the item. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, agreed that first preference should be given to those al ready on the PAHA waiting .list. The ordinance showed that approximately 31 percent of all new empl oy- ees would earn low or moderate incomes, and she was astonished to learn that the new jobs provided in'Palo Alto had such a high per- centage of low ranges as she thought high tech Jobs carried higher incomes. It underscored the need for such housing mitigation measures. The staff recommendations were an absolute mi nimum. So much needed to be done that they at least should be adopted. The Council should make exemptions on a narrow basis only. They were not dealing with buildings requi ri ng a permit for construction nor g randfatheri ng issues. The bui l di ngs would create immedi ate hous- ing distress. James Law, 50 Ranch Road, Woodside, the corporate manager of land development and p1 arming for Hewl ett-Packard, supported the sug- gested modifications by the Chamber of Commerce to the proposed ordinance. ' In particul ar, he requested the ordinance allow exemp- tion for specialized facilities that did not further contribute to job creation but were essential to supporting the existing employ- ees, including but not limited to, chemical storage areas, special laboratory buildings, and cafeterias. Similarly, existing build- ings torn down and replaced with upgraded structures, which were not designed to accommodate an increased density of employment should also bM exempt from the housing fee, as they would not exac'erbate the housing/jobs imbalance. The fee should not actas an impediment or disincentive to building owners to discourage up- grading or improving properties.., Frank Koch, Commercial Affairs Director of Syntex, said current density at Syntex was one person per 500 square feet --half the density of several surrounding sites in Stanford Industrial Park and conside eably 1 ess than the 350 square foot average shown for commercial • Itd industrial use in the City in the origi nal staff report. Syntex had approximately 300,000 square feet of buildable space remai ni ng, I n thei r triangle to be built out by 1990 without any measurable change in density. The major assumption of the program was for those who created employment density to provide mitigation, but but it did not work out that way for Syntex. They maintained a long-term commitment to create --a— low -.density, campus- type complex of offices, research laboratories and production facilities. Syntex already contributed in -lieu housing fees of some $400,000, or 25 percent of the total $1.6 million collected from industrial ,development in the City. They . expected to' -`con tribute an additional $300:,000 at the current rate of $1 per square foot to complete development of thesfte, but the proposed ordinance would add about $430,000 of additional expense and raise Syntex's total in -lieu housing fees to over $1 million. Syntex. agreed with the Chamber of Commerce that the proposed fee was ex- cessive. The City should consider i ncentiyes to employers such as Syntex who maintained low densities to ameliorate the effects of industrial or commercial development. Also, Syntex employees requiring affordable housing should be given some priori ty for rental or owner housing facilitated by the company's in -lieu fees. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, endorsed the staff recommendations in the report. A 2,500 square foot exemption for nonemployment rel ated uses such as storage areas was generous. His large company just built a hazardous storage area of a little over 2,000 square feet to store hazardous and semi -hazardous materials. It was just too bad if someone had to store more. It was requested that building areas not empl oyment-i ntensive,. such as cafeteri as, be exempted. In his facility, the office and lab area used to be a cafeteria. Yesterday's cafeteria could be tomorrow's Intensive employment use. They were requested to change, the threshold from 20,000 to 40,000 square feet, but staff rationally concluded that 20,000 square feet was required to give adequate mitigation for the amount of 1 ow to moderate income housing required by that type of development. It did not benefit the community to relax that restriction. In terms of the PAHA concern about giving certain people fi rst preference; the policy had always been live and/or work. If first preference was given to people who worked r n the. City but did not live there, the Council would disenfranchise its constituents. People in the area were more prone to change their employment than their housi ng. Someone who worked at present in Palo Alto and got preference for housing might take a job in Sunnyvale or Menlo Park the day after he moved in. With regard to relaxing the requirements to five percent, he said 10 percent was rationally justified by the staff, and they should stay with it. Mr. Schmitt requested that i f an existing structure was demolished and a new structure built, the demolition should be ignored and the 20,000 square. feet that previously existed should be exempted: ;t would be a mistake since the old construction was :given a free ride in terms of housing mitigation If a new project was built, el 1 the new construction should be counted. As for the percentage increase from $1 to $2.43 per square foot, it was not being raised --it was set far too 1 ow i n the past. The formal a given by staff was defensible, and he urged the Council to stay with it. Jim Beckett, 1833 Park Boulevard, spoke as a resident, not as a businessman. TKe ordinance regarding projects. with impacts on housi ny stated that industrial and commercial developments con- tributi ng vo the jobs/housing imbalance should be requi red to mi t- igaZe that imbalance a . a condition of the privilege of develop- ment. By the ,same token, the letter from Stanford University identified projects as public benefit projects which should be exempt, such as hospitals, convalescent hoes and public facili- ties. Those facilities'. were no less privileged than some other project, and tended to generate more employees with a need for low and moderate income housi ng. He wanted to see both the City and staff rethink their basis for taxation. They were creating .a problem that would not generate sufficient funds to actually af- fect the tigation, and were leaving out a large amount of the source for the funds i f they went that way. As a resident, he preferred to see _ the City find . a more positive approach to the solution such as reducing the cost of building housing instead of Increasing the cost of building nonhousi ng. Carl Cletus, Manager of Corporate Facilities, ,Varian Associates, 611 Hansen way, Palo Al to,, said Varian supported the Chamber of Commerce's position and welcomed the certainty a written ordinance would provide. They especially supported the aatendment proposed by the Chamber and -agreed to by staff to not, require *ti ti g ati on payments for certain small Add1tions not contributing to employ- ment. The ordinance would exempt projects of less than 2,500 square feet, which was too small. A recent chemical storage.. facility Yeti an built to meet the new Palo Alto Hazardous Materials ordinance for proper diking and contai gent was 7,200 square feet. Varianpreferred the ordinance be amended to specify the type of projects to be exempted rather than 1 ay down an arbi- trary number of square feet. _ Peter Fusselman, Manager for the Associated General Contractors, 400 Reed Street, Santa Clara, said much comment was made by the people who would pay the tab if the ordinance went through. From the standpoint of the construction contractor, such a fee would not dramatically affect the contractor himself. He supported the positions of the Chamber' and the poi nts made by the speakers rep- resenting business. The Council wanted to' see a positive program established to mitigate the housing problem in Palo Alto, but it was an expensive proposition. At $ 0,000 per unit, 50 units would cost about $2.5 million, and in excess, of one million square feet of nonexempt space would be required. The $50,000 was fur con- struction costs, and did not include land. Acquisition of land would raise the cost to $3.5 million, requiring nearly 1.5 million of nonexempt square footage to generate. ' The Association sup- ported the potential su nsetti ng of the program if it did not prove to be productive and worthwhile within five years. Lewis Erickson, Facility Manager for Lockheed, spoke in favor of the stand taken by the Chamber of Commerce. He believed the miti- gation, if provided, should be on the basis of added employment and have nothi ng to do with square footage. Mayor Klein declared the public heari ng closed. CLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION The City Council recessed to Closed Session re Litigation from 9:15 p.m. TO 9:30 p.m. REVISED HOUSING MITIGATION ORDINANCE (Conti nued) MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt staff recommendations to approve the Housing Mitigation Ordi nance; di rect staff to devel op and return to the Council with specific guidelines governi ng the use of housing mitigation funds; end direct staff to prepare annually a report on the use of such funds. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST::`;. READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE nrirrrtirMirrrTIM-FIrAtU ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE DY ADDING CHAPTER 16,41 REGARDING APPROVAL OF PROJECTS WITH IMPACTS ON HOUSING' Councilmember Renzel commented that when housing mitigation funds were started, the original proposed amount was $2.50 per square foot conditioned on subsequent developments. A subsequent devel- opment was: approved at a lower mitigation fee, then all subsequent fees were set at that lower figure. The housing crunch was clear- ly reaching crisis proportions, and it was not healthy for indus- try or people to have such a serious house ng problem. The sooner significant steps were taken to address it :.the better. She urged her colleagues to .support the prudent action. Mayor Klei n asked the City Attorney to .comment on the corres- pondence. ef root the Chamber of Commerce, and to discuss the legal aspects of the item. City Attorney Diane Lee said the issue of the fee being a tax arose under Proposition 13. The fee was in place prior to Propo- sition 13, and was at regulatory fee imposed for the 'purpose of regulating the effects of new development. The fee called for housing with a monetary contribution in lieu, of housing, but the primary component was the provision . of housing. Everyone in the County was familiar. with the -exactions for nett schools imposed for the privilege of subdividing, land, :and the fee now being exacted was for the privilege of developing although 'at the AR8 approval stage, not at the subdivision level. It was nevertheless a fee. 7/23/84 One speaker asked ihy the policy was being put into the ordinance. The response was given i n the introduction on page 1 of the June 14, 1984 staff report prepared by the Planning staff. The legal basis for such a fee was also questioned. Generally, Palo Alto was a charter city with plenary authority over local affairs. Development of property in the community was a local affair and, as such, the City had all powers not restricted by the Charter. The case i n question was one of those powers. Regarding the nexus issue, the exaction had to be rel ated to the purpose of the ordi- nance, which was one of the reasons staff favored people working in Palo Alto for units under the program. Regardless of whether recipients lived in Palo Alto, working in Palo Alto was signifi- cant i n establishing the relationship of the fee being extracted and the purpose of the fee, which was to mitigate the jobsfhousi ng imbal ance. Councilmember Witherspoon referred to the two-part payment proi- sion. She asked why they wanted it all up front, and if they were worried about deadbeats. She believed the City had control at the other end when final approval was necessary. Mr. Schreiber said the current practice was to try to have the fee collected prior to issuance of the building permit. As a matter of practice, staff was most comfortable with the fee .in hand prior to any formal written City permission for construction. It was the approach used when writing the fi rst ordinance. The comments from the Chamber of Commerce and others were accurate in terms of borrowi ng the money up front, and staff considered it an appropri- ate modification to spread the money collection over the course of the development. Councilmember Witherspoon observed that practically speaki ng, the City had no immediate need of the money. The only fear was that the developer might walk away, which was unlikely. flr. Schreiber said it could be argued that if the fee was being collected because of the impact on the housing market, the collec- tion of the fee at the time of construction would allow the City some opportunity prior to the employees actually coming on site to do something about ,.;he housi ng situation. He did not find it an overwhelming or compel 1 i ng argument in terms of requi ring all the money up front. Ms. Lee said the issue was that of Increased administrative burden in collecting the fees if for some reason they were not paid. For that reason the fee was collected at the time the permit was issued so the City did not have to get into the collection busi- ness, which could be time consumi ng and costly at. a later point i n time. Countilmember Wi therspoon appreciated the point, and believed the previous procedure to not give the final occupancy permit until all the fees were in hand would get a handle on the problem. She was also concerned about the Chamber's concern for some kind of procedure-- administrative or otherwise -- to exempt additions of non- employee product ng square footage. She asked staff if it would constitute- a heavy administrative burden -to find a . method other than the formul a. hr. Schreiber believed it would pose a big admi nistrative burden. Space could go from one use to another with little City review. In terms , of internal modification,, generally no ARB review was re- quired, only a building permit. He was concerned about a large number of exemptions or a sliding scale, because of problems of interpretation. Every point of interpretation became a point of conflict and dispute between staff and applicants'. Mr. Clove said he favored the certainty of the o:Hi is ite. There was much to be said for applicants knowing before starting the process exactly what it would cost rather than getting into. gk situation, where the actual fee was based on an interpretation of how a prticular area :sightbe used and which might Le made at any stage of the process. From the standpoint of the staff and most applicants, the certain- ty aspect was important. 4 _8 5 9 7/23/84 Counri l;member Sutori us said . the ARB pi=ocess or understandings ar- ticul ated at the Council level and supported by staff during the preliminary processes before the project went to the ARB encour- aged the provision of spaces .for appropriate purposes as identi- fied by the City, i.e., the provision of showers on the premises because it was considered a valid purpose to keep the employees on the premises as opposed to getting in their cars during the lunch hour. A possibility was setting aside space for rideshare and alternate modes, or for a coordinator, etc. A way should be found to exempt low -intensity uses and others the City encouraged. He. would be concerned. if after considerable promotion, a company came through with an on -site child care center. It might encourage and educate others to its worthwhile nature, only to find. the square footage would be assessed under the housing mitigation program, which made no positive sense. He was troubled by not recognizing such eventualities. He asked if the building process could be a way of recognizing changes that occurred after a space was con- structed and exempted. The internal space might not go through the ARB, but if it were to bemodified from a cafeteria to an of- fice, the construction processes would be such that it would have to come forward for a building permit. Assistant Building Official Fred Cullum said one problem with an area such as a cafeteria was that the low office partitions cur- rently popular required no building permits. The other problem was the matter of policing. A larva. facility had space in the basement originally approved as mec;.aaical space --a nonusable area with no parking. It came to his attention, by way of the Fire Marshall, that it was being converted. The ceiling heights were less than seven feet, but the entire area was now office space. It was not subject to ARB approval, and he found out about it only by chance. Councilmember Sutorius asked whether such problem situations were viol ati ons . The wi ring would be subject to code and would need a permit. Mr. Cullum agreed that electrical permits were required for low office partitions, and that violations would be the most likely way to get around the problem. Councilmember .Sutorius said by saying it was difficult to find ways to provide for an exemption, they were telling the entire development and business industry i n Palo Alto that the City was suspicious. He was dissatisfied that all would attempt viola- tions, and hated to tar everyone. A responsible business wanting a safe, well organized and well operated facility would not vio- late proper processes as far as wiring and other aspects in the Code were concerned. He obtained Mr. Cullum's confirmation that any contractor who\ accepted the job, would know a permit was re- quired, and stood to lose his or her. license, He had no sugges- tion about how to handle the problem, but hoped a way ca,lld be found to identify the types of facilities on a site that were low - intensity and of : a nature that 4.hould be exempted from the square footage calculation. Councilmember Fletcher said before she heard the City Attorney's comments she intended to make an amendment concerning eligibility for the program. If the housing was offered to people . living in Palo Alto they would presumably be renters who waited many years to purchase in, the City. The renter would vacate a rental unit that might be gobbled up by an employee already working in Palo Alto. She asked the City Attorney if such an interpretation could be consideredwithin the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Leedid rut consider it to be a legal question. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher sexed, seconded ° by Woolley, to snood *adios -j6.47.040 (c) to add ".lives or* after "house-.. hold." Councilmember Renzel said the C Attorney's c ti�i.i�� �.: �ii.11i�: said City 1'1i.1.�J li�,y s remarks 114i1dti it a difficult decision. She recognized PAHA t s difficulty in dealing wi th thei r 1 i st, but on the other hand, BMR funds from other hous- ing projects would allow them to keep their lists i n order if they jumped over the resident applicants for employee applicants when employment -generated mitigation housing --if it could be separated out --was available. She believed it important to leave the ti o n as structured. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Renzel, Klein, Witherspoon, Sutorius, voting "no." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to amend Section 16.47.040 (e) to read, "half of the in -lieu payment must be paid within ten calendar days of the time the developer receivers the first grading or building permit for a projects" Councilmember Sutorius said the purpose of the amendment was to recognize that construction financing often included provisions that fi nanci ng could not be. secured until' the permit was in hand. Counc{'member Fletcher asked what the City would do if the fi nen- ci ng was not handed over within the ten days. Councilmember Sutorius said if it occurred, there was still no way the occupancy permit would be issued. If the funds were not in, there were periodic inspections that went on with respect to pro- gressive completions. There was no inability of the Council to withdraw the bui 1 di ng permit or issue a cease and desist order. Councilmember Fletcher askedstaff to reiterate. Ms. Lee agreed the remainder had to be paid before the developer received a use and occupancy permit If the first part was not received, the whole sum became the remainder and would have to be paid before a use and occupancy permit was granted. Mayor Klein asked if an omnibus provision in the ordinance would requi re interest on the payment i f it was not made within 10 days. Ms. Lee said no .such provision was included. Mayor Klein said a developer would then have an incentive not to make the payment. Mr. Cullen said the first inspection would probably be a housing mitigation inspection. If the money was not there, a "stop, work" notice would be posted because a condition of. approval --the 10 day grace period --would nothave been met. Mayor Klein was concerned about the matter, and asked Council- member Sutorius if he had any solutions to propose. CounCilmember Sutorius understood staff to say it would occur duri ng the first inspection. It would be an almost immediate sit- uation if a stop work order was issued. He did not know the cor- rect wording for a penalty, and asked the Ci ty. Attorney to suggest language. He would not consider a substantive change that would rule out a fi rst reading of an ordi nance if staff return'ied with a penalty proviso at the rewrite. Ms. Lee said ;the discussion occurred at previous Council meetings.. The Council was acting on something definite and definitive. If it did not have actual wording, an ordinance could not be , passed for a first reading. It did pose a problem, and if the Council suggested Its intention, she would attempt to supply suitable language. 1 Mayor Klein sdid there might be more amendments, not i n as precise a Corm as the first two, maki ng a first readi ng that evening impossible. Councilmember Renzel referred to the response concerning the first inspection being for housing mitigation. She suggested condi- tioning the building permit on payment of the necessary fee. Ms. Lee said the buil ding permit could be conditi oned, but was unsure that a stop work order could be issued for nonpayment of a fee. Councilmember Renzel was more concerned about a permit being issued and carried along for a long time, and the money not paid and lost track of. She wondered if a building permit could be made valid only after the payment was made. She asked if it would be possible to have the building permit vanish if the money was not paid within the 10 days. Ms. Lee did not believe that would be possible. Mr. Schreiber suggested an alternative would be to change the 50/50 split, requi ring 25 percent of the fee prior to the permit and the 75 percent at the time of occupancy. It might balance out better in terms of interest paid early against other moneys not having to be drawn down until the end of the project. He agreed with the concerns about a stop work order issued 10 days later, which meant all meeting in the Chief Building Official's office to argue. It could become a messy process. Vice Mayor. Levy was amazed at the long discussion. The money would be paid, as the developers would erect a building far in excess of the mitigation cost He agreed with the 10 -day differ- entiation, and did not understand the hangup. Councilmember Bechtel found Mr. Schreiber's suggestion excellent. She would vote agai nst the amendment in order to then move for a 25/75 percent split i n the payment. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5=4, Fletcher, Renzel, Klein, Bechtel voting "no. Councilmember Woolley wanted to amend the motion exempting exist- i mg square footage from 1 nel usi on in the mitigation payment, and asked staff for wording. Ms. Lee oife red the wording for the new subsection, to read: "New gross square footage that replaces nonexempt uses shall not be considered gross square footage for the purposes of . this ordi- nance. 'Replaces' shall mean that the new gross square footage receives design approval pursuant to Chapter 16.48 wI thi n one year of the previous nonexempt uses being demolished." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Wither- spoon, to add section 14.47.020 (d) as follow3: "NOW gross squire footage that replaces nonexempt uses shall not be considered gross square footage for the purposes of this ordinance. 'Replaces' shall mean that the new gross square footage receives design approval pursuant to Chapter 16.46 within one year of the previous nonexempt uses being demolished." Councilmember. Woolley said if an existing building was torn down and replaced with another building, the square footage of the original existing burl di ng would not be included in calculating the housing mitigation payment. Mayor Klein affirmed it was the amendment suggested. Schmitt i n his letter. 4 8 6 2 //23/84 Councilmembere! D !.. M th - She ;.ith�.r3F on :.yid she favored the amendment. was concerned about sow:. of the buildings in the downtown, especially the historic ones. If they were calculated on the gross rather than on the net, she agreed with Mr. Schmitt that the City would speed tries r demise. Councilmember Fletcher had difficulty with the amendment. Using the small Los Altos Sewage Treatment site as an example, she said if it was bigger and abandoned for years, and if an office build- ing proposal was made, the existing square footage with zero employment would be exempted. Theoretically, another possibility was an office development on Maximart which currently had low employment. Other warehouse uses and mini -storage types of facil- ities with practically no employment might exist, but she was con- cerned when increased employment on the site occurred. Councilmember Renzel concurred. The ordinance as drafted was more protective of historic buildi ngs because the particul ar provision did not affect remodeling or minor expansions --only add-ons o.r new construction counted. It might encourage demolition of an his- toric building to subtract it from the total when a new building was to be erected, and channel more intensive development into areas with currently low -intensity uses. She opposed the amend- ment. Councilmember.Witherspoon asked for clarification of page 2 of Chapter 16.47 which affected remodeling of the building itself. Councilmember Renzel said the table on page 3 of the staff report showed that only the net addition over the 20,000 square feet would be counted, not the basic. Mayor Klein said the language would in effect give credit to a developer for the square footage that was to be replaced when an existing building was demolished and a new one created. If the University National Bank iia Trust Company built a 100,000 square foot building to replace its present 50,000 building, it would be considered as a 50,000 square foot building for purposes of the ordi nonce. Ms. Lee agreed. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Fletcher, Renzel, Levy voting " no.* Ms. Lee responded to Councilmember Wooliey's question that there was no avenue of appeal open :o. avoid the housing mitigation pay- ment for a Child Care Center. `Councilmember Cobb was concerned that different intensities would pay th.e same amount. The remarks made by Mr. Koch of Syntex reminded him of when he was Facility Manager for a company located in the Industrial Park. His company's uses were twice as intense as those of Syntex, but Syntex ended up paying the same amountfor the same square footage. Some kinds of uses did not generate as much employment as others, and the ordinance penalized the least intensive uses and favored those with highly intensive uses. He asked the City Attorney if _ the City left itself open to a legal challenge since the ordinance might be construed as inequitable. • Ms. Lee said it was possible for someone to claim that equitable meant "equal protection," but she did not believe the ordinance, as drafted, would invite legal challenges. Councilmember Cobb said a ''►0,000 squirt foot warehouse might have 20 employees, but .,the same sized office building- could have sub- stanti;ally sore.;_ calculated on one employee per 200 square feet. The unfairness bothered him, and it might encourage the wrong kind of devel opment. Councilmember Sutorius commended Patio for poi hti ng out, the poten- ti al i n the i ni ti al wording that a mixed use devel opment might be assessed for both the BMR program payment on the housing portion as well as the commercial and industrial formula process that occurred with a mixed use. It Would have been wrong for that to slip through, and he commended staff for incorporating the change. The formul a should be looked at for potential incentive to provide physical units. The money was important and would be well used - the Tennan instance was indicative of the good use that would be made of the money. The provision of physical units was even more important, and he suggested that paragraph (h) under 16.47.040 needed reexamination. He did not have a particular formula to suggest a way of providing that a mixed use development got some incentive or credit for the physical units it provided, and lacked a cohesive way to get at the nonintensive beneficial space uses being exempted. He would make a motion to (1) refer the subject of mixed use development formula process to staff for recommenda- tions of how the assessment could provide credit of some sort that was an incentive towards providing the physical units, and (b) refer to staff that for beneficial uses requi ring square footage, a means be developed or proposed for exempting such square foot- age. He wanted to amend the ordi nance, but did not have the word- ng . Mayor Klein understood the motion referred the ordinance back to staff for l anguage., Councilmember Sutorius clarified that it was the case if appropri- ate l anguage could not be supplied that eveni ng. NOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to amend the ordinance as follows: a. Ask staff to develop language to provide incentives to provide actual units in mixed use developments; and b. To have staff prepare language which would give appropriate credit for beneficial uses requiring square footage without having them be required to provide additional housing or in lieu payments. . Councilmember Cobb supported the amendment \'because it was a move i n the right di rection. He confi rmed that "benefici al uses" Included hazardous waste storage space, etc. that might be requi red by the City. If actual units were provided, he suggested the formula include an effective reduction i n .the rate charged. It was the kind of incentive that would get real 'units. Councilmember Sutorius wanted staff to decide about rate reduc- tions because he believed the potential existed for saying that for every physical unit provided, the formula would be reduced by some factor. It needed to be carefully reviewed so as to provide an incentive and not a situation where a BMR at 10 percent was appreciably affected. The current language said it was to be cal- culated both ways, and the higher applied. It removed the poten- tial of a double-edged sword, but did not provide the incentive to, produce- the units, and it would take time to think out the app ro- p ri otae formula. Mid or Klein did not support the amendment. He was concerned about to), as he believed the unfairness issue was misperceived. People used square footage i n different ways --some employers used it more, intensely than others. To avoid having an amy of inspectors con- stantly monitoring the number of employees in a square foot area, the City -=gad to rely on a crude, : but fair, test. Syntex had a low -intensity use, and he applauded the, present company policy, but, the management in 10 years might decide the current policies were too generous and nut sufficiently cost-effective, cost-effective, and double the amount of employees per square foot. If -`fairness was to be, put into effect, they would have to look to the other edge of the e p roq ram —employers adding employ Rey to sq=_ are " footage would be charged additional payments. If an employer started vat with a cafeteria and converted it, an additional payment would be required. Similarly, if Syntex doubled the ratio of empl eyees they would have to pay extra, and the City did not want to become involved in that. Square footage could be used in many ways and its use changed over time. The City could be sure that the use of a building would change in 10 or 15 years. It was a fair test -- not fair at any particular time, but fair over a long period, which was as much as could be hoped for without unnecessary and excessive intrusion of government into the affairs of local com- panies. He had no problem wi th the mixed use incentive, but did not consider it to be sufficient reason to hold up the or -di nance while language was developed. Councilmember Renzel concurred. With respect to mixed use incen- tives, a number of incentives were al ready built into the ordi- nance, a diminished usable open space requi rement, a shared park- ing i ncentive, a thi rd floor i n the CN zone, and others. The cur- rent mitigation ordinance indicated that double mitigations would not be required, which was adequate incentive. With regard to lower intensity uses, most property managers were aware of the value of their property and were inclined to develop it in a man- ner consistent with that value. Therefore, even though a use might be low in intensity, it would have an equivalent value to the owner and managerof the property. As the Assistant. Building Official poi nted out, it was easy to convert a number of spaces. When, she worked at SRI there were little brass plates everywhere covers ng plugs, which were inspected and l aid to code. Building inspectors would not have to inspect when one of those plugs was opened up because when such a system was in place, it could be considered a local maintenance job. Assistant Building Official Fred Cullum agreed. He said that when pre-wi red partitions were esed, they should be wi red i n permanent- ly, but there were many floor outlets in town that would not require inspection. Councilmember Renzel said it was a standard construction technique to build a grid for electricity into the core of concrete block buildi ngs. Buildings were readily convertible, and the City would not see all of its Because the value was there at the outset, people chose to develop property commensurate with its value. It was a fair. and reasonable process, and she opposed both parts of the amendment. Councilmember Wool leee requested that the amendment be split. She supported (a), because she believed it was most effective for Counci 1 to cut down on jobs and increase housing through the mixed use project which took potential job space and turned it into housing space. She wanted to see staff explore additional incen- tives for mixed use. AMENDMENT SPLIT. Vice Mayor Levy agreed that every possible incentive should be provided through mixed use. He wasdisoriented about (b), because he heard opposition related to the concept of intensity of use, and Councilmember Sutorius spoke of the dedication of floor space to, uses encouraged by, City policies such as child care as an ancillary use to the business occupying the facility, or those designed to keep employees on site at lunch time instead of con- tributing to traffic.: Councilmember Sutorius said he included showers, i u he h roo s, facilities for rideshare coordination and square footage used to keep employees on the premises ---even; space for automatic_ tellers. 4 8 6 5 7/23/84 • •w Vice. Mayor Levy said laudable yua1 s might be abused, and a cafe- teria could end up as office space. Council was discussing small areas and the concept of building uses into facilities the City encouraged as worthwhile goals. Exempting uses complicated an otherwise simple fo nnu: a, but his years on the Council taught him that what Council considered simple, the public often considered unfair. The situation called for policies to encourage goals the Counci 1 believed would benefit the community. He supported both elements of the amendment, which were likely to be abused. FIRST PART OF NOTION (a) PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Fletcher, Renzel,. vati ng "no." Mayor Klein understood the second part of the motion referred to City- requi red uses. Councilmember Sutorius said some of the uses were not . required, only City -encouraged or City -endorsed. Mayor Klein said a new list of City-encnuraged or Ci ty-endorsed policies would have to be developed. SECOND PART OF NOTION (b) PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Renzel, Klei n, Bechtel voti ng .."no." Councilmember Renzel asked if the request for staff to explore ways and return would set aside the provisions of the ordi nance as written. . Mayor Klein said as indicated when the motion was made, the request to develop new l angu age i n the two sections would make it impossible for the Counci 1 to pass the ordi nance for fi rst readi ng that eveni ng. 1 Councilmember Renzel asked staff if housing mitigation would con- tinue to be negotiated during the interim. Mr. Schreiber said staff would follow the current policy in the Comprehensive Plan and make every effort to secure payment. He did not anticipate .he assignment returning to the Council before September. Councilmember Bechtel suggested the ordinance be passed, as is, with a request for staff to bring the two items back as amend- ments. MOTION: Cou ncilmemb' r Bechtel, aaoved, seconded by Renzel, to reconsider' (a). NOTION PASSED by a vote of 6.3, Cobb, Witherspoon, Sato rl us voti ng " no." MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, that (a) be referred to staff for subsequent amendment. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-I, Cobb voting ' no." MOTION: tosncil ember licol ey moved, seconded by Fletcher, . to reconsider (b). NOTION PASSED by a vat" of 7-2, Cobb and Suto ri us voting NOTION: . Cos nci l*ember Renzel moved, seconded by N oal 1 ey. (b) be referred to staff for ,subsegi eet amendment. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, -Cobb voting "n0." Courtclle ember Woolley expressed appreciation _ for the way st4ff, the Chamber, of Coalme 4, and PAHC `worked logethe-e expediently to bri ng _forward a stronger ordi nance than. the previous ones "no.' that Mayor Klein asked the Council to vote on the motion, with amend- ments (c), (d), and (e) added, and with staff reporting back on two items. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. Mayor Klein suggested items 18, Bayl ands Master Plan; 19, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance text changes; 20, Designation as a Historic Landmark the building at 907-911 Cowper; 22, Los Altos Treatment Plant Acquisition; 23, Decorative Banners; 24, Public Parti-cipation in Architectural Review Board Reviews; and 26, Names on the Arastra Property, be continued. He obtained Mr. Zaner's confirmation that item 22 did net have to be approved that eve- ning. CONTINUATION OF ITEMS 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26 MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to continue items 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 26. Mayor Klein said Item 21, Sign Ordinance Amendments, would remain on the agenda so the ordinance would be in effect for the fall campaigns. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #14, UNIVERSITY AVENUE LOT J PARKING GARAGE ASSESSMENT Mayor Klein declared this was the time and place set for the pub- lic heari ng for the University Avenue Lot J Parki ng Garage Assess- ment District. .= Interested persons could ask questions and express views on any phase of the project. Project Manager Ted Noguchi would fi rst give a summary, fol lowed by the consultants, who would explain the project, the assessments, financing, and bond sale. The audience could address questions to the project manager or the consultants to obtain information, but not to express views. Written protests would then be read, all protests and objections heard, then proponents. Persons wishing to make an oral protest shoul d identify the property owned within the assessment district. Brevity would be appreciated, and any written protests to be filed should be given to the City Clerk. He declared the public hearing open. Director of Transportation Ted Noguchi said the project started in 1978 as part of a,consultant parking study and led to a feasibil- i ty study in 1982, culminating i n Council action in 1982 and 1983 authorizing the project to go to the design and, construction"bid- di ng stages. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) reViewed and accepted the project and design in Iate 1983/early 1984, and construction bids were opened on July 10, 1984. The garage was situated in the interior of\the block bounded by Hamilton, Cowper, University and Webster, with a total floor area of approximately 150,000 square feet, and. setbacks 20 feet from the property. li;nes. There were five parking levels, one fully and one partially below grade. The parking yield Would be. 418 spaces, 8 of which were for handicapped; bike parking would yield 26 spaces, with five twin bike lockers and 16 rack three bike racks. Pedestrian access was from University and Hamilton and the driveways from Cowper. and Webster, and vehicular access: was from Cowper and Webster. The project consultants were Steve Casaleggio, Bond Counsel, of Jones, Hall, Hill & White," and Jane,, Hawkins of Rauscfer, Pierce, Refsnes, .Inc., Financial Consultants,:', - with Elizabeth Gibbons representing the architectural engineering firm; Mr. Causal eggio said a public hearing was required under the Muni.- cipal Code to inquire into the parking project' that was proposed to be _financed~oy special assessments to he issued under Bond Plan G. If Council confirmed the assessments that evening, the City could sell Its bonds to pay for ,the construction of the project. Thereafter, principal and i ntereft would be `collected by an annual levy to be reconsidered each year. The bond term was, expected to be 2U years, and it was proposed that bonds be issued pursuant to a public offeri ng on August 6, 1984, on which date he would report back to the Council who would then determine whether to proceed and accept the bid. Sherman Thomas, 2601 Edmonton Street, Bakersfield, owned the prop- erty at 635 High Street, and he was concerned about the assessment procedures. His. 50 foot wide building was set back 20 feet from the sidewalk, and his assessment notice said -it- provided three parking spaces, but the space would accommodate six parking spaces. He asked why the 1983/84 Use Code (a) requi ri ng 12 parking spaces for his business was changed in the 1984/85 Use Code to (c), require 28 parki ng spaces. Principal Planner George Zimmerman said the Use Codes changed with the approval of the interim oarking ordinance for the Downtown Parking Assessment District the previous winter, which generally reflected an actual reduction over those of the zoni ng ordi nonce, and was based on the previous study. Mrc Thomas' business fell into the automotive services category, which was increased. When the ordinance expired the following February, Council could con- sider an extension, amend the ordinance, or remove the parking regulations within the, parking assessment district. In response to possible Council dl rectl en, :, 4a. ` could look at the regulations aed consider revisions where necessary, including the use in ques- tion. Mr. Noguchi stated for the record that staff met that afternoon with Mr. Themes and concluded the number of spaces provided was four. 1 Councilmember Renzel used the upholstery firm i n question and concurred that it did not need either 12 or 28 spaces. Staff asked the record to reflect that four spaces should be provided, and she asked if the ordinance was sufficiently flexible to make such a change without special Council action. Mr. Noguchi said whetthe assessments were finally spread after the award of the total cost of the project, the credits would be counted i n the Engineer's Report i n terms o actual assessments. Councilmember Renzel asked if Mr. Thomas was to be credited wit' four spaces while the demand remained at 28. Mr. Noguchi confirmed that instead of a credit for three spaces, Mr. Thomas would now be credited with four spaces. Counc.ilmember Cobb referred to the computer list detailing the properties, The assessment was calculated on a fixed rate of approximately 53.5 cents per square foot, and with the number of parking spaces required varying so dramae,ical ly, the assessment for a parki ng,. space ranged from under $80 per parki ng space to over $Z00 per square foot. The question of fairness arose, and it seemed 'that people whose parking requirements were alike got the tougher, end of the deal. Mr. Noguchi said the 'parking provided` and the "park4gg requi red" columns in the computer., printout only adjusted the gross\, square footage and created the assessed square footage. He agreed that the only time tho adjustment - was made in the assessable square footage was when parking was provided Otherwise the assessed and: gross square footages were identical Councilmember Cobb said th'e method of calculation resulted in dif- fering ratios of dollars per parking space. He asked if it'was simpler to work with square footage than -to apply . the "parking spaces required" forula. 4 8 6 b. -7/23/84:. Mr. NoyLich.i understood the formula was established i n that way for the sake of simplicity. The formula was used for. the previous three „_ Bond issues, and Council directed staff to follow the same. assessment formul a. Mayor Klein said written protests would be read into the record. Mr. Casal eggio said in the interest of time, if the Council read the protests from Sherman Thomas of 2601 Edmonton Street, 12-B, Bakersfield and Bjarne B. Dahl of 1095 Valley Forge Drive, Sunnyval y, i t would not be necessary to read them into the records. Mayor Klein confi rmed the protests mentioned were received and read, as well as a third from William Sarin, partner in M -Quad Properties, concerni ng S1 onaker's Fri nti ng and Li thog raphy, 643 Emerson Street. Mr. Casaleggio asked that those protests stand as part cf the record. Mayor Klein said oral protests and objections would be heard. Mr. Thomas, 2601 Edmonton Street, Bakersfield, said he opposed the assessment procedure. Fai rness was the key issue, and he did not know reconsideration of the Use Code would come up in February. His business was set up to not take away from public parking, and i t was still that way, and would not benefit from any parking structure as ;t was self-contained. It would continue to be a one owner, one employee busi mess. It did not pollute, and provided a service since 1932. Be did not come forward sooner to object to the change in Use Codes because they were talking about a sne ' change for parking lots. Now they were talking of an asseseeient of more than ten percent of the gross income from the property, placing a great burden on him and his tenant. He pleaded for reconsideration and fine tuning of the Use Code. The business di 4` not require 12 parki ng spaces --much less ?8. Bjarne Dahl, 1095 Valley Forge Drive, Sunnyvale, pointed out the gross inequities involved in the square footage method of assess- ment, and said his letter proposed other alternatives such as charging an equal fee per parking space. The intensity of busi ness use was not considered, and if the formula as presented went through, his hotel would " be liable for $16,000 for 61 spaces. It woul d set a precedent. Other parking areas in town would even- tual ly \be considered for expansion, and the inequity would tht,'ow an additional burden on the hotel and other properties. Another possibility was to incorporate the properties that were not draw- 1 ng any i ncome or revenue whatsoever into the paid parking pl an so the revenues would help offset the cost of future. parking needs. He asked the Council to consider a method such as equal tax per parking space based on business intensity, which would . not dimin- ish from the revenue proposed for the new construction, which would be more fair. He hoped other suggestions from the floor would be considered. Mayor. Klein ascertained that no other protests were to be heard,. and that no proponents of the project wanted tO speak. Mr. Casaleggio offered the three Written protests, the eng"ineer's report and such other "testimony as was put into the record, and requested the heari ng be foreeally closed. Mayor Klein declared ; the public hearing closed. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the square footage formula meant that all square footage was- assessed the same, regardless of use, with deductions made for the on -site parking available. 4 8 6 9 7/23/84 Mr. Zimmerman said credits acre given according to the use and the amount of parking required by the use. assessments we -re based on square footage. Apart from that, the Vice Mayor Levy said all similar uses were then assessed the same, while differing uses had different assessments per square foot. Mr. Zimmerman said different uses were given different credits according to the parking provided and otherwise required. The basic assessment per s;ivare foot was uniform, whereas the credit, based on the amount of private parking provided, varied with the use. Certain uses had higher parking needs than others, so the amount of credit varied accordingly. The basic assessment, before any credit was given, was based on square footage., Vice Mayor Levy understood it to mean that two uses would be assessed the same if neither provided parking even though one use was moreintense i n terms of the amount of parking requi red. Mr. Zimmerman said yes if both uses had the same square footage. Councilmember Cobb said `pis earlier comments used the data provided by r. Dahl, and he asked if that computerized data was essenti ally correct. Mr. Noguchi believed the assessments were more favorable to Mr. Dahl Councilmember Cobb believed the data was presented in a helpful way, and arl.ed the ,�w-;,�� if numbers were accurate aid an accurate reflection of what the assessments would be. Mr. Noguchi said yes. Councilmember Cobb asked if it was feasible to find a formula that would apply the assessment in a way more closely rel ated to the amount of parking generated by the use instead of usi ng a formul a that seemed to generate significant i nequities. Mr. Casal.eggio said yes. The Municipal Code contained two orov.1- sions to levy assessments for G Bonds. One was the ordinance formula on which the proceedings were based. There was also a custom-tailored effort to find a different kind of spread method. The City consistently used the basic ordinance formul a, and although there might be inequities on a spot. basis, the overall perception for some years was that it worked district -wide, or i n the context of the entire University Avenue area. The Council could change the method, but by following the B Bond ordinance formul a, an attempt was made to produce a proceedings with as much equity as possible. Councilmember Cobb asked wh-ateffect it would have on issuing the bond if Cou nei l—aTtempted an approach to sao re closely equalize the payment to the burden created. Mr. Casal eggio said it would mean starting at the begi nni ng. Councilmember Renzel asked if the protests registered that evening were tO help tho Council cast its vote, or whether Council should respond to specific protests. Mr. Casaleggio said the protests heard that evening theoretically aggregated against a majority protest. If owners representing a majority of the area proposed for assessment came forward to protet, Co uncil could consider It the : kind of showing they . did not want to see and ,could vote i't down. The protests could be given any weight the Council chose as it was far from a majority protest. le cautioned against modifying the proceedings on a case -by -case basis, in terms of overall fairness to all the property owners who were not present. Counc laieober Renzel asked if it was possible to reevaluate the Thomas property to ascertain whether the previous Use Code cl ass- ification (a) was more appropriate for the particular service pro- vided. Mr. Zimmerman said it was not possible for the current fiscal year or for the assessment, -but Council could so direct for a subse- quent year. The Downtown Study, and in particular the Parking Subcommittee, could look at parking standards. The possibility existed for an adjustment to be made i n certain areas where it was determined the parking requi rement did not reflect parking demand for a specific use. Councilmember Renzel did not question the general automotive ser- vices requi rements, but was concerned the busi ness i n question was not operated in the same manner as a typical gas station or car repa: r garage, etc. and might be misci assified. She asked if the Previous classification was also automotive services and the park- ing requirements simply changed. Mr. Zimmerman believed the classification was correct, but said the larger area could be reviewed later on i n the year. Councilmember Renzel said the letter from Mr. Thomas mentioned $1,840.70. Three different numbers showed up in Mr. Dahl's data for that property, i.e., $1,973; $3,103 and $1,973, and she asked which was the actual assessment. Mr. Noguchi said ultimately it would not be any ::of those. When the bonds were sold and the total cost of the project reflected, the cost at that poi nt would be spread over the total square foot- age of the district. Until then, only estimates could be made. What was reflected was the staff's best guess at the total bonded cost. Councilmember Renzel said the letter quoted $1,800, whereas the attachment to Mr. Dahl's letter showed three formulas for numbers between $2,000 and $3,000. She asked whether the final. figure would be closer to the lower or the higher figures. Mr. Noguchi said it would be clo;er to $1,973.72 --the figure given in the May 14, 1984 staff report.‘ Councilmember Renzel asked if staff experimented to see how the proceedings formula would impact the various properties downtown. '‘. Mr. Noguchi said staff followed the Council's directions to stay with the tried and true method that was used in past G Bond sales. Councilmember Woolley asked staff if the assessments for the proj- ect in question were substantially higher than for other parking projects. Mr. Noguchi said it was `hard to compaee. It was higher in the sense that the ori-iy recent projects were the Civic .Center garage and the Civic Center itself, of which part was the assessment dis- trict cost. Th; re . was also the Safeway lot and k i pi i ng, which constituted three bona issues totalling almost $2 million. The bond issue i question would be approximately $5.43 million. Com- parisons could not be -`made as the projects Were different. Ctuncilmember Woolley agreed that the projects' magnitudes were different. She wondered if the reason the formula worked in pre- vious cases had something to do with the amount of the assessment to _rthe .individual property owners. When a largeamount of money was not involved, they did not protest the way the formula was applied. e Mr- Noguchi said the aggregate or the three outstanding bonds totalled almost $2 million, which was in the same ballpark as $5.4--a substantial amount of debt service being reti red against each individual property. Councilmember Woolley understood the problem with using the inten- si ty method --the need for parking generated by a business rather than its square footage --was that it was more difficult to admin- ister, partly because uses changed. it would probably necessitate a field check every year when the assessment was levied and take a great deal of staff time. There were also problems i n defining an "employee" -_full time or. part time, etc. if it was decided that the magnitude of the assessment warranted it, she suggested that such extra staff time and administrative expense be charged to the project. Mr. Noguchi asked for clarification that if Council directed staff to use a new formula such as the one they spoke of, staff should charge their time agai nst the project itself. Councilmember Woolley said yes as it would take a significant amount of staff time to administer. She spoke only to future cases. Mr. Noguchi said it +could be possible. Councilmember Bechtel said several hundred businesses. were involved in the assessment, and pointed out that . only three pro- tests were received. She appreciated the concerns of those who protested, and said staff tried to be as equitable as possible. She hoped some of the issues Mr. Zimmerman brought up could be reviewed i n the following year to affect the assessment. MOTION: Councilm..'mber Bechtel moved, seconded by Klei n, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6286 entitled NA RESOLUTION FINDING •AND urrrirmr-rinTHE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS" Mr. Casaleggio said the resolution would require a four -fifths vote of the Council, with the remaining resolutions requiring a majoeity.vote. Mayor Klein pointed out that a four -fifths vote would requi re eight of the, nine Councilieembers to vote in favor. MOTION PASSED unanisou)ly. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval ofthe resolution overruling protests. RESOLUTION 6287 anti tl ed °A RESOLUTION OVERRULING Vice Mayor Levy said before voting, he wanted assurance that he understood the formula. He asked if set I attached to Mr. Dahl's letter represented the formul a the staff was using. Mr. Noguchi said: it did not appears that any of Mr. Dahl's sets applied to the property. Mr. Dahl attempted to provide some for- mal assessment on the basis of demand for parking rather than on. square footage. The different formula possibilities were dis- cussed earlier, and the method suggested by mt. Dahl would change the entire basis for the formul a, NOTION PASSED u namlmptesly.:. 4 8 7 2 7/23/84 MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, approv- al of the resolution ordering reduction of assessments. RESOLUTION 6288 . entitled 'A RESOLUTION ORDERING REDUC- T LUXE OF AbbtbbhLNTS" MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded b;' Klei n, approval of the -,Jsolution adopting the engineer's report and order1 ng the work and acquisitions. RESOLUTION 6289 entitled 'A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ala Attics RtrdMT_. AND ORDERING THE WORK AND ACQUISI- TIONS" MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, dvpprOval of the resol uti on providing for issuance of bonds and directing the levy of annual assessments to pay the principal and interest. RESOLUTION 6290 entitled 'A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ISSUANUL. OF IMIDS AND DIRECTING THE LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THEREOF" Councilmember Sutorius asked the record to reflect that Page 12 of the resolution, Section 25, "...Council or more..." should read ",..Council of more..."; and page 15, paragraph (g), the title "Controller" was no longer i n effect, and it should read "Di rector of Finance." MOTION PASSED unanimously.. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klei n, approval of the resolution calling for bids for bonds, approving notice of sale and bid form 4,nd official statement, and authorizing and directing certain actions. RESOLUTION 6291 entitled °'A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BIDS OY INC NOTICE OF SALE AND BID FORM AND OFFICIAL STATirMENT, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO' MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #15 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE LUNINL AUMIN1S1RAToRT5.l3EcI3IUA RI VARIANCE lilt" fr FRO) LKIT LUCA I LU Ai 4U9 sit•nnAN L '+J - Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said Planning Commissioner Chandler suggested a modification to the staff recommendation ,.for the $60,000 mitigation payment to be reduced by $10,000 for each space the applicant might provide on site. Councilmember Woolley remembered that when the zoni ng in the California , Avenue area was changed, Council was concerned about how a property owner with a small piec � of property, sight provide parking. She asked staff to check into the statute, but forgot whether an assignment was actually given. Di rector of Pl anni ng and Community Envi ronment Ken Schreiber said he was unable to 'find a specific assignment regarding said consol idation of properties, but believed_ it was part of the Downtown Study and was di sussed at staff level. 4 8 7 3. 7/23/84. i Councilmember Woolley said a uniform method by which the owner of a small parcel could satisfy the on -site parki ng requl rements was needed. Mr. Schreiber believed that was part of the Downtown Study. Don May nor, 2471 East Bayshore Road, represented Arabian Horse World. Eighteenth century philosopher/economist, Jeremy Bentham, said English common law was "totally unpredictable" and a "Dog's law" because like a dog, people only learned what they should not have done. The law should provide a predictable set of rules, and he was taught that a bad rule was preferred to an unpredictable one. After the latest moratorium on office buildings in the CS;; and GM zones, Mayor Klein and Councilmembers Cobb and Witherspoon commented on the potentially harmful effect of moratoria because it cast a shadow of unpredictability on the zoning laws and were to be used in extraordinary circumstances only. He represented the three property owners most di rectly affected by the Cal i forni a Avenue moratorium and was impressed by their anger, frustration, sense of injustice, and preoccupation with a problem that di rectly affected the management of thei r busi nesses. Arabian Horse World was the hardest hit. It took over a year to locate a suitable site for the business, and it was carefully ascertained from the City's Planning Department that the proposed building could be constructed under the zoning laws. No warning was given of an impending change. The property was purchased at $80 per square foot, and approximately one month I ater when the moratorium was imposed the value plummetted. Had the property been bought a few months earlier, it would have been gr.andfathered in, but would not have been purchased had they known of the moratorium. Upon hear- ing of Arabian Horse World's plight, the Council recognized the gross unfa i mess, took corrective action, and all owed 409 Sherman to retain the zoning. The Council was sensitive and compassion- ate, particul arly those members who subordi nated their own land use philosophy in favor of correcting an unjust and unfair deci- sion. One of the best aspects of municipal government, par- ticulary in Palo Alto, was its ability to correct and adjust the effect of -its harsh laws on individual citizens once known. He asked Council to take action to avoid an unfair result. Apart from the high price of the property, substantial costs were i n - cu rred by the one year delay i n construction due to the vari arice proceedings, the lease had to be renegotiated at a 200 percent increase, and $1,250 rent paid to the landlord instead of being put into the new bui l di ng . The delay resulted in a two -point increase in interest rates, which would have a major effect on the fi nanci ng. Arabian Horse World was faced with a proposed vari ance condition that would requi re a $60,000 cash payment; the purchase of a van, and a 60 percent higher parking assessment than its neighboring property owners for all future California Avenue park- ing assessments. The total impact of the delay was probably sev- eral hundred - thousand dollars. In the context of what Arabian Horse World went through, he urged Council to agree that the pro- posed monetary condition was unfair and excessive. He was sur- prised when PI anni ng Commissioner McCown expressed di sappoi ntment that Arabian HOrse World did, not make a compromise offer because compromise solutions were offered from the bell nni ng. A unil ater- al offer of $22,750, if the weighted formula as ;y adopted, was made to put it on equal standing with property owners who made past payments to the, parking Assessment District. in the variance application, they unilaterally offered . to establish a van pool. To eliminate any doubts, about the willingness of Arabian Horse. World . to discuss - compromises, as ndicated in his letter, he requested relief from the van pool obligation because since it was a small business, the °3 nsurance carrier refused insurance. He requested a reduction in the monetary contribution by recognizing that only three .,or: four spaces could be' located on the small site. Parking spaces were the crux, of the matter, and Mr. - Brown calcu- lated that six parking spaces could fit into the lot, but did not consider that the ramp would e'1>imi nate two spaces. The building went eight feet below ground, whereas Mr. Brown calculated the building would go five feet below ground. Eight feet was neces- sary to comply with the City height limit, which extended the length of the ramp and removed two spaces, resul ti ng in a reduc- tion of the monetary payment. That was the basis for the compro- mise offers --they were trying to reduce the financial impact on Arabian Horse World. It was technically impossible to fit six subcompact spaces into the spot, . and the detriments were the weighted formula designed to deal with such new development. It was theonly property i n the California Avenue with a residential use, and there was no opposition throughout the proceedings. He expressed the appreciation of . Arabian Horse World for earlier Council action as well as the staff proposals. They requested that Council focus on - past events and consider the substantial financial hardships the moratorium caused that particular property owner. He urged Council to use its sense of justice and fai rness i n maki ng its decision. Jan .Shuler, Arabian Horse World, .2650 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, thanked the. Council for its vote a few months ago that gave her hope that someday her business would occupy its own building at 409 Sherman Avenue. She emphasized that the past ten months work- ing toward a resolution of the problem caused her much more than the amount imposed on the variance. The six digit figure caused by the delay was a real expenditure for Arabian Horse World and one that no -mall business could possibly afford without severe hardship. She tried to demonstate that she always worked i n c ood faith with the City to resolve the probl em. There was no foriaul a, no number, and no rationale for a solution when she first advised the City of the problem. She requested that Council use its legislative power to soften an al ready devastating financial situ- ation. Mayor Klein declared ,the public hearing -closed. Councilmember Witherspoon asked for clarification that staff asked that six parking spaces be provided, but_ only four were possible because of the engineering probl ems, and :a contribution of $60,000 as .a one-time cost i n-1 i eu of payments into the Parking Assessment District. Mr. Drown said staff suggested there be a $60,000 contribution to the Assessment District, which would provide credit for six park- ing spaces. The project normally required 28 spaces, and they would pay into the District for 22 spaces. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that staff understood and agreed that for engineering reasons, Arabi an Horse World would only be able to provide four parking spaces on -site. Mr. Brown believed it was possible to provide six spaces on -site. The initial plans submitted b'y the applicant showed a floor to cell .# ng height for each floor of eight feet, and the# r most recent plan showed nine feet. The space between floors was originally shown at two feet andwas now two and one-half feet. The building as originally submitted reached a height of 36 feet, with a par- tially depressed garage, and he believed one foot could be paired off as on gi nail ly submitted reducing the between floor space some- what —four itches per floor --and a partially depressed garage could be created with a shorter ramp as originally submitted. Councilmember Witherspoon asked for staff's position on the van pooling and insurance. Mr. Grown said Ms. Shuler indicated she could not get insurance for the van, and staff had no reason to doubt that was the case. Councilmember Woolley said the Planning Co'missi on believed the use did not gO with the land to even though Arabian Horse World was planning to minimize the impact by various methods with their employees, the City could not, count on that continuing. While the 7/23J9�A lots were not fully utilized now, most likely the future needs of the parking District would increase. On the other hand, the cir- cumstances were unique and there was a sincere hardship. The property would normally be requi red to provide 28 parking spaces, and staff recommended a payment of $60,000 to buy six to nine spaces dependent on whose figures were used to calculate the cost of the spaces. Six to nine spaces was about one-third of the requi red 28 spaces, and she believed was a reasonable compromise under the ci rcumstances. MOTION: Councilmeaber Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve a variance for parking requirements with the following conditions and findings: Fi nd1 rigs 1. There are exceptional, or extraordinary -ci rcumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property i n the same district i n that the subject property is. narrow and_ limited in area compared with other commerci al properties i n the California Avenue Business District (45 feet wide and 4,050 square feet in area), which substantially limits the amount of on -site parking which can be provided. In addition, the subject property is the only commerci ally zone; parcel i n this area below 5,000 square feet in area which has not been commercially developed and lacks access from the rear of the site to an alley which would per- mit, a more efficient circulation pattern. This also is the only parcel in the California Avenue Business District which rem al ns zoned CC (Community Commie rc i al) ; 2. ' The granti ng of the application is necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnec- essary hardship in that provision of adequate on -site parking required for.. an office building with floor area exceeding approximately'4,000 square feet would be very difficult given the constrai ned size of the parcel. The zoning for the. prop- erty would allow somewhat more than 12,000 square feet of floor area if not constrained by provision of parking. Also, this property was purchased immediately prior to the mora- torium imposed on development i n the California Avenue --Business District. The study of this area resulted in the requirement of parting which was previous a provided through monetary contributions to a parking ass'essme,nt district. This change greatly affected the utility of this -parcel for office use; . 3. The granting of the application will. not be detrimental or injurious . to property or improvements in the vicinity i n that the variance conditions will provide funds .to help mitigate the parking demand caused by proposed office building. The proposed_ office tenant currently employs 24 persons during daytime boars. Occupancy of the building at some future time ry . other tenants Could increase the level of .employment to. -approximately -b0 employees using standard employee density figures for general or professional offices. Presently, the i nc rease -,f n parking demand could be accommodated by Assessment District .Lots. C -b, C-7, or C-8,- all of which;>,are utilized well below capacity._ While the parking requirement slow deoelopauat; in the Californtie Avenue : Susi_nirart District, in time additional parking will become necessary. The mitigation funds requi red with this variance_ : approval will contribute to.. the purchase of . additional land for mere surface parking or, if invested, will provide future : funds: for construction._ of a parking deck above an existing surface parting lot. $/23/84 MOTION CONTINUED, Conditions The applicant provide $60,000 to the California Avenue Parking Assessment District to be used for site acquisition or construc- tion costs associated with development of additional parking with- in the area of the Assessment District. This amount is based upon the ability of the applicant to provide a minimum of sir.- compact parting spaces on -site and' an estimated cost of approximately $10,000 per space (net amount based ' on costs o? local parking structures of a size adequate for efficient circulation). Provi- sion of on -site parking would necessitate a variance from zoning regulations to permit all compact parking and would result in a modification of the building design. The $60,003 contribution will eliminate the requirement for assessment payments for six parking spaces for this, property. Provision of on -site parking spaces shall reduce the required $60,000 payment at a rate of $10,000 per space provided. Councilmelaber Fletcher supported the motion, but regarding van insurance, she called State Farm, whr advised it would have no problem insuring the type of van discussed so long as it was not used as a profit making venture. She also called Rides for Nay Area Commuters who dealt with vans, and was advised that i t leased vans and the farm of the employees covered insurance. It also dealt with an insurance company for those vans which were pur- chased by the employees to use for their commute purposes, and she did not believe insurance was an issue. She would not support the recommendation for the van because to make a van useful, it had to draw from a large base of employees. The employees of Arabian Horse World were divided into three shifts --the day shift had 24 employees, six of whom lived in Palo Alto, one in Redwood City, one in Milpitas, one in Union City, and one in Los Gatos, etc., and the ones in San Jose had access to the train. She did not believe a van was the best answer in the particular case. She was concerned that an alternative transportation program be imple- mented, and she would support. Councilmember Sutorius` suggestions in that regard. She was -pleased to see so many employees willing to ride bicycles, and she expected the applicant would provide for the employees to store their bicycles. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to amend the first sentence 'That the applicant provide $34,000 to the California Avenue Parking . Assessment District...", and the second sentence, 'This amount is based on the ability of the applicant to provide a minimum of four parting spaces on -site, at. an estimated cost of approximately $8,500 per space (net amount based on average of City and applicant cost estimates for parking structures of ` the size adequate for efficient circulation)." To add condition No. 2, '2. That the applicant establish a ride - sharing and alternate transportation node program for its employ- ees. The program shall include, bet not be limited to the follow- ing: a. Partial fare reimbursement and/or. provision of_discounted pub- lic transpoi< atio►n tickets in an amount not less than 20 per- cent of the regular fare►, b. On -site storage of employees' bicycles/moto rciel es such stor- age to be equivalent to Class 1` (closdel/socuire) end capable of accommodating up to ten bicycles and two standard motorcycles; and c. Reasonable `\effort to `accommodate flexiblework shedeles for employees otherwise unable to carpool. Cot) nci lmembe r Sutorius believed that with the type of analysis indicated by,,,,.,.Counc1lmeobe + Fletcher regarding the employees 4 8 7 7 7/23/84 on premises pr=esently, that mandating the van would not he produc- tive, but by requiring a ride -sharing and alternate transporation mode program, a van could go into pl ace when and if it turned out to be appropriate. The other conditions looked at the reality of the closeness to public transporation both i n the north and south directions and the fact that the present employee body indicated by survey that they utilized the train and bus as well as exten- sive use of bicycles. Nine employees bicycled, and two utilized motorcycles. The fact that the City would impose a condition that requi red a special and yet reasonable effort in terms of alternate mode programs and whatever ride -sharing the employees themselves might arrange went a great distance in mitigating the parking im- pact i nto the District. He proposed a reduction based on. the four spaces he saw being provided because he believed that i n order to get to six spaces, the City would still be talking about six com- pact spaces, when in reality of what could be physically done and what would be required by the City of any other applicant, they were talking about providing at least one handicapped space. He did.. not dispute staff as to the numbers, but used a different con- figuration of the spaces to arrive at the number, and believed it was reasonable to require four rather than six. In terms of costs, he 'acknowledged the compromise. He averaged $7,000 on. the high side of what the applicant produced, and $10,000 which the City produced, or $17,000 divided by two. AMENDMENT SPLIT FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING. Councilmember Cobb seconded the amendment because he took a new view of the world in terms of the impact of some Council actions on small busi nesses since he had his own small busi ness. When he worked in a large company which involved itself in millions of dollars, it would casually throw around five and six figures num- bers, and there were various ways to absorb them. He could not absorb anything resembling his pro rata snare if he was in Ms. Shuler's position, and believed he had a sensitivity. he � iott not have had a few years ago. He would take a hard -nosy e view of what Arabian Horse World's payments ought to be in terms of parking and the rest had it not been caught up in the moratorium. He believed the City's rnoratori a tended to have some ';sweeping effects on those who were not the rich developers and for people of more modest means it could be devastati ng. The timing of the particul ar mora- torium on Arab}'ar Horse World, who was not a big developer, al- ready extracted a lot more than it should i n terms of a human price. In the larger scheme of things, and in view of what was going on in the rest of Palo Alto, he did not believe it was a fair kind of human price to extract. As poi nted out by Council - member Sutorius, the`, amendment was a reasonable way to arrive at a compromise to recognize the side effects of the Council's actions which al ready took a fi nanci al toll. Had there been no morator- ium, he would go with the numbers and be hard- nosed, but he be- lieved it needed to be softened because the Council already hurt one of the -smaller peopl a byits actions, and due to the attendant side effects, and Council should give a little. Mayor Klein recognized . Ms, Shul er' s problems, but he rejected the idea that the City was fully responsible, and pointed out : that each citizen was responsible for knowing the law. It was clear that oral statements made by staff were not binding on the City, and _it.was` not the City's responsibility that Arabian Horse World might` have overpaid for the building.. He did not believe Council should compromise its positionwhen a project did not turn out as the developer intended.` He pointed out that the Council bent over backwards ; with• .regard to the .applicant', but, -t el ieved the Council should, be on guard that it did notget oversold.- Mr. Brown's pro- posal, backed up by the Planning Commission, was reasonable and one which was favorable to the . applicant.: He did .:not believe. there was any need for the Council to go further even though he agreed to go further by .dropping the van pool requirement. Councilmerbe-r° Renzel concurred with Mayor. Klein. She asked for confi rmatioe that the ability to build either- four or six spaces underneath the building was a basis for calculating the credit payment aed that presently, the City did not actually expe t to see park} ng spaces built. Mr. Brown said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel understood that Councilmember Sutorius moved $34,000 in recognition of the four spaces provided, and that he multiplied four times $8,500 to arrive at $34,000. Councilmember Sutorius said that was correct, and on the basis of accepting physical capacity. He realized the spaces were not being provided. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Mayor Klein and that part of Ms. Shuler's problem was that whoever sold her the property did not fully reveal what was going on with respect to the area, and Council should not take full responsibility. A serious parking problem conti nued in the Cal i f orni a Avenue area and downtown and it behooved the City to deal. with as many problems as possible. Councilmember Fletcher asked if any credit would be given against the $60,000 if spaces were provided on -site. Mr. Brown said that was the Planning Commission recommendation and was co ntai ned i n the mai r motion. FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Sutorius,. Cobb voting 'aye." Councilmember Bechtel believed the requi rements of the second part of the amendment were admi rabl.e, but regardi ng the additional requi cement, which would add a greater cost to the owner of the property, even though she supported all the items, she preferred they be done on a voluntary basis. She oppposed the second part of the amendment. Councilmember Cobb concurred with Councilmember Bechtel. In view of Council's action on the first part of the amendment, he believed the second part should be deleted in its entirety. Councilmember Fletcher poi nted out that the second part of the amendment repl aced the van recommendation of staff and the anni ng Commission, which was deleted as part of the mai n motion. The applicant was receiving a benefit of reduced parking requirements from what was required in the ordinance for other developments, and the ride -sharing program would take the place of the van if Council stuck with the original recommendation. SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved the second . part CeuncilMesber Sutorius origi hal amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK 4F A SECOND. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that the employees listed - `'as bicycling to work at the new location would not cycle to wo rk i f they had no pl ace to put their bicycles. AMENDMENT: Couacilmember. Fletcher moved, seconded by Reuel, to add a condition for on -site storage of employees' bicycles/ motorcycles, such storage to be equivalent to Class I (closed/ secure) and capable of accommodating up to ten bicycles and two standard setircyclas. AMENDMENT PASSED by' a vote of b-3, Woollear, Levy, Klein voting, no. Mr. Manor asked when payment was due on, the $CO,O00,_ and ferrod that it be on the issuance of an occupancy permit. p --e Mr.' Brown said there was no problem with payment being _ made when the use and occupancy permit was isseed. • 4.114144414.1.Cfnig: GLEIPLLAFTNGAmCEOMMISSION ARIN RECOMMENDATION REY NUME 4T TO- EXISTING PLANNED U RiAD TFP T1 PERMIT EXirAADED WAWA OF 2,131: SQUARE FEET SPA (PLA 3.5) Vice Mayor Levy asked if there were enough handicapped spaces in the parking configuration. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown requested a few moments to research the answer. - Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Alan Becker, 185 Berry Street, San f ra nci sco was one of the owners of the Stanford Barn. He had nothing to add to the com- ments he made at the Planning Commission meeting, and was avail - Able to. answer questions. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayer Levy -moved, seconded by Woolley, to adept Planning. Commission recommeedat1e ns for conceptual approve' •f the c.overs1ea of the:for.me►r mechanical eaulpeeat room to .23*t square feet of office 'space acid refer the des1Se review . to the .Architectural Review ta:ard with the following coaditlees: I. That A malts -Kum of 2s1 corking spaces be provided through restr i p.i aG of the existing parking area for compact spaces; and 2. °fiat coestructloa begin witkla six months of tha City Cosawcii approval and be completed within three *oaths of the issuance of a .bnildies permit. OUIIAMCE Fie FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF TNE tOWNICIL OF rYi r cYtY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING PC ORDINANCE S. 19112 APPLYING Ti PROPERTY KNOWN AS 70$ WELCH ROAD" Counc i l member Fletcher said she rode around the site and saw no bicycle parking spaces. AMENDMENT: Ceemeclimembeer Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley„ to add a condition for five Class 1 and eight Class- 2 bicycle perking spaces,. and staff to ensure five handicapped parkiiag spaces, without significant redectioa of standard parkiap spaces. Mr. Becker advised that ,a bicycle rack was located by the Wells Fargo Bank,. which was ' old : and discarded, but the plan was to replace _It. He believed it accommodated six to eight bicycles. They would cociper'a tee with any requirements. Cooncil*ember Fletcher explained that Class 1 bicycle parking spaces were securely enclosed and either had to be a locked enclOs re to which :th`e' users had the key: or Individual bicycle lockers. • c , . . Mr. `,Brown res�pe rded to rice 'Mayor' Lesy''.s question that` one .handi- • ct pried space was to be provided, which 'Was. the' only one shown on the plan. Since there were eight new parking spaces -to. be pro- vided for the appl_ication,.only, one space, would be required to: be ha ndicdppead _• { R. 1/t3/82 Vice Mayor Levy asked if there was more than one handicapped space in the entire layout. Mr. Brown said ti7ere were spaces which appeared to have size ade- quate to accommodate -the handicapped `vehicles, but only one was indicated on the plan as being marked `fer handicapped. Vice Mayor Levy asked if staff was satisfied that one was enough. Director -of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff had no idea what spaces were marked on site. The only thing tb_ 5how up on the plan was new spaces and any change in marking -s. Vice Mayor Levy asked if it could be included that staff assure a satisfactory number of handicapped spaces by staff's standards. iRI -e 8 KA3-1)- Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Lee Brandenburg, 960 Lassen Drive, Menlo Park agreed with all of the staff recommendations. With regard to the easement over Lot 7 for the utilities for. Lot 8, he proposed a 15. -foot public utility easement, and the , report stated a five feet within the 15 feet, and he questioned the easement within an easement. - Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said to basic difference between the five feet and the fifteen feet was the 15 foot was an access, easement., and " five feet was the actual area for the utilities ,.In order to get equipment on the site, more space was required than the actual utilities, and in the easement process, the five feet where the pipes were under - grounded was treated differently 'than the five feet on either: side which was basically for access, but'not undergrounding. MISS: . CoeecI l .ember Secbte1 moved. seconded by Cobb, to shpt the Kansan, Ce..1ssioe'recemmeadatiois that the proposed prel mi- eery parcel map complies m1th the Pale Alto tiaalcl Nl Code and ;ratterarer! .that thee-. rsalse:teed traasfor of the access stem seHllin Let R be relocated as skews •h she sop" ssbject to the fsillsomloS c¢ aess 1. A VS:feet aside utility- ea sieMeet -: shall be 'masted :Crag :Lent 7 to i;pt C ale*D the aIOrthaera boildarf of Let` 7, to provide Lot with t Oil tt es. A separate. S4 wide Malmo public utility Mr. Brown said the size development with 261 spaces, would require five handicapped spaces according to the present standards. Mr. Schreiber said providing the handicapped spaces would probably mean the loss of several regular spaces. A regular space could not be converted to a handicapped space, and three regular spaces might make two handicapped spaces. If the City's ordinance stated 261 spaces, they were back into eliminating landscaping or doing something else, and he was concerned about that type of problem. City Manager Bill Zaner suggested that Council provide instruc- tions to staff to increase the number of handicapped spaces up to at least five provided without significant reduction in the amount of required parking otherwise required by the ordinance. PROVISION TWAT STAFF ENSURE FIVE WARUICAPPED PARKING` SPACES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF STANDARD' PARKING SPACES INCOR- PORATED INTO AMENDMENT BY RAKER AND SECOND AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Reazei voting °Re," MA/k MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Refuel voting *now" 'ITEM" 17 PUBLIC NEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OuThinst -IT-Mr-RELOCATE THE ACCESS I/13N 11 La.D a cn N tlXI .EJ easement within the lb foot wide easement area shall be offered for dedication to the City of Pale Alto. The specific locaNt.ion of the pool is utility easement, and location of utility limos shall be subject _to the approval of the City's Utilities Department. The specific deuign of the proposed driveway shall be Abject to Site and Design review. NOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM #I5 VARIANCE FOR 409 SHERMAN AVENUE, Council ember Bechtel said as she understood the last motion re 409 Sherman Avenue made by Councilmember Fletcher, Council approved on a split vote of 6-3, ten Class 1 bike racks. She mis- understood a Class 1 "°to be like a rack 3, 'The project did not have a. garage, the garage was only there to show what could happen if a garage was built. A garage `was not being built, and she asked where ten boxes would be placed. -- Zoning Administrator Bob' Brown expected they would be placed inside the building - where there was a substantial amount of area. MOTION TO RECONSIDER; CeumcilmeMber Bechtel awed, seceadei by Cobb, 'to rscemsider Item 915, Tariamte for 40a Sherman Avel ie. .Councilmember Sutorius said the original motion was stated care- fully to say'"equivalent` to. ' The' process would then °provide that the parking could be inside 'the building �i'n some satisfactory fashion to protect against vandalism or the'f-t'- _ ;It_ ;caul d , be in a mailroom or -store room, but on the premises in a covered and in a secure fashion. NOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED by a vote of 8.l, Renxel voting RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM #15, VARIANCE FOR AVENUE PROPERTY AT 409 SHERMAN NO, i0N: Cosaci l member $echtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to s..e.lete the mmemdmoot requiring ten Class I spaces and two motor- cycle spaces with no change to main motion. Councilmember Fletcher said the Class 1 definitions were broader than boxes. There would not be. ten boxes because each box had room for two bicycles, but it allowed for enclosed storage areas and there were different configurations She pointed out that Council deleted the van requirement, which was part of the condi- tion` for the variance which was approved. The listing from the applicant said nine employees already bicycled to work who would not bicycle to the new location if there was no place to put their bicycles. Councilmember Re rrzel concurred with Councilmember Fletcher, and believed there was a way for the building to accommodate a Class 1 structure. A room to hold ten bikes was not a big room, and she believed space could `be found within the proposal. She bel 1e ^ed the requirement was reasonable in view of the fact that there was zero _parking being provided orp-site and the fact that many of their employees biked' to work., MEO$PE1T: Coe eci l meiiber FI etcksr - aured a seceadsd ►y *ooze to add the requires'st of. tea Class I spates and two aotercycle spaces. ANENOREIT FAILED 1#, a vote Fletcher, * ,*. NOTION: Cera*c11aaeMber Osozel +paved, setudedby fletther, to add a caiaditlea :Lai► th+k elydlseace that the AlkOt14411t .provide` secure. storage ter tee b ueles.' 4 8 8 2 As Corrected 10/15184 t 1 Councilmember Renzel believed it was a small amount of space, but it was important. She could understand some reluctance with. motorcycles, but bicycles were somewhat cleaner. Councilmember Fletcher clarified that if the applicant' did not provide any on -site automobile parking -they were not .required to prov ;de any for the assessment district for the bicycles.. They only had to provide bicycle spaces 'if they provided automobile spaces. Mr. Schre eer said even though they did not have to physically provide the car parking spaces, they still had to provide ten per- cent in bicycle spaces, which was true on both assessment dis- tricts. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Fletcher, Reazel voting 'aye.' MAIN NOTION PASSED by a vete of 7-2, Cobb, Uteri's voting 'we, . Councilmember Bechtel asked staff to notify the applicant that the re uirement was deleted, ,since they were no longer in attendance. ITEM #21, SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (LEG 5.6) NOTION: Covmcf l meu er: iech:tel meyed seconded by Cobbs approval of the ordinance for first reading MA E-___11!UM! _.__JEMIt i. entitled "OR•I FIANCE OF THE ALTO ANENDINC CNAFTER 16,20 (SIGN ORDINANCE) Councilmember Sutorius said that on page 7, paragraph 8: Private Property, words appeared to be missing. City Attorney Diane Lee said clerical errors could be corrected for second reading. Councilmember Sutorius asked what effect the prohibition on page 9, item E, would have on the recently acquired banner hardware. Building Inspector Fred Cullum said the intent was that if signs were between 3 feet and ;1O feet above grade, no part could exceed the cross-sectional dimension. Councilmember Sutorius corrected page 19, item 16.20.190 by inserting „which"; further on to read "Guy wires or horizontal struts shall not..."; page 23, sectio=i 2, -Tara. 1, substituting. "provisions" for "provision." He asked fp r" clarification pf the paragraph. Some words were missing and the words 'thirty" and "thirty-first" misspelled. Ms. Lee assured him all the typos had been caught. Mayor Klein said all items mentioned were considered clerical errors for the purpose of first reading. Ms. Lee said she did not Considte the question of signs at inter- sections to be a clerical error. Mr... Schreiber said he interpreted page 9 to mean that no sign over 3 feet in \height should be erected at an intersection, unless the sign, in compliance,with the chapter, had a clearanceof at -least:, 10 feet above curb grade, and no part of any of its meaneeof ,sup- port, whether single or combined horizontal cross-section, exceede ed 8 inches. The cross-section referred to the base of the sign, ,refears, the 10 feet .in height referr04 to the sign r.tther than the structure, Mayor Klein understood that staff WAS sat1ifiet with the language el is. Mr. Cullen felt that changing the word "4am„" to "sign on page g would make it perfectly clear. Vice Mayor Levy asked how the proposed concept of permanent or semi -permanent street banners was affected by the ordinance --would. it allow street banners to be up all the time. Mr. Cullen said the necessary permits and exceptions would have to be obtained. The old ordi nance had a prohibition agai nst permanent banners. Vice Mayor Levy supposed that if on -going banners were desired, the Council would have to come back with an amendment to the street sign ordinance. Mr. Cullen said that would be the case if the Council wished to have permanent, unchanging banners. Vice Mayor Levy meant either changi ng or unchangi ng banners. - Mr. Cullen said that changing banners was a different application that the ARS would look at separately, unless the Council came up with a program, which would be another sign exception. Vice Mayor Levy asked staff how, as part of the consideration of the previous item 23, Decorative Banners, an amendment to the ordi nance could be i ncluded when it was conti nued to allow on -going street banners. Mr. Cullen suggested the Council give staff that instruction so they could come up with suggested wording, Vice Mayor Levy said the ordi nance allowed permanent wi ndow signs. He suggested an amendment placing a time limit on window signs. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved that window signs be limited to 30 days. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #27, REQUEST OF MAYOR KLEIN AND VICE MAYOR LEVY IN CONNECTION MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to ask staff in connection with Item 23 to prepare an amendment to the sign ordinance to permit permanent street banners. w:.;:=eilmember RenZel said she did not wish to see on a permanent basis, as temporary ones were much She understood they were permitted under the temporary basis. Rather than proceed to bring it vote in opposition. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzol "no" ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 12:50 a.m. ATTEST: ssistant City APPROVED: banners erected more effective. ordinance on a back, she would